People think of intelligence as some sort of magic. They ascribe all sorts of ability to intelligence, as if being smart should make you influential.
But why should that be? If you're a scientist, you are dependent on getting funding to do experiments, and the experiment showing something interesting. Neither of these things is very connected to intelligence, beyond that low IQ people will not be likely to get to the start line.
If you're an entrepreneur, you also have to do a bunch of things that are more social than smarts. Basically your life is going around meeting people and getting them to either invest or build something or buy something. Is it useful to be smart? Sure. But it isn't as useful as, say, having the right connections from school, or a family with a sensible budget so you can concentrate on building rather than finding food.
Pretty much the only area where being super smart works is pure maths, and even there you really want to be born in the parts of the world where the economy can support a young person on that path.
Then there's the transmission to suit your engine. A super smart person still needs to be mature enough to consume the intellectual royal jelly that develops them towards where they will make the greatest contribution. You won't just know what to do just because you're smart, you need to be shown what the interesting problems are. You need to have motivation, and motivation is often what you actually see when you meet someone impressive.
The way I think of it, the smart and useful people are plenty. Courses are taught so that universities can get a sensible number of people through some amount of content. Being smarter than your average student at a prestigious college is nice, but it mostly buys you some free time. Being at the cutoff is terribly stressful, but that guy is still pretty accomplished and useful for most things that we consider elite.
I like the car analogy for IQ. Having an engine with 50% or more horsepower above the people around you is only useful if you know how to handle it, how to steer, etc.
The transmission is another great analogy, IMHO for communication skills. Applying full power to the tarmac from a dead stop is a great way to spin your tires.
The very notion of IQ reduces the mind to a receptacle for some ineffable thing called 'intelligence'. One may as well have a CQ - Comedy Quotient and start speculating who has a higher GQ - Robin Williams or Dave Chapelle.
> They ascribe all sorts of ability to intelligence, as if being smart should make you influential.
By just applying some common sense it is obvious how absurd this statement is (and I thus rather have difficulties understanding how people can come to such a hypothesis):
Just look at your daily life: how much highly intellectual or academic content (for the latter: e.g. lecture recordings of complicated scientific lectures) do you watch on YouTube? If not: which kind of content do you then watch on YouTube?
This should make it insanely obvious which kinds of people are influential and which ones are not.
It would be highly surprising if it was any different, given that books have not been around long enough for us to begin to adapt to their existence in an evolutionary manner. They'll be long gone before we could have.
I also doubt that "social smart" and "book smart" are fundamentally different things. Just that different people have different sensors with different sensitivities, and different noise tolerances when operating with different types of information.
consider that books were designed by us, to benefit us. They are inherently optimized to accelerate what we define as book smarts, because that is what we designed them to do. Or another way, book smarts had always existed - its perhaps simply formal knowledge. But the tool (books) has been so effective at doing so that we replace the term knowledge with "books smarts". Books in that sense are perhaps the result of our evolution not the other way around.
I supposedly have an iq of 140+ (I don't believe it though) and there's been two experiences where I've been in the presence of someone that just blew me out of the water. (Fellow graduate students in my program)
I don't think I'm that far away intelligently from my friends and other people, but these far outliers were amazing. Not alien, but almost.
Most of life is like a 100m race where it's allowed to turn up and start early.
ie anybody can easily beat Usain Bolt by just starting a few seconds before him.
There are some things which are perhaps a bit more like the highjump - where I'm never going to beat the worlds best no matter how many attempts I do - however these kind of things are very much the exception, not the rule.
Most fields which are like highjumps have considerable incentives to develop tools to aid in performance. Even the greatest high jumper can't beat a muggle with a ladder, after all. Nor is any weightlifter a match for a forklift.
This seems like a very flat view of intelligence. In my mind a sufficiently intelligent person isn't just "good at math" and is capable of understanding the landscapes you've laid out above and would also understand how to improve in them and to navigate them, assuming they're sufficiently motivated. Even then, intelligent people are better at parsing themselves, their own drives, knowing what they want and are motivated by and move towards it. I also think many of the most intelligent people I know are (gasp) extremely mature as well, as if those often go hand-in-hand.
This sort of feels like a cope-comment trying to say that smart people aren't ACTUALLY smart, but I'm not sure the motivation for that.
Hear Hear! If you have the Social Intelligence and work hard to cultivate relationships you can become President of the United States, even if you think you have a good idea to stop a respiratory virus by injecting disinfectant.
A really good litmus test of individual perspective and maturity, here. Already seeing comments nitpick specific arguments or points, which is itself the trap to shine a light on those individuals more obsessed with arbitrary external measures of their personal definition of success, rather than self-reflecting on said definition and asking whether or not this definition fits who they are or want to be as a person, or their desired achievements and goals in life.
It’s a sonnet of sorts about the curse of intelligence in an increasingly insane world, a reminder that brilliant people can be absolute monsters, and that the only person who can bring you contentment in life is yourself.
Dunno - I think it's hard for a lot of us who rolled the dice on our interests early on, picked the winning combo of CS + Finance, and then just raced ahead in the career ladder over our peers as software work consumed the world.
Now it's ten years later, those ladders have disappeared, many of us seeing the writing on the wall, and wondering whether we were anything special at all.
(The answer of course is no, but it's a tough pill to swallow)
As a former gifted kid who has had their fair share of struggles around identity, competency, and success, having to redefine each multiple times as the world shifts around me and ladders are either yanked up or burned down just as I arrive to climb them:
It sucks. It sucks ass. It has lead to many a night shouting in rage, anger, depression, and malaise. It continues to incense me as I see reprehensible actions receive phenomenal rewards in the short term for inflicting harm, and ignorance of their consequences of the long-term. It sucks.
You’re not alone, at least, and acknowledging that reality helped me rally around more social causes as I accepted that individual success was more luck than talent or effort, at least at present. It doesn’t really get easier to accept that reality either, even as I work to create a better one that’s built more around objectivity than individuality. Still, I’ve been far calmer, more productive, and even happier as I acknowledge the reality around me instead of reject it out of some notion of “specialness” or exceptionalism.
Acknowledging the reality around you is, in its own way, quite liberating, even if it’s also frustrating and lonely at present.
I think the big mistake is to assume that the landscape remains static during your lifetime. This hasn't really been true for a hundred years now (and possibly a bit more than that), and that rate-of-change is only accelerating.
I sort of relate. I suspect the misplaced confidence one can develop from early successes in one's career eventually manifests as a lot of beliefs needing to be unlearned later in life (especially when facing challenges requiring resilience). I think I am a better person for it (and that is the point).
I've watched those ladders disappear at least twice and come back over my life (Dotcom bubble and the Global Financial Crisis). These things are cyclical and for somethings we are at a low point. But in the long run there will always be opportunities for talent to florish.
When you're a rising star, they blend narcissistic personality disorders into your paycheck. The only metric you need in order to feel that societal love, is a good performance review and a bonus.
The observation in this article is part of a more general principle: Happiness isn't a single variable equation. It directly parallels the observation that "money doesn't buy happiness." 210 IQ will never be enough. $20M dollars will never be enough.
This article is interesting to me because I see people falsely equivocating money with happiness all the time, and pretty much never see it with IQ. I didn't realize it was a thing.
> 210 IQ will never be enough. $20M dollars will never be enough.
At least, $20M dollars exists, while 210 IQ is mathematically nonsense -- it means "one out of several trillions", which exceeds the human population. You would have to colonize the entire galaxy, and then be the smartest human in that galaxy. If even that is not enough, I am giving up.
