Is IQ an effective tool for determining future success?

[Delta]

What is the definition of "success?" If we're talking professional success, i.e. making lots of money, then the answer is a resounding yes. That is intuitively obvious, empirically proven and beyond debate.

All things considered, do intelligent people tend to lead more happy, fulfilling lives? That one I'm not at all sure about. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if super high IQs correlate negatively with happiness. So many people who are unbelievably good at analyzing abstract concepts most people could never hope to understand, are absolute shit at utilizing their high-powered minds to get what they want out of life.

 

[chicane]

What is the definition of "success?" If we're talking professional success, i.e. making lots of money, then the answer is a resounding yes. That is intuitively obvious, empirically proven and beyond debate.

All things considered, do intelligent people tend to lead more happy, fulfilling lives? That one I'm not at all sure about. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if super high IQs correlate negatively with happiness. So many people who are unbelievably good at analyzing abstract concepts most people could never hope to understand, are absolute shit at utilizing their high-powered minds to get what they want out of life.

It can lead to a lifetime of isolation and loneliness. So, a high IQ can be very good or it can feed on itself and be very bad. I learned some very important lessons too late to be of much use.

 

[H1N1]

Relatedly, my mother (of course) forwarded me an article the other day making the case that male children get a majority portion of their IQ from their mothers chromosome. The internet leans toward agreeing with her, for what that's worth. Something to consider, or not, depending on your take on the issue.

I was told the same thing by a top anesthetist the other day. I was in mixed company so I had to smile and nod and limit myself to an, 'oh really'. But, this idea that intelligence is mostly inherited through the female line must be nonsense.

I am not a scientist, by any stretch, but even the most casual observer of day to day life must surely see that most women, almost without exception, are really monstrously stupid. Even (particularly) the clever ones are dumber than a sack of rocks.

You could present me with a thousand studies on this and I would still scream bullshit until they dragged me away, kicking and screaming.

My social circle is predominantly made up of people who have been privately educated, and then gone to a handful of top universities (Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL). This obviously includes a reasonable number of girls, who have had almost every opportunity one could possibly dream of - good nutrition, stable families, the best education money can buy. Without exception, the most remarkable thing about all these girls is how universally stupid they are. It is an object lesson that serious education is completely wasted on women. Of course, it is also staggering just how many men manage to squander such extraordinary opportunities and emerge unscathed from the brush with academia - something far harder to forgive.

When I look at my clever male friends, they invariably (with one notable exception) have highly intelligent fathers, and trophy mothers (some of whom, admittedly, look more like participation trophies).

I am prepared to accept that female intelligence is inherited through the maternal line. That seems entirely probable to me.

 

[Glaucon]

My social circle is predominantly made up of people who have been privately educated, and then gone to a handful of top universities (Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL). This obviously includes a reasonable number of girls, who have had almost every opportunity one could possibly dream of - good nutrition, stable families, the best education money can buy. Without exception, the most remarkable thing about all these girls is how universally stupid they are. It is an object lesson that serious education is completely wasted on women. Of course, it is also staggering just how many men manage to squander such extraordinary opportunities and emerge unscathed from the brush with academia - something far harder to forgive.

otd:

 

[Tex Cruise]

Relatedly, my mother (of course) forwarded me an article the other day making the case that male children get a majority portion of their IQ from their mothers chromosome. The internet leans toward agreeing with her, for what that's worth. Something to consider, or not, depending on your take on the issue.

Is it possible that some women may carry the genetic material necessary for producing high intelligence without actually having high intelligence themselves (because they are women)?

Example: I have a huge cock. My dad has a huge cock. Obviously my mother does not have a huge cock... but her dad (my grandpa) did, so did I get my huge cock from my father's side or my mother's side?
I don't know. I just thought this thread needed more cock measuring.

 

[Fortis]

H1N1, it might not be that far-fetched that intelligence is passed through the mom's side. I'm not a scientist, but don't we get penis size from mom's side? It could just be one of those random things. Intellectually, I am much more like my father, though, so perhaps it's a bit of a split.

I'd be full of shit if I said my mother wasn't mostly responsible for sending me to the best schools she could afford and really encouraging me to develop a strong love of learning, BUT I think my dad and I seem to linger around the same intelligence level despite the fact that I didn't grow up with him.

 

[weambulance]

Would you rather be a meat head that bangs dozens of hot chicks? Or a socially inept genius like Tesla?

