Actor James Woods is reportedly one of the world's smartest people
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
Here's a scatter plot from the Journal of Intelligence showing the relationship between IQ and net worth:
http://flic.kr/p/HHtLi
What you can see in that scatter plot is a heavy concentration of low incomes among people with very low IQ's (the concentration to the bottom left) but otherwise essentially no relationship between IQ and net worth. In other words, having a very low IQ seems to result in poverty, but having a very high one does not result in success. This would be consistent with the notion that IQ is measuring primarily test-taking ability: Those with low IQ's are shut out of school, and this leads to poverty, but once you've got beyond that effect it isn't making any difference.
http://flic.kr/p/HHtLi
What you can see in that scatter plot is a heavy concentration of low incomes among people with very low IQ's (the concentration to the bottom left) but otherwise essentially no relationship between IQ and net worth. In other words, having a very low IQ seems to result in poverty, but having a very high one does not result in success. This would be consistent with the notion that IQ is measuring primarily test-taking ability: Those with low IQ's are shut out of school, and this leads to poverty, but once you've got beyond that effect it isn't making any difference.
Only if you stick to the definition of success is money.
Talk about narrow parameters.
So because someone more intelligent that you finds social relations not important you feel justified in calling them stupid. Well whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
It does (lawyers, doctors, are generally going to have IQs of 110+, your university grads), but not necessarily for those in the gifted category (ie those who make the Mensa cut). Do rocket scientists make millions, fuji? No, they don't.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096994655805583.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It does seem to be about the best total factor measure that we have available, so let's stick to that, unless you have some reason to believe that the most intelligent people in our society overwhelmingly opt for poverty.
You're pre-supposing that they are more intelligent. I think they're not. I think that the IQ test is measuring skill at test taking. I do not think it is directly measuring intelligence. If you look at that scatter plot you will see that low IQ's are associated with poverty, but high IQs are not associated with wealth. That's consistent with the notion that it's measuring test taking ability: Score so low that you can't manage to pass school exams and you are shut out of opportunity. Once you have scored highly enough on exams that you have got your various diplomas and degrees, scoring even higher doesn't really translate into material success. Other things--presumably actual intelligence--begin to matter more.
And yes, I believe, along with most people who research this stuff these days, that intelligence is best measured in a multi-factor way that includes social intelligence, emotional intelligence, and a whole array of other kinds of intelligence, in addition to whatever is being measured on an IQ test.
And no, I didn't call them stupid. They appear to be no more and no less likely to be stupid than average, there is no negative correlation between a high IQ an success either. In my personal experience with mensa meetings (I met a Mensa gathering once) I found in my own estimation that there were a whole range of people there. Some smart. Some really not so smart--just narrowly good at problem solving, but dumb in every other way. But I am not saying that they are all dumb, as you seem to think. I am just pointing out that it doesn't correlate well with being smart or dumb.
Apparently you aren't smart enough to know what a circular argument is. You think intelligence is scoring high on an IQ test, and that an IQ test is a measure of intelligence. You, sir, have so thoroughly mocked yourself I couldn't possibly do better.
I think if we all agree to change the definition of intelligence to denote fuji as the ideal he'd be happy but until then we'll have to go with the definitions that all include things like adaptability to new contexts, problem solving, and memory which are exactly what IQ tests attempt to measure.
What's your definition?
To take some words from wikipedia,
reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience, understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought, "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique[one of fuji's strong points], act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment, acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills, change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation.
Note that nowhere in there does it say money.
As 4tees said, we are all displaying lack of problem solving skills by failing to adapt to the fact that fuji is always right but it can be fun at times.
Absolute bullshit. Besides assuming a binary system where the only other option besides rich is poor, are you saying that LeBron James is one of the more intelligent people on the planet? Plenty of idiots make money. Not everyone sees the need to have billions.
From a personal level, I choose to donate money (about 10% of my take home) to charitable causes rather than invest it to increase my net worth. Does that make me stupid in your books?
That really is the totality of your argument.
Bad news for you. It seems those multi-factor intelligences that Gardner proposed (and that you're eluding to) has been roundly criticized by intelligence researchers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
List some of these tests and tell us about their predictive power.
Best measurement out there and although there are disputes about the effectiveness, it is seen as the best out there. Don't worry though, you can improve your scores marginally by practicing so maybe you can get those 5 extra points then pay to join mensa.
Consensus of the scientific community? Not perfect but better than any other options.
(and I'm talking the actual psychologist implemented ones, not the ones you find online)
(and I'm talking the actual psychologist implemented ones, not the ones you find online)
Do you have any evidence that there's any consensus in the scientific community that IQ is a good measure of intelligence, other than as a predictor of scholastic achievement?
I ask because when I studied these sorts of things--admittedly, quite a long time ago--there was no such consensus. Maybe one has developed since?
Best available. Can you find anything in the scientific community that has wider or more accepted use?