Bearing in mind that my lived experience is entirely subjective, and that your mileage may vary accordingly:
I find that when people associate money with happiness, what they fail to observe is that they actually want the presumed stability such money would afford them, at their current lifestyle. Failing to acknowledge and plan around that leads to “lifestyle creep” as income rises, which simply perpetuates the same grievances they currently have around instability or insecurity, just with higher price tags and consequences for failure. I strongly suspect that billionaires engage in wealth and asset hoarding for this very reason: a terror of status, security, and stability collapse.
Once I let go of lifestyle creep and found contentment and gratuity in what I had, I began realizing that stability is shockingly affordable even under modern policies and economics. Releasing yourself from this forced societal obligation to “Keep Up with the Jones’” is a key step towards objectively reflecting on your life as it’s lived, and identifying what’s of genuine import to you. Only by doing that do you find what is actually needed for personal fulfillment, and thus, happiness.
> billionaires engage in wealth and asset hoarding
That's not how money works. Nobody becomes a billionaire by hoarding. Money greater than a surprisingly low amount must be invested. Even the most obvious, boring, and low-risk investments still tend to have good returns. At scale lots of money just becomes a lot more money. There is no ego necessarily involved in this process.
Hoarding not as the act of accumulating such absurd wealth (they do that through exploitation), but hoarding in the sense of refusing to spend down, divest, or otherwise cease further acquisition despite the harms created or perpetuated in doing so.
You cannot look me in the eyes and keep a straight face while saying their megayachts, private jets, palatial estates, private islands, and state capture are completely ego-less. To willfully retain or grow such wealth is to have a gluttonous, insatiable ego.
> arbitrary external measures of their personal definition of success
You say 'external' meausures, but these do manifest as internal identities - all of which collectively form your social identity: https://srid.ca/identity/social
The "world's smartest man" very recently predicted on X that Bitcoin would hit $220k by the end of the year. [1]
Here's the thing: IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence. The training of AI systems critically requires benchmarks to understand gain/loss in training and determine if minute changes in the system is actually winging more intelligence out of that giant matrix of numbers.
What I deeply believe is: We're never going to invent superintelligence, not because its impossible for computers to achieve, but because we don't even know what intelligence is.
While it seems unlikely, I wouldn't find it impossible (edit: learning more about IQ score, yeah 276 is definitly BS). You can be "intelligent" as in very good at solving logic puzzle and math problem, and the most obtuse and subjectively dumb person when it comes to anything else. It might be less likely but definitely happened.
I have met people working in very advanced field having the perspective and reflection of a middle schooler on politics, social challenges, etc. Somewhere also clearly blinded by their own capacity in own field and thought that it would absolutely transfer to other field and were talking with authority while anybody in the room with knowledge could smell the BS from miles away.
I'm not saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because it's impossible for someone who says that stuff to be smart, I'm saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because people who say that stuff tend to also lie about their IQ.
Well, it is mathematically impossible. Traditional IQ tests have a mean/median of 100, and follow a normal distribution with standard-deviation of 15 points.
So 270 would be 11 standard deviations above normal so 1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people.
It's possible in the same way its possible that you will spontaneously phase through the floor due to a particular outcome of atomic resonance. Possible, but so unlikely it almost certainly has not, nor ever will happen.
Might something a small as a grain of sand have phased through a solid barrier as thin as a piece of paper somewhere on earth, at some point over billions of years? Sure. Paper is still pretty thick, and a grain of sand is enormous on the atomic scale, but it's at least in the realm of practical probability. When you start talking about cum(P) events in the realm of 1/1e30 you simply can't produce a scenario with that many dice rolls. If our population was 8 quadrillion and spanned a 40,000 year empire we would likely still never see an individual 11σ from the mean.
The probability is exactly zero by definition. The maximum score on a test is a raw score of 100%. Tests are normalized to have the reported scores fit a normal distribution. An out-of-distribution score indicates an error in normalizing the test.
In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.
The maximum IQ score anyone can get depends on the total number of people who have taken IQ tests so far. Even if every single person alive today took an IQ test (which is absurd in itself), the maximum IQ achievable would be between 190-197. In practice, I'd guess the maximum is somewhere between 170 and 185 (millions to tens of millions of IQ test results which were recorded).
Even then, you need special tests to distinguish between anyone with IQ higher than about 160 - all those people get the same (perfect) score on regular IQ tests.
So: claiming to have an IQ of 276? Bullshit. The guy whose parents claimed he scored 210 on an IQ test? Also bullshit. To get 210, there would have to have been ~500 billion IQ test results recorded.
Between 8 and 9 billion. But "impossible" means a chance of zero, and 8 billion / 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 0, so it's not impossible. The chances that he's lying or delusional are vastly higher of course, but that's no reason to use "impossible" incorrectly.
Impossible is almost always a colloquialism, almost everything is possible is you accept a low enough probability of success. We are talking about something less likely than almost anything else ever called impossible.
No, I think you are misunderstanding. IQ does not describe the likelihood of someone being that smart. It just means you order a number of people by their „intelligence“, the one in the middle is defined as 100 and then it depends on how many other people are in that line which IQ number the person at the end of the line gets. So it’s impossible because the definition of IQ is such that a certain number doesn’t come up without a certain number of measurements.
It‘s as if you would say 150% of all people are female. That is impossible, not just unlikely.
Depends on the exact "IQ" test but many do not have an upper bound. The thing to understand about IQ tests is that they were designed and are primarily used as a diagnosis tool by psychologists to identify learning deficiencies. There really isn't much evidence that having a 180 vs a 140 IQ means a whole lot of anything beyond one's ability to take that specific test. If anything, having an extremely high score outside of the normal range may indicate neuro-divergence and likely savant syndrome. Some people are savants in specific ways - working memory, pattern recognition, language skills, etc. IQ tests certainly test several different categories of intelligence, but also certainly leaves out a few other known forms of intelligence.
> Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
“Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used.
Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145).
Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds.
Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success.
All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
Yes they do. Not that it ever stopped people from making claims about having higher IQ.
IQ 160 means that you are 1 in 30,000 of your age group. That means that to calibrate a test that can measure that high, the authors had to test more than 30,000 people in each age group (depending on what statistical certainty you need, but it could be 10x the number for reasonable values). Not sure how large the age groups typically are, but the total number of people necessary for calibration is counted in millions. You have to pay them all for participating in the calibration, and that's not going to be cheap.
And with values greater than IQ 160, the numbers grow exponentially. So I am rolling to disbelieve than anyone actually calibrated tests for such large numbers. (Especially once the numbers start to exceed the total population of Earth, which is around IQ 190.)
There are separate tests for the extremes, but obviously less researched because the further out you go the less they have to work on.
Many years ago, while unemployed, I was sent for a intelligence and dyslexia test (because of the very same perceived waste of potential that the article talks about). I was not dyslexic but scored above the range that the intelligence test could measure. The professor(I believe he was moonlighting for research funding) performing the test talked about the upper range tests, but said they were very long, required specialists to conduct and there's seldom any reason to investigate where you are in the upper range.
Then we went on to waste a huge amount of time talking about human perception and I remember describing an idea that finally seems to be feasible because the new Steam VR headset does it and calls it Foveated rendering.
I can't specifically recall the date of this but the tester was recording results on his palm pilot, which was a flash new thing at the time.
Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150.
When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter.
So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
Every 15 iq points makes you 1 standard deviation above the median. That means if you legitimately have an IQ of 276, you would 1 in 2.3 * 10^31, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of humans in history.