I'd rather be what I am than either of those.

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

Let's try and put this in perspective by asking some stupid things.

Are dumb people more likely to succeed in life than smart people?

Are smart people more likely to become losers than dumb people?

Call me simplistic but it's pretty cut and dried.

 

[Phoenix]

Let's try and put this in perspective by asking some stupid things.

Are dumb people more likely to succeed in life than smart people?

Are smart people more likely to become losers than dumb people?

Call me simplistic but it's pretty cut and dried.

Yeah but that doesn't help the argument that it's an effective tool. It's a tool, that's all.

 

[El Padrone]

Hey Tayo. You Nigerian? I hear you guys got some balls in game. Is it so?

 

[MMX2010]

Is IQ an effective predictor of future success?

Wrong question.

Correct question is, "Is IQ an effective predictor of future success compared to other methods of predicting success?"

One way someone could predict success is through randomness. Randomly hire people from a full list of people, including criminals, losers, and lawyers. Is complete randomness more predictive of future success than hiring based on IQ?

No, or course not. So IQ is more predictive of success than randomness.

You could also hire people by reading resumes and conducting personal interviews. Is this more predictive of success than hiring by IQ?

No, it's not. So IQ is a better predictor of success than resumes and personal interviews.

You could hire people based on how hard they work. But scientists have defined hard work as "the ability to delay gratification in the present, in order to achieve better results in the future". And they created a brilliant experiment called "Don't eat the marshmallow!" to measure hard work - (go look up the Ted talk on YouTube, featuring the experiment's designer).

The marshmallow experiment is extremely predictive of future success, which is both frightening (because the experiment was conducted on preverbal toddlers), and comforting (because the conclusions confirm our suspicions that hard work is important). Even more comforting, delayed gratification can theoretically be taught to people, like any other skill.

Most importantly, however, hard work was less predictive of future success than IQ is.

If you disagree with me, then you have an objection to Science-in-General, not to IQ-in-Particular - no matter how hard you try to tell yourself it's the other way around.

 

[MMX2010]

What is the definition of "success?" If we're talking professional success, i.e. making lots of money, then the answer is a resounding yes. That is intuitively obvious, empirically proven and beyond debate.

All things considered, do intelligent people tend to lead more happy, fulfilling lives? That one I'm not at all sure about. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if super high IQs correlate negatively with happiness. So many people who are unbelievably good at analyzing abstract concepts most people could never hope to understand, are absolute shit at utilizing their high-powered minds to get what they want out of life.

The reason that we define success as making money, is because the amount of money you have is objectively measurable. And science can most reliably study objectively measurable things.

Science can also mostly reliably study non-measurable things like happiness, but this requires turning subjective experience into something objectively measurable, like self-reported numbers.

This second path is, ironically, exactly like reducing the totality of a woman's existence into the 1-10 scale, which women ironically complain about because: (1) There isn't universal agreement over what a 7, 8, 9, or 10 actually mean. (2) There are wide ranges of opinion for every specific girl, meaning that whenever I declare Rachel Neiberding to be a 10, there's always at least someone who says, "Ewww!, she's like a 5!" or "She's attractive for sure, but she's more like an 8." (3) Reducing women's attractiveness to a numerical scale is simultaneously reductionist and demeaning, because other factors that lead to a woman being attractive are left out.

The irony is, of course, members of the RVF have an intuitive understanding of those limitations and so they avoid those limitations by using the 1-10 scale properly: as both a highly predictive guide that works because a lot of men give their opinions, creating an accurate average AND AS a non-binding guide. I will probably never get with Rachel, but anyone who tells me she's either a 5 or an 8 has no bearing on my belief that she's a 10.

The larger irony is, as should be obvious, that IQ functions in the exact same way as the 1-10 scale, but most RVF members who disagree with IQ haven't read the studies, nor are familiar with the SJWs backlash against those studies. So their objections to IQ contain the exact same hallmarks as women's objections to the 1-10 scale.

 

[redpillage]

"If you disagree with me, then you have an objection to Science-in-General"

"The larger irony is, as should be obvious, that IQ functions in the exact same way as the 1-10 scale"



Okay, I can only take so much. This is where I get off...

 

[MMX2010]

Laughter isn't an argument.

