IQ and the limitations of the same

[CodewordConduit]

DD, you're making the statement that people with higher IQ are generally more successful. So back it up, if you're going to go down the patronizing git route and snark at people's general experience to the contrary.

If you've seen the people you personally know with high IQs generally get the most successful and well paying jobs in society; I can safely assume that you come from a privelleged background.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6503.html

So, are these people who are constantly scoring the best and most successful jobs, in your personal experience, born into rich (middle class or above) families or poor (benefits or working class) families? Or is it a cross section?

So to summarize, data to support your assertation; and a little insight into where your experience of success comes from. Kthx!

[Jaltus]

IQ is still no indicator of drive. I knew many smart people in college (I majored in physics), and some had a strong drive and others did not. Frankly, I skated by in grad school and still graduated with a 3.7. Many people with high IQs are not driven to perform, they are driven by what they like. Thus, a smart person could fail history if all they cared about was science or vice versa. Some of us are secure enough in our intelligence that we do not feel the need to further enhance the separation between us and our peers.

[NeilUnreal]

Many people with high IQs are not driven to perform, they are driven by what they like.

I think this may indicate the resolution to this paradox.

When people with high IQs do something that corelates with what they like, they can be very successful. Often, however, this involves things with very low chance of reward. At other times, as in the case of some of the pioneers of personal computing and the internet, such a person happens to be in the right place at the right time to make the interest pay off. (Sometimes this is financial; sometimes it is social, as in the case of an academic reputation.)

This "right place at the right time" effect tends to reward any high-IQ people who are pioneers. After that pioneering time is over, a manageable norm is established, and high-IQ people are rewarded less while management leaders and hard workers are rewarded.

I'm not saying the scenario above is always true, but it may be a factor.

-Neil

[Darwin's Dog]

Well, I think these guys (along with Jobs in your ex. below) are exceptions and not the rule. Also, these guys were pioneers and entrepreneurs. Leaders take the chances and step out on the faith that their idea(s) will make the successful. Technical guys without this trait will work for another company and make them a lot of money. Now will those guy make a good living....probably....if they don't get the shaft from the Corp. that owns the rights to everything their employees invent. So, I think in your examples, you have shown an almost unique blending of Technology and Leadership....which is hard to beat.

I contend that we may have a sampling error here, in that leaders gamble.If a tech employee falters, he can move on to another company, the faltering of a leader is on a far greater scale and can either leave him a pauper or a prince.In sum, it is this variability that may account for the predominance of leaders on the high end of the economical spectrum.

I agree to a point, and I think that the best managers have the unique combination of technical skills with leadership skills. But in the real world, the truth is that many managers are put into management because they have some leadership skills, but can't hack it in the "field/lab/bench" or whatever. My manager on my current project can barely turn on a computer...she has no clue to what we do. (I am an IT professional, my permanent client is a large well known Insurance Provider) The IT industry as a whole has started putting none technical managers in place (because IT Managers who actually know the technology cost much more) and hiring young inexperienced guys who have to have their hands held (also because the cost much less), and pushing out the guys with the expertise. So, while I agree with you, the business world doesn't seems to.

I still call it a recipe for disaster.For a leader to have a vision, and act upon it, he must have some idea about how to realize said vision.

Well....when Sculley took over, Apple had 800 million in sales, when he left, it had 8 Billion...Yes, Sculley made some mistakes that ultimately forced him out and Jobs back in, but when Jobs was forced out, and Sculley took over, Apple initially sky rocketed

Okay...I think that's a biased picture.Yes, Sculley left the company better than when he had entered, but he also ultimately caused Apple to nearly go bust, which led to his kicking.

....so....I don't think you can call Sculley's tenure a bust by any stretch. Also, I might point out that though Sculley was not an techno, he was the highest paid CEO in Silicon Valley in 1987....

But still...Sculley ultimately caused Apple to epicly fail, even if he started out well.And that's all I'm talking about.Compare him to Jobs and the difference is obvious, there is absolutely no comparison between them.Jobs is the guy who really brought Apple back to the forefront.

and let's not forget what he did for Pepsi while he was CEO there....

Would you agree that the highest salaries in the US...heck the World are almost always CEO's? I assert they are. The position of CEO isn't about techno skills, it's about the vision, the direction, the Leading, if you will, of a company's path to success. So while I agree that techno skills can be very important in a Techno company, it can be argued that they can be gotten around with the right set of Leadership skills...the strategic placement of techno's in the leadership structure.