This guy is a fraud, he isn't measured by any legit institute, only by some random one which stated he is intelligent and he claims he was measured at 276 IQ.
He's low-key just trolling at this point, aaying he wants asylum in the US and making videos about how jesus/God is real with some scientific methods etc.
Just go check out his YouTube you'll see what I'm talking about.
First off, we don't have a good way to actually measure an individual's intelligence. IQ is actually meant to correlate with g which is a hidden factor we're trying to measure. IQ tests are good insofar as you look at the results of them from the perspective of a population. In these cases individual variation in how well it correlates smooths out. We design IQ tests and normalise IQ scores such that across time and over the course of many studies these tests appear to correlate with this hidden g factor. Moreover, anything below 70 and above 130 is difficult to measure accurately, IQ is benchmarked such that it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Below 70 and above 130 is outside of two standard deviations.
So, in summary, IQ is not a direct measure of intelligence. What you're doing here is pointing at some random guy who allegedly scored high on an IQ test and saying: "Look at how dumb that guy is. We must be really bad at testing."
But to say we don't know what intelligence is, is silly, since we are the ones defining that word. At least in this sense. And the definition we have come up with is grounded in pragmatism. The point of the whole field of research is to come up with and keep clarifying a useful definition.
Worth also noting that you can study for an IQ test which will produce an even less correlated score. The whole design and point of IQ tests is done with the idea of testing your ability to come up with solutions to puzzles on the spot.
> IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence.
IQ means a lot of things (higher IQ people are measurably better at making associations and generating original ideas, are more perceptive, learn faster, have better spatial awareness).
It doesn't give them the power to predict the future.
It is less meaningful than that. It identifies who does well at tests for those things. That is not the same thing as being "better" at such things, it often just means "faster". IQ tests are also notorious for cultural bias. In particular with the word associations, they often just test for "I'm a white American kid who grew up in private schools."
And I say this as one of the white amercian kids who did great on those tests. My scores are high, but they are not meaningful.
When I was a young kid my eldest sister (who was 17 years older than me) was an educational psychologist and used to give me loads of intelligence tests - so I got pretty good at doing those kinds of tests. I actually think they are pretty silly, mostly because I generally come out very well in them...
It somewhat indicates better pattern recognition so I might give them advantage on predicting things in general. Not that it will make them prophets or oracles. But Prediction from higher IQ person is more likely to be correct. Not that world cannot be illogical and go against those predictions.
> What I deeply believe is: We're never going to invent superintelligence, not because its impossible for computers to achieve, but because we don't even know what intelligence is.
Speak for yourself, not all of humanity. There are plenty of rigorous, mostly equivalent definitions for intelligence: The ability to find short programs that explain phenomena (compression). The capability to figure out how to do things (RL). Maximizing discounted future entropy (freedom). I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we don't know what intelligence is, just because they lack it. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when the word isn't even defined!
How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy? How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies? How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium? How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self? How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding irony or picking up subtle social cues? Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently? How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively? How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds?
Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come?
Can you tell me which part of an IQ test or your "rigorous, moslty equivalent definitions for intelligence" capture any of them?
> I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we don't know what intelligence is, just because they lack it. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when the word isn't even defined!
How's this: "I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we know what intelligence is, just because they do well within the narrow definition that they made up. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when their definition of it fits their strengths and excludes their weaknesses!"
> How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy?
What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions. You have to be good at predicting other's predictions to do this well.
> How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies?
You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
> How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium?
As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
> How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self?
They are better at explaining a phenomenon (their self).
> How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding complex, multi-faceted irony or picking up subtle social cues?
Refer to the above. Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
> Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently?
Compression = finding short programs that recover the data.
> How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively?
Quite often not an intelligence problem.
> How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds?
"incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds," however will you do this? Oh, I know! Your brain will have to come up with a small circuit that compresses other people's brain pretty well, as it doesn't have enough capacity to just run the other brain.
> Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come?
I am actually pretty good at pretty much all of these compared to the average person.
> What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions.
And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
> You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false. A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
> As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
People like Tolkien and Martin? Note taking as a sign of poor skill/intelligence is a wildly novel take from my point of view.
> Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
> interpersonal conflicts... Quite often not an intelligence problem.
Oh, I think this will get at the root of our misunderstandings. I believe I've seen this attitude before. Before I jump to conclusions: Why exactly do you say this skill is not intelligence-based?
> And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy.
> A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
Yeah, that's the sense of "better" I was going for. I could have been more clear here, so I'm glad you figured out what I meant.
> Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
It was a not-so-kind way of saying, "don't point at vague ideas to obscure what you really mean and make it difficult for others to understand what you mean to keep your opinion unassailable."
> Why exactly do you say this skill [resolving conflicts] is not intelligence-based?
Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability. That or a fundamental value difference (you want my food, I want my food).
> Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability.
This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Second, revolving conflicts is not the same thing as getting into them, so it's unclear why bring that up at all.
True. I expect most conflicts come from people preferring not to think, and I also expect most conflicts escalate from people preferring not to think. Those are separate statements, and I only said the former.
> This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Eh, I don't think it implies that, and I also don't think that is true.
What you need for conflict resolution is usually a willingness to try to resolve the conflict. In rare situations, where communication and time is limited, you can actually run into the issue where you have to be smart enough to figure out what the other person wants (and see if you can come up with a mutually beneficial offer), but often in real life you can just spend more time thinking and ask them what they want.
Reducing comedy to 'subverting predictions' and empathy to 'compression algorithms' is like explaining music as 'organized sound waves', technically defensible yet completely missing the point. Missing the forest for the trees is an objective sign of limited metacognition, by the way.
The fact that you claim to be 'above average' at empathy and social cues while writing this robotic dismissal that completely misses the point (I asked for measurement methods, you provided questionable definitions) is the ultimate proof of my argument. You haven't defined intelligence, you've just compressed the meaning of it until it's small enough to fit inside your ego.
I purposefully do not give out methods to measure intelligence, because people can train on them. I knew you wanted that, but that does not mean you get what you want. I also find it strange how you expect me to be empathetic in a way that makes you feel good about yourself, when you deserve no such compassion after pulling the dark arts on me.
That's ok, me and my "dark arts" will have to make do without your "compassion", somehow. And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something. You sound young, so I hope one day you "find a short program" to recover that data.
That last part was not sarcasm, in case you have any trouble picking it up.
> I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something.
It was the first edit where I added them, since I could not reply to your post, and I removed them once I could reply. Yes, I lost my temper. You did too (and first)... you're just less honest and put up a facade of politeness.
> And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
Is the goal here to provoke me enough to get what you want? lol. Maximally adversarial.
Honestly not sure if this is a bit, it's so on-the-nose... Taking it at face value, you are literally claiming to know precisely what intelligence is? You would be the first to know if so. You should probably publish quickly before someone steals your definition!
In your post is demonstrated one of the deep mysteries of intelligence: How can a smart person make such a dumb assertion? (I'll give a hint: consider that "intelligence" is not a single axis)
I think Solomonoff beat me by about 70 years, and Wissner-Gross & Freer by about 10 years. Even if I had something novel to publish in this area, I think I would rather do something like solve ARC-AGI and make a lot of money.
1. Religious mysticism. The murkier people are on concepts like thinking, consciousness, and intelligence, the easier it is to claim they include some metaphysical aspect. Since you cannot actually pin down the metaphysical aspect, they must claim it is because you cannot pin down the physical aspect.
2. People do not like feeling less intelligent than other people, so they try to make the comparator ill-defined.
#2 is not relevant, and it also seems basically untrue.
