4 ms·

How is that possible to not know? Have you never worked on a team?

yurishimo 3y ago
I mean, there is a difference between an informed estimate and knowing for sure. Maybe that person you always work with is not the brightest programmer, but maybe they don't care about it as much as you. People can demonstrate intelligence is many different ways. Plus, if they doesn't want to know, why does it matter? It's their life to live in ignorance. For this specific topic, I don't see any harm in leaving your actual IQ number a mystery for the cosmos.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I don't know how they would know for sure. The result of a test? I'm sure it differs among domains in any case.
- icedchai 3y ago
  As an 1980's "gifted" kid, believe me, they made sure you knew. IQ tests in 3rd grade, "enrichment" classes 3x a week, taking the SAT in 7th grade for some special program. Later in life, most of these gifted kids were total disappointments. I know I am.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    I was a 1990's "gifted" kid and would later come to appreciate the enrichment classes as an opportunity to interact with other kids who wouldn't make fun of me for knowing things and being able to figure things out fast. In the "normal" track you have to learn to hide all of that quickly or you get picked on. Once a week I could experience being normal. If the expectation was that I would end up saving the world or something then sure I'm a disappointment, but I like to think I've gotten pretty far considering where I started.
    - icedchai 3y ago
      I definitely enjoyed the enrichment classes. I didn't feel challenged again for years, until AP classes later in high school.
  - yurishimo 3y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I was a "gifted" kid too. Turning 30 this year. I was in advanced classes from around 4th or 5th grade when they started separating us (suburban Texas) and then went to a special high school where I graduated with an associates degree and my high school diploma. Not trying to brag, just to relate and say I've been there. I wouldn't say I was a disappointment, but I certainly didn't go as far as even the "smart" kids from my own graduating class. I know many of them are "real" engineers working for companies we all know and doing important work in hardware, architecture, civil projects, and aerospace. I feel dumb compared to them. At the same time, I have a successful career in software, no debt, happily married for almost 10 years, moved to a different continent, etc etc. Sure, am I "smarter" than the average Joe? I guess, but knowing that information doesn't change anything about my life. If I took a real IQ test, I think I would also feel some sort of disappointment or pressure to live up to expectations or better myself in some way. Idk; I guess that's why I made my original comment. The utility of knowing your IQ is "above average" is so useless to me, I'm not sure why anyone would want to knowingly saddle themselves with that knowledge. Be free, be happy, and be yourself.
    - hirvi74 3y ago
      One of the major issues is that IQ has basically no cardinality to my understanding. We can all agree that 105 score is "smarter" than a 100, but we cannot discern to what degree. I've read some conjectures that IQ is quite accurate below average, but seems to fall apart rather quickly the further one starts looking at scores above 100. But who knows? I'm just some random dude with Internet access.
      - icedchai 3y ago
        There are likely diminishing returns, depending on what you do in life, career, etc. Even the mythical 10x engineer probably doesn't need a 160 IQ. ;)
  - hirvi74 3y ago
    It reminds me of the Lewis Terman study. Terman was a psychologist and intelligence research that studied the lives some n > 5000 "gifted" children over the course of his entire life (and their entire lives too). In fact, the study is still going on to my knowledge. Anyway, of the all the gifted children studied, many of them went to be fairly accomplished but never became anything noteworthy -- doctors, lawyers, teachers, researchers, etc.. However, two of the children that didn't meet the cut for the study due to not having a high enough IQ actually went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately in separate fields. Those two individuals were Luis Alvarez and William Shockley.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true. While not the literal morale of the story of Flowers for Algernon, it's one of the big themes, i.e. your beliefs and understanding of your intelligence and the world around you change drastically with your "actual" intelligence.
- hirvi74 3y ago
  > Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true. According to one (or more) of the annual Stack Overflow Developer Surveys, didn't something like over 90% of developers think they were better than the average developer? My point is that I agree with you. What one thinks isn't always the reality.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    Perception is just a horrible thing. The fact that reality is WILDLY different for two people simply based on how they perceived it is exhausting. Also it actually sums up why I hate managing people. Everyone is the star of their own show, and managing them is about showing them all the other actors. It's exhausting.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
Having a clear picture where you fall with regards to a broad population is indeed very hard, particularly if we consider all the different dimensions of intelligence: mathematical ability? musicality? problem solving? negotiation? emotional intelligence? planning ability? lateral thinking?. At best, by working in a team all you can achieve is to (rightly or wrongly) estimate your level within the team itself, but only with regards to the type of intelligence which is most used in the given context. And, given that the team members have most likely been selected for or were motivated to join because of their relevant abilities, the team is subject to selection bias. As a result, on average, you are most likely to be very close to the perceived "average" intelligence of the teams to which you belong. Hence why impostor syndrome is so common in highly skilled professions — as a milder version of the Peter principle [0], people tend to climb to the level where their skills are average. It is only when comparing the intelligence (or other abilities) of team members that are not relevant to their task, usually when socialising in another context, that you may become aware of broad differences and maybe get a better idea of where you fall in that specific dimension. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Ma8ee 3y ago
I can estimate people’s skill levels within different areas, but only get a very rough estimate of their general intelligence.
archagon 3y ago
Whenever I work with someone more insightful and effective than me, I'm compelled to do better and get closer to their level. I've never had the thought that they must be more intrinsically intelligent.
- gmadsen 3y ago
  Maybe try to seek out that experience then? I think its a little dangerous to go through life not understanding that there are levels of intrinsic intelligence. It should be fairly obvious. And it applies to everyone, you can read quotes of old physics nobel laureates that speak about Von Neumann as if he was not a human. The take away should be that, yes some people are intrinsically smarter, but that is a crappy system to base self worth off of, because then only one person in the world gets to be happy.
  - archagon 3y ago
    Dangerous? Why would it be dangerous? If anything, believing you are less intelligent than someone more accomplished than you might incentivize you to be complacent and stay at your current level of development, because "I'll never be as smart as them." It's also worth pushing back against the notion of a linear intelligence scale to begin with. There are many kinds of intelligence, some of which are not easy to measure.