IQ turns the subjective experience of "intelligence" into a number. We use the number because it is objective, measurable, and allows us to compare two people (or large groups of people) to declare who is smarter than who, and which is smarter than which.

The 1-10 scale turns the subjective experience of "female beauty" into a number. We use the number because it is objective, measurable, and allows us to compare two women (or large groups of women) to declare who is more beautiful than who, and which is more beautiful than which.

-----

Also, I'm sure we've had multiple experiences when we're smarter and more deeply informed than a woman who assumes that she is equally well-informed. When we explain ourselves neutrally and accurately, these women always cut-and-paste parts of our argument (out of context), then snark laugh and leave, pretending that if we chase them, this proves we don't know what we're talking about.

This is exactly what redpillage did. He has no counter-arguement, but doesn't want to surrender his position, either.

 

[GlobalMan]

The 1-10 scale is objective? Since when? Have you seen any thread here that talks about it? There is wide disagreement in every single one. There is no standard.

It's difficult to believe you are holding that scale up to the scientific levels of IQ measurement.

-------

I wasn't going to comment in the other threads where some nonsense was spoken, but now it seems to be a running theme to MMX recent posts-

If you disagree with me, then you have an objection to Science-in-General, not to IQ-in-Particular - no matter how hard you try to tell yourself it's the other way around.

The larger irony is, as should be obvious, that IQ functions in the exact same way as the 1-10 scale, but most RVF members who disagree with IQ haven't read the studies, nor are familiar with the SJWs backlash against those studies. So their objections to IQ contain the exact same hallmarks as women's objections to the 1-10 scale.

A disagreement with MMX's ideas is a rejection of science, or makes you a woman/SJW (this one especially laughable given he's referencing the supremely scientific 1-10 scale), and if you don't accept this without question or if you doubt his assertion you're no doubt a Gamma too.

A similar thing was going on in another thread:

Am I wrong to assume that you're encountering Vox's sociosexual hierarchy for the first time?

I've diligently studied and discussed Vox's hierarchy for about eighteen months. Since this is so much longer than you've studied it, do you accept that my understanding and summary of it are much more likely to be better than your's?

Ultimately, you'll gain a better sense of when someone is over-representing their strength, or putting their emotional well-being above everything else, or being unable to bond with a group, or being unable to accept their lowered place on a hierarchy, (all Gamma behaviors).

We'll skip over the shocking lack of social awareness in his recent forum interactions for moment. The bolded tenet above is one he seems to have particularly been taken in by, as indicated by his repeated reference to his length and extent of "study" of Vox Day (LOL). He's found a way he can project superiority over others while claiming they must be Gamma if they reject this. It enables him to chastise them if they don't submit to his "authority" but also claim to be doing so without emotion, as its just part of the "rules" of the pseudoscience.

He's attempting to create arguments wherein there is no way to dispute any of it without being labeled as one or multiple types of deplorable- Not only that, he's framed it in a way that he can claim it's not him branding you as such, it's "just the rules" of the game, he's "hands off", "no emotion". In other posts he has claimed that accusing others of "hiding behind the rules", as he will no doubt say I am doing, is an "injustice", therefore that is rejected too. See, MMX has found the logical boxes and he can't be criticized.

The entirety of his writing on these recent threads sounds exactly like a Gamma straining, painfully so, to not sound as such, which is resulting in this excessive lack of humility, humanness, and normal social awareness. You could call it Restrained Hydrogonianism.

In fact, it's quite amazing that he has such a vast knowledge of Vox Day's ideas yet he cannot recognize that his interactions recently bear all the hallmarks of the dreaded Gamma, he doesn't see this because he thinks if he conveys emotionless, super-logical dialogue he can't be accused of this behavior. He can continue along the same lines as he has been and claim this is not true, but anyone with a normal social calibration can read his posts in this thread and judge for yourself whether this sounds like the speech of a well adjusted, confident man comfortable in his own skin or dude who is trying to prove something.

 

[RichieP]

There are more predictive qualities:

http://www.businessinsider.com/grit-is-more-important-than-iq-2013-5?IR=T

Specifically, 'Grit'. Harder to quantify, but there's research that shows that "the ability to withstand stress and move past failures to achieve a goal is the best indicator of future success".

"She studied what types of people were successful at West Point Military Academy, the National Spelling Bee, in classrooms, and beyond. Again, she said, "it wasn't social intelligence. It wasn't good looks, physical health, and it wasn't IQ. It was grit."