So your belief is that the global scientific community broadly agrees that "intelligence" has not been rigorously defined because the global scientific community is trapped in religious mysticism?
I am going to be honest, and I'm not saying this as a jab - this is starting to sound completely disconnected from reality. The people who study intelligence are not, as a rule, mired in metsphysical hand-waving.
Huh? You asked, "why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?" That's what I answered. Did you mean to ask a different question, "why is there broad consensus among people who research intelligence that it is ill-defined?" Which kinds of people are you talking about? The information theorists? The machine learning researchers? The linguists? The psychologists?
The information theorists generally agree it has a precise definition, though they may choose different ones. The machine learning researchers typically only know how to run empirical experiments, but a small group of them do theory, and they generally agree intelligence is low Kolmogorov complexity. The linguists generally agree it cannot be defined, in the nihilistic sense, but if you posit a bunch of brains, then words have meaning by being signals between brains and intelligence is moving the words closer to the information bottleneck. I don't know what the psychologists say on the matter, though I wonder if they have the mathematical tools to even say things precisely.
Ok.. Let’s ask a different question. Assuming development of super-intelligence is possible.. How do you measure it? What criteria satisfies the “this is super intelligence”? You honestly sound like most pseudo-intellectuals I hear discussing this very topic..: Ironic how you think you’re the brilliant one and it’s others who are stupid… Actually not really ironic a fool doesn’t know he is a fool.
I literally gave you the criterion. You can measure, "I have this model that is supposed to compress data. I have this data. Does it compress the data into fewer bits than other models? Than humans?"
Or, "I have this game and this model. Does the model win the game more often than other models or humans?"
Or, "I have this model that takes in states in an environment and outputs actions. I have this environment. Does the actions it outputs have a higher discounted future entropy than other models or humans?"
This isn't even that. If I'm a person others may take as a reference and I hold Bitcoin, it is in my interest to publicly state that Bitcoin is going to increase in value, because that in itself makes it increase in value and it's good for me.
But doing what is in one's best interest isn't necessarily the more intelligent decision. In a rat society, the more "intelligent" rats can possibly be better at acquiring resources to survive if selective pressure is put upon those with such talents but can just as well be early signifiers of 'behavioral sinks'[0]. Not to mention, certain illnesses, mental and otherwise can change motive regardless of IQ.
Actions don't necessarily dictate intelligence. The goal of life has to be defined to make such arguments. For example, using a maze as an analog you could argue the more intelligent person can arrive to the end faster and more elegantly but with life, it has no such defined and agreed on ends. If we're arguing that selfishness is a sign of intelligence then that view is quite myopic.
Exactly. We don't have a good definition of intelligence and I don't think we ever will. Like all social concepts, it is highly dependent on the needs, goals, and values of the human societies that define it, and so it is impossible to come up with a universal definition. If your needs don't align with the needs an AI has been trained to meet, you are not going to find it very intelligent of helpful for meeting those needs.
You're quite literally babbling. If a word has no good definition, it ceases to be a word. All you really mean is you use the word "intelligence" very loosely, without really knowing what you mean when you use it. You just use it to point at a concept that's vague in your head. That does not mean you could not make that concept more precise, if you felt inclined to be more introspective. It also does not mean that the precise idea I think of when I use the word "intelligence" is the same as your idea. But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically, as long as we both have precise definitions in mind.
> But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically
Who is babbling? The number of concepts in human language that have no mathematical formalization far outnumber the ones that do, lol.
Yes, we can, obviously, come up with shared, mathematically precise definitions for certain concepts. Keep in mind that:
A. These formal or scientific definitions are not the full exhaustion of the concept. Linguistic usage is varied and wide. Anyone who has bothered to open an introductory linguistics textbook understands this.
B. The scientific and mathematical definitions still change over time and can also change across cultures and contexts.
I can assure you that someone who has scored very high on an IQ test would not be considered "intelligent" in a group of film snobs if they were not aware of the history of film, up to date on the latest greats, etc. etc. These people would probably use the word intelligent to describe what they mean (knowledge of film) and not the precise technical definition we've come up with, if any, whether you like it or not.
My point is not that it is impossible to come up with definitions, my point is that for socially fluid concepts like intelligence, which are highly dependent on the needs and circumstances of the people employing the word, we will likely never pin it down. There is an asterisk on every use of the word. This is the case with basically every word to more or lesser degree, that's why language and ideas evolve in the first place.
My whole point is that people that don't realize this and put faith in IQ as though it is some absolute, or final, indicator of intelligence are dumb and probably just egotists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty and want reassurance that they are smart so that they can tell other people they are "babbling" and feel good about themselves and their intellectual superiority complex (read: self justified pride in being an asshole).
My claim is that this high variability and contextual sensitivity is a core part of this word and the way we use it. That's what I mean when I say I don't think we'll ever have a good definition.
EDIT: Or, to make it a little easier to understand. We will never have a universal definition of "moral good" because it is dependent on value claims, people will argue morality forever. My position is that "intelligence" is equally dependent on value claims which I think anyone who has spent more than five minutes with people not like themselves or trained in different forms of knowledge intuitively understands this.
Babbling in the mathematics sense: no information transmitted.
I agree with you in the linguistic sense on the word 'intelligence'. Everyone has their own colloquial meaning. That doesn't make their definitions correct. If someone says, "exponential growth," just to mean fast growth, they're wrong (according to me). It's impossible to have universally agreed upon definitions, but we can at least try to standardize some of them. If you only care about intelligence in regards to a specific niche, add adjectives not definitions.
IQ tests measure 'intelligence' in the general, correct sense of the word. Not perfectly, but they're pretty good. If you care about a specific task, you can finetune on that task. While a generally intelligent agent will do better than a less intelligent agent at pretty much all tasks, it can still be defeated by test-time compute.
> According to Yoo, by the time he was 1, her son learned both the Korean alphabet and 1,000 Chinese characters by studying the Thousand Character Classic, a sixth-century Chinese poem.[5]
Not sure it is, so I assume a lot of stretching of the truth is involved. Most twelve month olds struggle to support their head, are just learning to shape their mouths to form syllables, and have only had eyes capable of resolving letters on a page for a few months. IQ won’t make blurry images sharp, or your neck muscles stronger.
My son started walking at 8.5 months. He's got a 3.5 month head start on those 12 month walking late bloomers. I have very high expectations. I wonder where his walking skills are going to take him one day, but this comment worries me because he has so far not shown any interest in the Korean alphabet.
My nephew was reading at age two… he is obviously a very special kid, but no one really pushed him to do that. Apparently this would kind of freak people out in public.
I’m not sure if reading before age one is biologically possible, but I have a surprising data point in my life, so who knows.
Bullshit detectors are blaring. Asian parent embellish the intelligence of their child without any verification. From what I understand Kim Ung-yong himself said many of the stories about him when he was young were misunderstood or exaggerated.
I guess it's not clear what they mean by learned the alphabet. Could point to the character and say the sound I guess? Know their meaning (you couldn't verify this easily if they cant talk)?
It's considered prodigious to be able to read at 3. I guess recognizing characters is short of that, but barely. And at 1? Im open to more information but I see no reason to think its true.
Age reckoning in South Korea (and other east Asian countries) is quite different than what you might expect. Age 1 in this context could be up to 3; if year 1 is your birth date and you age up at the new year, you could be "2 years old" while being alive for only 3 days. It could also work the other way around if they follow one of the other methods. Pretty interesting and not yet fully standardized!