I mean, there is a difference between an informed estimate and knowing for sure. Maybe that person you always work with is not the brightest programmer, but maybe they don't care about it as much as you. People can demonstrate intelligence is many different ways. Plus, if they doesn't want to know, why does it matter? It's their life to live in ignorance. For this specific topic, I don't see any harm in leaving your actual IQ number a mystery for the cosmos.

ghaff 3y ago
I don't know how they would know for sure. The result of a test? I'm sure it differs among domains in any case.
icedchai 3y ago
As an 1980's "gifted" kid, believe me, they made sure you knew. IQ tests in 3rd grade, "enrichment" classes 3x a week, taking the SAT in 7th grade for some special program. Later in life, most of these gifted kids were total disappointments. I know I am.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  I was a 1990's "gifted" kid and would later come to appreciate the enrichment classes as an opportunity to interact with other kids who wouldn't make fun of me for knowing things and being able to figure things out fast. In the "normal" track you have to learn to hide all of that quickly or you get picked on. Once a week I could experience being normal. If the expectation was that I would end up saving the world or something then sure I'm a disappointment, but I like to think I've gotten pretty far considering where I started.
  - icedchai 3y ago
    I definitely enjoyed the enrichment classes. I didn't feel challenged again for years, until AP classes later in high school.
- yurishimo 3y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I was a "gifted" kid too. Turning 30 this year. I was in advanced classes from around 4th or 5th grade when they started separating us (suburban Texas) and then went to a special high school where I graduated with an associates degree and my high school diploma. Not trying to brag, just to relate and say I've been there. I wouldn't say I was a disappointment, but I certainly didn't go as far as even the "smart" kids from my own graduating class. I know many of them are "real" engineers working for companies we all know and doing important work in hardware, architecture, civil projects, and aerospace. I feel dumb compared to them. At the same time, I have a successful career in software, no debt, happily married for almost 10 years, moved to a different continent, etc etc. Sure, am I "smarter" than the average Joe? I guess, but knowing that information doesn't change anything about my life. If I took a real IQ test, I think I would also feel some sort of disappointment or pressure to live up to expectations or better myself in some way. Idk; I guess that's why I made my original comment. The utility of knowing your IQ is "above average" is so useless to me, I'm not sure why anyone would want to knowingly saddle themselves with that knowledge. Be free, be happy, and be yourself.
  - hirvi74 3y ago
    One of the major issues is that IQ has basically no cardinality to my understanding. We can all agree that 105 score is "smarter" than a 100, but we cannot discern to what degree. I've read some conjectures that IQ is quite accurate below average, but seems to fall apart rather quickly the further one starts looking at scores above 100. But who knows? I'm just some random dude with Internet access.
    - icedchai 3y ago
      There are likely diminishing returns, depending on what you do in life, career, etc. Even the mythical 10x engineer probably doesn't need a 160 IQ. ;)
- hirvi74 3y ago
  It reminds me of the Lewis Terman study. Terman was a psychologist and intelligence research that studied the lives some n > 5000 "gifted" children over the course of his entire life (and their entire lives too). In fact, the study is still going on to my knowledge. Anyway, of the all the gifted children studied, many of them went to be fairly accomplished but never became anything noteworthy -- doctors, lawyers, teachers, researchers, etc.. However, two of the children that didn't meet the cut for the study due to not having a high enough IQ actually went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize separately in separate fields. Those two individuals were Luis Alvarez and William Shockley.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago

Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true. While not the literal morale of the story of Flowers for Algernon, it's one of the big themes, i.e. your beliefs and understanding of your intelligence and the world around you change drastically with your "actual" intelligence.

hirvi74 3y ago
> Just because you think you're the smartest person in the room doesn't make it true. According to one (or more) of the annual Stack Overflow Developer Surveys, didn't something like over 90% of developers think they were better than the average developer? My point is that I agree with you. What one thinks isn't always the reality.
- Loughla 3y ago
  Perception is just a horrible thing. The fact that reality is WILDLY different for two people simply based on how they perceived it is exhausting. Also it actually sums up why I hate managing people. Everyone is the star of their own show, and managing them is about showing them all the other actors. It's exhausting.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

Having a clear picture where you fall with regards to a broad population is indeed very hard, particularly if we consider all the different dimensions of intelligence: mathematical ability? musicality? problem solving? negotiation? emotional intelligence? planning ability? lateral thinking?. At best, by working in a team all you can achieve is to (rightly or wrongly) estimate your level within the team itself, but only with regards to the type of intelligence which is most used in the given context. And, given that the team members have most likely been selected for or were motivated to join because of their relevant abilities, the team is subject to selection bias. As a result, on average, you are most likely to be very close to the perceived "average" intelligence of the teams to which you belong. Hence why impostor syndrome is so common in highly skilled professions — as a milder version of the Peter principle [0], people tend to climb to the level where their skills are average. It is only when comparing the intelligence (or other abilities) of team members that are not relevant to their task, usually when socialising in another context, that you may become aware of broad differences and maybe get a better idea of where you fall in that specific dimension. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Ma8ee 3y ago

I can estimate people’s skill levels within different areas, but only get a very rough estimate of their general intelligence.

archagon 3y ago

Whenever I work with someone more insightful and effective than me, I'm compelled to do better and get closer to their level. I've never had the thought that they must be more intrinsically intelligent.

gmadsen 3y ago
Maybe try to seek out that experience then? I think its a little dangerous to go through life not understanding that there are levels of intrinsic intelligence. It should be fairly obvious. And it applies to everyone, you can read quotes of old physics nobel laureates that speak about Von Neumann as if he was not a human. The take away should be that, yes some people are intrinsically smarter, but that is a crappy system to base self worth off of, because then only one person in the world gets to be happy.
- archagon 3y ago
  Dangerous? Why would it be dangerous? If anything, believing you are less intelligent than someone more accomplished than you might incentivize you to be complacent and stay at your current level of development, because "I'll never be as smart as them." It's also worth pushing back against the notion of a linear intelligence scale to begin with. There are many kinds of intelligence, some of which are not easy to measure.