Makes sense really.

IQ IMO is a good measure of something - but that something is probably "the cognitive capacity for exam performance and some forms of white-collar work", rather than "the ability to live a happy life and accumulate wealth".

 

[Peregrine]

Corollary: why does IQ have so much knicker twisting power? If I said race A has bigger dicks on average than race B, or race B is taller than race C, no one bats an eye. But if I say race A has higher IQs/intelligence than race B, there's always at least one person that trips out. Is it because IQ is harder to see at a glance, so easier to deny? Is it because we live in a largely mental economy, so IQ is very closely associated with value/worth in a way that physical traits are not? Is it because humans tend to associate the concept of self with their mind; therefore, statements about IQ go right to the ego?

Same seems to apply at an individual level. Tell a mate you're stronger than him and you'll get shoulder shrugs (assuming you are obviously stronger). If you say you're smarter, he's much more likely to get defensive.

Side thought, de Botton notes that there's no stigma attached to athletic trainers helping you work on your body. But there's a societal weirdness involved with visiting a psychologist to work on your mind/self.

 

[Delta]

Corollary: why does IQ have so much knicker twisting power? If I said race A has bigger dicks on average than race B, or race B is taller than race C, no one bats an eye. But if I say race A has higher IQs/intelligence than race B, there's always at least one person that trips out. Is it because IQ is harder to see at a glance, so easier to deny? Is it because we live in a largely mental economy, so IQ is very closely associated with value/worth in a way that physical traits are not? Is it because humans tend to associate the concept of self with their mind; therefore, statements about IQ go right to the ego?

Same seems to apply at an individual level. Tell a mate you're stronger than him and you'll get shoulder shrugs (assuming you are obviously stronger). If you say you're smarter, he's much more likely to get defensive.

Side thought, de Botton notes that there's no stigma attached to athletic trainers helping you work on your body. But there's a societal weirdness involved with visiting a psychologist to work on your mind/self.

It seems like leftists assume that if you believe in race/IQ correlation, you must also support policies to mistreat the less intelligent race, possibly even to the point of eugenics. They project their collectivist mindset onto everyone else. The notion of treating people as individuals is difficult for some to conceive.

 

[Mr. Accuride]

On a statistical level (population versus population, overall versus overall), Scorpion is spot on. Given a large sample of higher IQ people versus lower IQ people, the higher IQ people will win out overall even if there are specific instances of lower IQ people outperforming higher IQ people.

On an individual level, based on my experiences with competing with many people who, during the time when I cared, I was grudgingly forced to admit that they were not only smarter than myself, but also had genius level intelligence, I have since learned that having high intelligence or high IQ is like having a computer that has more processing power. Applied to the same problem and using the same techniques/information, the computer with more processing power will beat out the computer with less processing power.

However, where you apply your processing power to matters greatly, as I have witnessed many geniuses squander their intelligence on something mind-numbingly stupid and thus have nothing to show for all that wonderful intelligence that they possess. Conversely, I ended up more successful in certain endeavors over my much smarter peers just by focusing what I had on certain problems for just a little bit longer than they did. However, I have also gotten blown out of the water in head to head competitions when they worked just as hard as I did, and the sieving element at the end of it all was natural born intelligence.

 

[MMX2010]

Specifically, 'Grit'. Harder to quantify, but there's research that shows that "the ability to withstand stress and move past failures to achieve a goal is the best indicator of future success".

In science, you're always trying to determine how variable A affects variable B, or how strongly variable A correlates with variable B.

Screw ups happen when you try to determine how variable A affects variable A, or how strongly variable A correlates with variable A. This screw up is called a tautology. In words, a tautology sounds like, "Success is just the accomplishment of a goal, or series of goals."

In my opinion, calling "success" "grit" also sounds like a tautology, especially because you can't measure grit.

There's also the potential problem of "the graveyard of evidence" that N. N. Taleb explains in The Black Swan. Anytime you notice that successful people possess a specific trait, you're in danger of saying that this trait is highly associated with successful people. The danger is that it's possible for many more unsuccessful people to possess that trait. (How many mediocre singers and musicians practiced diligently for hours?) But these unsuccessful people are largely invisible, creating "the graveyard of evidence" - which means that a trait which is more prevalent in NON-successful people is wrongfully promoted as being highly correlated with success, because ONLY successful people were examined.