> Langan has not produced any acclaimed works of art or science. In this way, he differs significantly he differs significantly from outsider intellectuals like Paul Erdös, Stephen Wolfram, Nassim Taleb, etc.
Paul Erdős is the only outsider intellectual on that list, IMO.
Can you even be called an "outsider" when everyone who recognizes the name associates it with "eccentric but well respected mathematician who was well liked enough in the community that people would regularly let him sleep in their homes for days on end"? According to his wikipedia page, Erdős collaborated with hundreds of other mathematicians. That's the very opposite of being an outsider IMO.
If you just take the statistical definition of IQ and run with it, AFAIK the smartest person alive will be at something like 190 IQ. If you really run with it, the smartest person that has ever lived should be around 200.
Chris Langan is a fraud, and not even a good one, he claims to have discovered a revolutionary new neural network architecture but lost the napkin he wrote it on.
It keeps astounding me that people assign value to a score whose purpose was mainly intended to find outliers in the education system as being anything besides that.
Or to quote the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking: "People who boast about their IQ are losers".
I've never understood IQ tests. Granted, i have only seen the beginning of some of them where they show you those 3/4 figures and tell you to choose the "next one" ... I have never had a clue of what am I supposed to look for.
Maybe I am just extremely stupid. But then I'm a walking example that you can be averagly successful even being dumb as a rock, if you are stubborn enough haha.
It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth.
These absurd claims about IQ is almost evidence that the claimant are nowhere close. For starters, any IQ tests are not going to be normalized to that range because it is impossible to normalize to that range as there are 0 realistic samples.
> It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth.
why can't you use historical population? like, the total amount of humans that ever existed? rough google shows around 100billion. seems legit that in the history of humanity, we could pop out someone so intelligent? But I do agree that IQ is probably a decent signal but entirely meaningless as sole measurement.
The other problem with IQ is that it's not a fixed scale, so you can't really compare IQ scores across time. An IQ of 100 is average by definition. Even if the average "intelligence" (or whatever IQ measures, because it doesn't seem to be intelligence as people think of intelligence) rises or falls over time, that average will always be a 100 IQ.
It's not raw, in the sense that it's not an objective measurement. It's a comparison with other humans of the same age that took the same tests. 100 IQ means that you score in a perfectly average way, you're better than 50% of people that took that test and worse than 50% other people that took that test, it's a comparison, not really an absolute score.
So, to compare 100 IQ now with 100 IQ 50 years ago is hard, since you're not using the same test anymore.
There's an effect called the Flynn Effect which is essentially an inflation of IQ, so the tests are changed every few years so that it keeps the same distribution (so that the averagely intelligent human would score 100)
In fact, you can't always compare the IQ tests of 2 humans alive, because the given score is comparing you to the other people of your age, not to the global population. So if you compare the IQ of a kid and middle aged man, it doesn't mean that one is more smart than the other in an absolute way (it's more a theoretical potential)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that people in the '60s were twice as smart as people now.
The average IQ of the people then would be 100, and the average IQ of people now would also be 100, even though there was a huge difference in intelligence. This is because 100 is defined as being the average rather than being an absolute measure.
Ah. okay yeah that makes sense. I didn't realize it's a relative measurement. I'm surprised it's not more robust. Something like using historical results to compare against, and updating tests in a very standardized way where the math/logic is always fairly similar, but the fact checking/knowledge that requires understanding of current world might be different data wise, but tests similar attributes or qualities.
That one person in our entire history somehow got tested accurately (is that even possible? there isn't any sense or point for any IQ test to even go into that range, because what would you be baselining and verifying the test against?) and is advertising about it? Count me skeptical.
Someone crazy smart is far more likely to take an IQ test at some point in their life. Ask the opposite - how hard would it be to overlook the fact that a 3 year old is doing fucking calculus? That's just insane. There is virtually no chance that gets looked over.
Even if we could positively confirm that the person is smarter than literally every human who has ever lived... that would be about IQ 200, still far from IQ 210. (The required number of humans grows exponentially.)
IQ isn't some intrinsic property that we can measure that has a probability distribution. It's something we construct to have a specific probability distribution. Essentially, you have >145 IQ not because 0.1% people happen to have that high of an IQ but because we define 145 IQ to be the cutoff between the smartest 0.1% of the population and the dumbest 99.9%.
As a consequence, an IQ above ~3 standard deviations is basically unmeasurable with more tests, and by 6 standard deviations I'm not sure is even possible to theoretically construct since I don't think what it's trying to measure can be meaningfully defined to discriminate the order of just 8 people on the entire planet.
That's right. If the event has a 1 in 390B chance, and there are 8B tries, you would expect to observe the event 2% of the time you conduct the 8B tries. So if you did 8B tries 50 times you would expect it to happen once. And its something higher than 8B - current population isn't the correct sample size.
There's a lot of things that are theoretically possible, but to realistically consider them based on the known likelihood is something I'm not entertaining here.
Practically speaking, it's impossible to roll 6 one hundred times in a row on fair dice. Not technically impossible, but we each get to calibrate our skepticism based on how far out the probabilities are.
In this case we can be sure the dice aren't fair because there's significant motivation for them not to be, or at least it's easy to imagine a manufacturing defect in the dice.
It's more likely that someone screwed up on the test, or that he cheated somehow. Maybe he's articulate and good at solving logic puzzles, but his Wikipedia article clearly shows that the guy has a screw loose.
You can solve every one of the logic puzzles and it should not give you any score that high, unless it's a specifically designed bogus test to make certain person look and feel good.
It's like saying your regular thermometer returned a reading of 1000C, sure buddy.
There is no assumption, that is the definition of IQ.
Is human intelligence a normal distribution? Probably not. But IQ is extrapolated as such, and probably useless anyway. Which make absurd claims like this even more laughable.
IQ is offset and scaled with the goal of producing that normal distribution, but that process is informed by the available data. Outliers don't get forced onto the curve, because there definitionally isn't enough data to figure out how outlying they are as a percentile.
To be clear, if the quality and quantity of output of the hard worker exceeds someone who works hard and is smart about it, smart and hard would be preferable?
Intellectual horsepower is just one element. If you're trying to build the world's fastest car, you can't just grab the world's most powerful engine and call it a day. If you can harness it, sure – it could provide an edge. But there are a lot of other elements that come into play.
I often think about exposure to music, and the fact that Einstein liked to play around on his violin. My suspicion is that this was more than just a hobby – and that these context switches, and exposure to different types of creative thought, all played into his discoveries.
The fact that you can do poorly (by external measure) despite high IQ doesn't really mean much. It correlates well with a swath of positive outcomes and I'd still take legitimate 150 IQ (for myself, for my kids) over virtually any other real-world ability. I think only looks are even in the running here.
It's not just that IQ allows you to succeed. It allows you to navigate the modern world. I see people having trouble with pointers, simple abstractions, basic diagrams, or statistics and wonder: what am I missing? And I'm no von Neumann to not miss anything.
If I could choose for myself and family, I'd suggest something more like 120, maybe 125. More IQ is frequently worse for well being. The benefits from correlations with positive factors get overwhelmed by emergent negative factors. Consider the stupid statement many smart people make "people are so stupid" (when in fact they are normal and the smart person is saying that they are on the upper end of the distribution). It reflects a fact of aloneness; a lack of peers; exclusion from socially controlled circles of success; endlessly watching struggle and underperformance; being stuck in a world that is dysfunctional because making it more functional is "too hard" for others; unlocking "because you're smart you have to do it for them"; and so many more little tortures and asynchronous social bullshit.