Take the recent invention of the Upper Management position of CTO (Chief Technology Officer). I contend a CEO can rely on this persons judgement and not have to know the technology himself.

LJ

The highly-paid CEOs may result from the factor of variability, as I discussed above.

DD, you're making the statement that people with higher IQ are generally more successful. So back it up, if you're going to go down the patronizing git route and snark at people's general experience to the contrary.

I've got statistics, right here.

Explaining the Relation Between IQ and Delinquency

Establishes a negative correlation between IQ and delinquency.

The income-IQ correlations, are, frankly, a dime a dozen.Even a cursory browsing of the wikipedia page on IQ gives quite a few so I leave you to peruse that at your own comfort.If you insist on a particular source, try Murray's paper.

Murray does however have a reputation of being over-zealous about IQ, so another alternative might be reading up on The g factor by Arthur Jensen.

If you've seen the people you personally know with high IQs generally get the most successful and well paying jobs in society; I can safely assume that you come from a privelleged background

That is pretty true, yes.

So, are these people who are constantly scoring the best and most successful jobs, in your personal experience, born into rich (middle class or above) families or poor (benefits or working class) families? Or is it a cross section?

Frankly, to be honest with you I do observe a strong positive correlation between family wealth and job success...but there are a few from poorer families who are smart and possess an immense drive to change their fortune, so...biased cross section?

So to summarize, data to support your assertation; and a little insight into where your experience of success comes from. Kthx!

Given.

IQ is still no indicator of drive. I knew many smart people in college (I majored in physics), and some had a strong drive and others did not. Frankly, I skated by in grad school and still graduated with a 3.7. Many people with high IQs are not driven to perform, they are driven by what they like. Thus, a smart person could fail history if all they cared about was science or vice versa. Some of us are secure enough in our intelligence that we do not feel the need to further enhance the separation between us and our peers.

I can agree with that, as I said, the drive I have for something depends on its nature.But remember that once people have a chance to choose their career they'll gravitate to what they like, in which case as they're working with what they like their drive will be increased and thus drive being normalized, their high IQs would come into play.

I think this may indicate the resolution to this paradox.

When people with high IQs do something that corelates with what they like, they can be very successful. Often, however, this involves things with very low chance of reward. At other times, as in the case of some of the pioneers of personal computing and the internet, such a person happens to be in the right place at the right time to make the interest pay off. (Sometimes this is financial; sometimes it is social, as in the case of an academic reputation.)

Exactly, Neil.But again, it's in my honest opinion a case of no risk, no gain.If those guys didn't keep working at what they like we'd still be hobbling around without much technology.

This "right place at the right time" effect tends to reward any high-IQ people who are pioneers. After that pioneering time is over, a manageable norm is established, and high-IQ people are rewarded less while management leaders and hard workers are rewarded.

And then 20 years later a new high IQ pioneer establishes another groundbreaking field.Yawn.

IMHO they should keep rewarding the nerdy guys, that way we get more revolutions.I'd take one Bill Gates over a million run-of-the-mill programmers and their team managers anyday.

I'm not saying the scenario above is always true, but it may be a factor

It's definitely good food for thought.

[dzstroke015]

Here's something that seems to be missing from the discussion: IQ tests were developed to identify children who would be successful later in life. It should be no mystery that IQ and success correlate. It should be no surprise that children from higher socio-economic backgrounds have higher IQs. The tests were designed that way!

The first IQ test was developed in Germany early last century. (That seems to correlate with the Dog's comments and political affiliation.) All IQ tests are a means of social engineering, to put children in the right education track to best benefit the government.

In America, we claim to prize freedom. But is "free will" merely a buzzword? Think back to your education. Do you remember occasions where your school subtly pointed you toward specific career areas? They didn't have your interests in mind.

Sometimes the push isn't so subtle, like when the government prevented thousands of college students from getting Computer Science degrees. The government decided too many students were studying Computer Science and (fearing a glut) urged universities (by threatening to withhold grant money) to reduce the number of graduates.

I was one of the fortunate few to get a Computer Science degree during that period, and I made a lot of money when the shortage hit in the years before Y2K. Obviously, we don't have a true free market when the government gets involved beyond mere regulation.

[Darwin's Dog]

I put "Nazi" in my political view as a joke, Sir.

It's definitely not indicative of a propensity to be a Nazi in any way, although I am a nazi of the grammar kind.

[dzstroke015]

I put "Nazi" in my political view as a joke, Sir.

I thought it might be so, but I hate to assume. And I forgot to go back and put an emoticon on that comment!

And please don't call me "Sir". The military released me.