This reminds me of Liu Zhiyu who won a gold medal for China at the IMO in 2006 and was offered a full scholarship to MIT but turned it down to become a monk.
I think wisdom and peace is more valuable than raw IQ and I think Zhiyu and Ung-yong and even Langan realized this, wanted nothing to do with "The Machine", and chose their life trajectories accordingly.
Be wary of success measure games, a lot of people with a lot less intelligence/capability are doing so much. Luck and network effects trump intelligence, ability and so on. It’s better to always just reflect on yourself…unless you’re some unlucky schmuck that someone took time out of their precious life to personally disadvantage somehow.
The other thing that’s occurred to me lately is how some “impressive” resumes and experience just won’t be possible about nation state level backing. So yeah, if you’re going to talk about games, be aware that there’s always more than one at play.
With age and experience I learned that intelligence has a lot of axis, IQ test is only one of them, it is meaningful but narrow. My favorites questions I like to ask people I know or I don't see often are: what are you passions, what do you like in life? It's often much more interesting about what it reveals of the person, than their ability of solving logic puzzles.
I like to think that Robin Williams was as intelligent as Stephen Hawking, but they both excelled at very different types of information to process and express insight on. Also some of the best athletes in the world are processing information and making decisions in ways those 2 never could.
Kim Ung-yong (the one from the article with 210 IQ sounds like a good guy with a respectable career and a healthy self-conception. He even describes himself as happy!
It seems like 210 IQ has proven to be plenty for him, although measurement of his IQ and intense childhood pressure may not have been beneficial to him.
It is entirely possible he would not have reached where he is in his life without all of that negativity. No life is complete without deep and woeful strife.
> According to reports, he was working at NASA at the age of eight, and in 1978, his name was recorded in the Guinness Book Of World Records for the highest IQ at 210.
> While his career as an academic genius was soaring to unprecedented heights, Kim Ung Yong decided to pull the plug on it abruptly. He returned to South Korea in 1978 and decided to pursue higher education at Chungbuk National University where he obtained his Ph.D. in civil engineering.
> The reason behind this decision was his growing dissatisfaction with the life of a genius. According to Mr. Kim, he missed out on many things in life while excelling academically. He spent his days couped up, deprived of the finer joys of life. His lifestyle also drew in some nasty rumors from the media.
> So, he left that life behind in pursuit of his own identity and a normal life with his family and friends. Though the media labeled him as a “failed genius”, a living proof of how things can go horribly wrong with gifted kids, Mr. Kim has no regrets about his decision. In a society that puts academic intelligence on a pedestal, he is adamant that a high IQ really doesn’t determine anything about a person’s character.
It seems like indeed he learned some valuable lessons. But it's also clear that he felt the extreme pressure was ruining his life at that time, and it took him off the (more prestigious— you can decide if you think it's "more valuable") path of science in favor of engineering.
If you asked him, he'd probably say that the most vital decision he ever made was rejecting the "deep and woeful strife" that came from his ultra-disciplined, intellectual, and otherwise profoundly empty childhood.
It also seems like he'd probably reject the notion of measuring him by "where he ended up in life", even if that judgment is favorable. If the more relevant question is "could he have wound up contented and emotionally healthy with some other kind of childhood", it seems hard to argue that the painful childhood he rejected is the only way that could have happened.
When I say "where he ended up in life", I don't mean his job, where he lives, etc. These are irrelevant material conditions. I mean who he is as a person. How he carries himself, his perspectives, the set of mental frameworks he's capable of utilizing, etc. Essentially "could he have wounded up contented and emotionally healthy" is what I assert is effectively impossible. How could he have? Without having the experience to internalize, process, interpret, and evade what is left to reject? How is he to know what he does not value? And my point even extends beyond that, it is not a utilitarian one.
> he'd probably say that the most vital decision he ever made was rejecting the "deep and woeful strife" that came from his ultra-disciplined, intellectual, and otherwise profoundly empty childhood.
This too isn't quite understanding what I mean, along a few axes. I think I'll cast the same point in different light and context:
No life which is spent from cradle to grave without ever knowing deep and personal loss can have claim to have been a proper or healthy life, or to be truly human at that. It is an existence left stunted and incomplete. The take away from this is not that we are to maximize our propriety or healthiness by killing those closest to us. What I broadcast is excruciatingly a non-dualistic, anti-utilitarian signal.
> it seems hard to argue that the painful childhood he rejected is the only way that could have happened.
I don't mean to imply that the environmental stress from being raised as a child prodigy is particularly unique in substance. Only that the stress (in a sense which extends beyond the shallow emotional sense of the word) with a valence aligned with the experiencer at that moment in time is an essential part to living.
See also: "Major IQ differences in identical twins linked to schooling, challenging decades of research" [1] [2]
I.e. the idea that IQ is some innate fixed quality has evidence against it. It seems obvious that this is the case, given that people get their children tutors so they can do better at IQ tests to get into schools...
> The most striking finding came from the 10 pairs with “very dissimilar” educational experiences. In this group, the average IQ difference was 15.1 points. This gap is approaching the average difference seen between two randomly selected, unrelated individuals, which is about 17 points
> The authors note some limitations to their work. The group with “very dissimilar” education contained only 10 twin pairs. While this represents all such published individual data from the last century, it is a small sample size
Thanks, the study is interesting, but needs further research.
There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality". There are two separate actual ideas being conflated there: that intelligence is an innate fixed quality (which is more or less definitional), and that IQ accurately measures intelligence (it doesn't, and we already knew that, but it's the best we have).
> There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality"
Actually yes there is; I have come across many people who believe this, specifically saying that IQ is fixed.
> that intelligence is an innate fixed quality
I would also disagree with this — intelligence can be increased, (e.g. through education, training, and practice), and also decreased, (e.g. by lifestyle / environment).
Yes, of course, but how?! I don't right now, how do I go about doing that? Play more golf/chess/adult-tag/leetcode/etc? Talk to chaGPT/therapist? I ... I just don't even know where to start.
> You will never have enough IQ, nor money, nor time, nor energy. It's no excuse. You are enough -- no, no, you are plenty.
What the hell does this mean? Is this not a contradiction? What, probably obvious, thing am I missing here?
> But this is still about you. There exist no certificates nor trophies nor titles that can quench your thirst for permanence. If you worship human intelligence, 210 IQ is not enough. It is only plenty if you let it be.
I am so confused here! I'm not permanent! Only my works will survive me, and even then only the really good ones, and even then only the ones that the flukes of history deem passable.
What does plenty even mean here?
-
Man alive! This is hitting hard to me and I don;t even know why it does. Is this some sort of Escher-AI-scissor-statement thingy?
> > You are allowed to like yourself.
> Yes, of course, but how?! I don't right now, how do I go about doing that?
You can start by deliberately being bored a bit, that allows some of the the inner noise and judgements to pass. And then there's also self-compassion.
Yes. It correlates strongly with problem solving abilities on most tasks, predicts health outcomes, educational outcomes, career outcomes and finances all pretty significantly.
I don't see the particularly useful/meaningful part here.
Who knows what you're referring to, but generally IQ tests measure general mental abilities on things society generally finds good. That's fine, but general education does the same in far more detail and comes with a robust achievement measurement (grades, and graduation/degrees).
IQ competes with other measures that exist anyway and comes up short.
Grades aren't necessarily an indicator on if a person comprehends the educational material. Someone can visibly under-perform on general tests, but when questioned in-person/made to do an exam still recite the educational material from the top of their head, apply it correctly and even take it in a new direction. Those are underachievers; they know what they can do, but for one reason or another, they simply refuse to show it (a pretty common cause tends to be just finding the general coursework to be demeaning or the teachers using the wrong education methods, so they don't put a lot of effort into it[0].) Give them coursework above their level, and they'll suddenly get acceptable/correct results.
IQ can be used somewhat reliably to identify if someone is an underachiever, or if they're legitimately struggling. That's what the tests are made and optimized for; they're designed to test how quickly a person can make the connection between two unrelated concepts. If they do it quick enough, they're probably underachieving compared to what they actually can do and it may be worth trying to give them more complicated material to see if they can actually handle it. (And conversely, if it turns out they're actually struggling, it may be worth dedicating more time to help them.)
That's the main use of it. Anything else you attach to IQ is a case of correlation not being causation, and anyone who thinks it's worth more than that is being silly. High/Low IQ correlates to very little besides a sort of general trend on how quickly you can recognize patterns (because of statistical anomaly rules, any score outside the 95th percentile is basically the same anyways and IQ scores are normalized every couple years; this is about as far as you can go with IQ - there's very little difference between 150/180/210 or whatever other high number you imagine).
Everyone always interprets this guy's situation to mean that IQ tests aren't actually that accurate/are flawed as a tool.
But I think it's much more likely that intelligence itself is just a bit overrated amongst "intellectual" / white collar types, as in, people that define their identity and self-worth by how smart they are, or think they are.
At the end of the day, being disciplined, sociable, focused, or even just having a narrow set of interests is probably more of a recipe for success than mere raw intelligence. And ironically I think there are a lot of people that would be more successful – in careers, personal relationships, etc. – if they were a little bit less intelligent.
Intelligence is a lot like height. The world is designed for people of a certain level. If you're far below that, you're going to struggle. If you meet a certain threshold, you'll be fine.
And if you're far above, it may give you a slight boost, but is not going to magically propel you to success. You can do math in your head? Okay, your competitor will just use a calculator. You have impeccable spatial reasoning? Okay, the other guy will just draw himself a visual diagram.
There are only a few narrow domains where the raw processing power of your brain is going to automatically cause you to become richer or more successful than your peers. For everything else, luck, people skills, creativity and hard work are the dominant factors (in roughly that order).
The curse of intelligence is being able to see the world as it is. And (as TFA points out) the benefits is that then you also have the choice of what to do about it.
But talking about intelligence always brings visceral reactions. While we readily admit that someone can be stronger, or taller, the need to somehow negate that people can be genuinely smarter is somehow evil.
Also I disagree with comments saying we don’t have a good definition of intelligence. We have several but to me the most important is to plan ahead, and then be able to successfully improvise when the plan goes wrong.
Reading the text of the article, and not just reacting to the title, I do think this article has a kernal of truth to it that resonates with me. It's not really talking about intelligence, but MEASURES, and how individuals contort themselves into what they believe is valuable.
But at the end of the day, we do not have an inherent value. I wonder if people that get hung up on these metrics and what value they seemingly hold either that a person is a whole person, not just some measurement about them. The world's tallest man also has a favorite food, favorite color, and hobbies. He has friends and family. The metric you assigned to him is not the totality of the man.
I say this because recently I've been struggling with work and I feel like I have to say to myself sometimes, I am more than just a source of income and health insurance to my family. To someone who isn't in my situation, it might seem silly, but it has been scary and stressful and in some ways I did say to myself, you have value because you provide. But we have money saved, and are in a stable situation, and I could always find a new job, but my ego assigned value to the job regardless despite my best efforts at pretending that I don't play games with corporations. The stress that keeping a 9 to 5 causes in my mind is entirely self-inflicted by me.
I guess what I'm saying is that I should value other things about myself more highly, or maybe even not value anything about myself if that makes sense. What value is there in in measuring my success, as long as I am honest about my efforts and happiness?
I will never conquer the entire world by 25, or have a billion dollars, so maybe I need to learn to measure less and focus on true personal accountability and happiness instead. Hopefully that's a simple task...
I tend to agree, most platitudes are less impactful simply because your mind inserts what it already knows/autocompletes the phrase meaning because it's something so commonly heard. I read it as something like... you have enough resources to lead a life that has prosperity relative to the limited faculties of a human organism. That seems less catchy, and if you're too literal in your phrasing in writing, then you get the opposite problem where the reader limits their thinking to just what is written. Do you come to a different conclusion?
This phrase comes up alot in mindfulness and self-esteem related writings. I interpret it to mean that you don't have to do anything to justify your existence on the planet or prove your worth. I agree with this. But the phrasing of "you are enough" implies that it is possible to not be enough, but I don't think that's true since there's no bar that you have to meet, you just are.
I can’t think of one genius that became really famous and successful that also didn’t have to work their friggin’ as s off or who had everything handed to them, or who didn’t have to collaborate with or appeal to normies to get ahead in this world.
“It’s a long way to the top if you want to Rock ‘n Roll”
There's always someone else just as smart, willing to work harder. On the other hand, there's an inexhaustible amount of work & new ideas to work on. If you don't want to do new things, most "old ideas" have been poorly executed: go redo them well.
intelligence is an abstract concept, and sure, iq is a lossy way to measure it. but the idea that you could quantify intelligence into a scalar is absurd on its face and impossible to take seriously
The first part of the article puts down a person whose IQ is in the 140-180 range. If you read about the person, that part makes sense as an opinion.
The second part of the article explains that the person referred to in the title, the alleged 210 IQ, has chosen a middle manager job because it makes them happy.
> I'm trying to tell people that I'm happy the way I am.
The author never explains the problem they have with this person.
Instead, I think the title should be more along the lines of "an IQ of 176 does not make you a good person". I guess people would not engage if the conclusion was obvious? The baiting title is totally misplaced.
Actually, the whole treatment of Kim Ung-yong is even worse than I make out in this comment. I am left with a really negative impression of the author.
I think you misunderstood the article. 210 IQ isn't enough. The man with 210 IQ is happy not because he has 210 IQ but because he made the choice to be happy.
Having a high IQ isn't enough - you must also choose to be happy.
> The first part of the article puts down a person whose IQ is in the 140-180 range. If you read about the person, that part makes sense as an opinion.
It's worse. In both cases the IQ scores are basically fake. The first one probably does not reach moderate 130 required for Mensa based on the report of repeatedly trying the same test and not passing some not-too-high bar the first time (the first _known_ time; the test is only valid when taken once).
The second one does not have any credible backing to their IQ score whatsoever and for all we know could be under 100.
Maybe, but what the article is really about is how these two people responded to being marked for greatness at a young age. I don't see a reason to disbelieve that part.
Then the article should be titled "being famous as a child is not enough". But then it would not be a very interesting article.
Also, it's not just "maybe" that neither of these people have exceptional IQ. It is more like "most certainly not, unless they have some strong proof, because they lied multiple times".
PSA: Chris Langan has never achieved a super high score on a real IQ test.
Since the 90's he is feuding with Rick Rosner, when they both edited the Mega Society’s journal Noesis, over the title of smartest guy. They both took an untimed Richard Hoeflin test (that maybe only a few hundred people have actually taken and therefore impossible to norm) with completely arbitrary scoring criteria and self-assigned “record setting” IQs.
Neither has any outstanding intellectual contributions to their name. They are weirdos who have made "being smart" their identity.
How is Langan thought of as a smart guy? I can't read further because this guy to me is either a grifter or suffering from mental illness. The linked interview doesn't surprise me at all, daily wire readers/listeners are just as gullible and exploitable as people who would think that Langan is smart.
Every smart person I've met in life so far has known that humility is key if you want other smart people to take you seriously. And to let your work speak for yourself.
It's somewhat similar to those YouTubers who help homeless people on camera. It's a paradox where if it's done on film it seems more self serving than generous but if it wasn't on film no one would know.
But there is a difference. Instead of going on film, smart people can produce actual works for others to read and validate.
Nothing is wrong with no one knowing technically. Which is kind of the point. The desire to tell everyone how smart/generous you are is what makes others think you're a grifter and fraud (even if not), which is what an intelligent person would know and thus avoid.
IQ and EQ are two different things often not found in the same individual. IQ is being smart enough to know that something is happening. EQ is being smart enough to be able to convince other humans to do something about it.
High IQ low EQ folks often struggle in careers and life because they’re “right” but can’t get anything done.
The most successful tend to be high-ish IQ but with enough EQ to get things done. Those folks are unstoppable.
High EQ correlates with manipulativeness and sociopathic behavior. So maybe their success can be chalked up to their willingness to sell out and kiss evil's ass.
I'd choose "smart people achieve too little." The reason is that, looking at the world around me (more or less) sustaining the lives of more than 8 billion people, I'm sure it's because of the scientific and inventive revelations of a few, not just the hard work of millions. (Sorry, millions, your work is important, but without those few, 99% of us would still spend much of our time just seeking and growing food). If the problem is fixed, maybe those 8 billion (or more) people would have much better, healthier lives without the risk of the upcoming climate fiasco. Just my two cents.
My wife's nephew is the smartest person I've ever met (and I've met a lot of really smart people).
Aced the SAT as a teen, and interned at JPL, etc. Got a free full ride, wherever he wanted. He got his undergraduate at CalTech. Ph.D at Some midwest college -a good one, but can't remember which one -may have been Urbana-Champagne.
His mother was adamant that he have as normal a childhood as possible. She deliberately kept his K12 at a normal pace.
He's now a regular professor at a fairly good college (but not an Ivy League one).
He's married, has a kid, and two cats. Has a great life.
Part of me wants to say "What a waste!", but that part needs to get smothered with a pillow.
He's quite happy, and is doing something that he really wants to do.
Most of us could be so fortunate.
I've found "I.Q. smart" to be overrated. It opens a lot of doors, but it can also get in the way.
I've heard it defined as the ability to learn quickly. Not just in the narrow, academic sense, but also by observing the world and people and drawing conclusions about them. It has to do with pattern recognition and abstraction.
Usually these people are knowledgeable because they are constantly learning. Eventually they become wise.
Why would that be a waste? The average professor at any college would probably be as smart as your friend. Professors (at least in the field I did my PhD in) are smart as hell.
I have a fairly Ivy-League family, including a number of teachers and professors (I'm the redneck engineer).
This guy is in a league of his own. Pretty stunning.
I would be quite surprised if "any college professor" is at the same level.
That said, I am also very much a "maker and doer." I spent my career amongst folks sort of like him, but focused on producing stuff. He would have knocked most of them, into a cocked hat.
The average college professor did their PhD at an ivy league school and everyone said exactly what you're saying about them their whole lives. A professor job is extremely competitive.
It just sounds like you're describing almost the ideal outcome for this person as a failure. They're actually incredibly successful if they've got tenure at a good American college.
People do well on a test of short term memory and pattern recognition and other people think it's a super power.
Nassim Taleb's book starts out as self indulgent, self aggrandizing nonsense. It's basically summed up as "probability won't help you when something happens that hasn't happened before". You don't say, what an incredible insight for the first 40 pages.
Well of course it is not enough. This is well known.
"Success" is hard to nail down. Is it academic success? SES succes? Job performance? It's all over the map.
However we know that :
IQ is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
Conscientiousness is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
Low neuroticism is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
And there are other "personality" metrics that have been studied. It is very easy for someone who has an exceptional IQ to be sert back by neuroticism for example and exceptional IQ is near useless if the person does not have the conscientiousness to follow through on tasks, these people will likely be exceptional a "shallow" tasks.
Tangent: It's interesting that the author linked to an article that linked to Sirlin's article about "scrub mentality" rather than linking directly to Sirlin's article.
But I agree with what the author is trying to say: Intelligence is not enough to be successful. No one is going to pay you to "be smart". You have to do something with that intelligence that is worthwhile.
Which is why you have people like Richard Feynman who famously had just "an above average" IQ while contributing greatly to several fields of math and science.
Now, it could be that Feynman just didn't care about the test when he took it. Because he intuitively knew that "being smart" wasn't enough. You had to apply yourself. You have to put in the work and there are no real shortcuts.
Being successful is a multifaceted thing and there are many pitfalls. And the real trick seems to be avoiding as many pitfalls as possible. Being smart helps, but it's not a guarantee.
lordnacho mentioned people think of intelligence as magic, and that's a good way to put it. Every other quality we have as people is not really disputed. If you're taller, we acknowledge it. If you're faster, we can test it. If you're stronger in your arms, we can test it. Etc. And we accept the results. And we accept that if we want to change things, we have to do the work.
But not intelligence. For some reason, no one can be smarter than anyone else. And everyone has to be smart in something. And if you're smart in one thing, you can't be smart in others. We invent things like EQ, street smarts, book smarts, etc to try and put everyone on equal footing. But a lot of times, people who have higher IQs also have higher EQs. And when people talk about "street smarts", what they're really describing is a sort of institutional knowledge that can only be gained by living in an area as often these "street smarts" are highly local to a certain subset of streets. And people often mistake trivia for intelligence. They think knowing a fact makes one smart. It makes one knowledgeable. And often having a lot of knowledge can be beneficial to those with higher intelligence. But high intelligence is often apparent even in those with little knowledge. For instance, my wife is a special education teacher and she has a non-verbal autistic child in her class. He clearly does not have a lot of knowledge, but he's apparently very intelligent. He can work things out. He can make references. He grasps concepts quickly. He gets frustrated by his own inability to articulate his thoughts.
I never get tired of telling this story about high IQs. One of my employees was in Mensa. Brilliant guy, incredibly humble, with Windows Internals knowledge so deep Microsoft acquired a company where we developed an entire product that big companies thought was impossible. I'm convinced he joined Mensa mostly as a hobby, like some people do crossword puzzles, he took IQ tests.
He used to come back from the local Mensa chapter meetings with the best stories. According to him, watching a room full of geniuses try to solve basic organizational issues was exactly like attending the annual meeting of a very dysfunctional condo board. Same arguments, same confusion, just with a higher average IQ.
The premise of the article is Langan has a high IQ, but is a bad person because he's conservative? Major political parties you disagree with are not "poisonous rhetoric", and political articles like this really don't belong on HN. People may know things you don't, and they base their world view on experiences you may not have had.
IQ by its own is not enough. A higher than average IQ is probably the result of a larger than average working memory, and maybe also some ability to make more "long-range" connections between concepts in the brain. That's raw processing power. But raw processing power isn't everything. You also need an otherwise healthy mind, the sustained motivation to accomplish great things and the ability to focus to dedicate enough time towards those goals.
For example if you read the biography of Von Neumann, it's remarkable that he was able to focus and work in the most noisy and distracting environments.
In my experience the gut feeling of being the smartest person in the room is often true. Many highly smart people don't have the social position that they are surrounded by like-minded or even smarter people.
The gauge I use for intelligence is how much stock a person puts into an IQ test.
In my view, people who are able to question the legitimacy or applicability of IQ as a general measure of "intelligence", an idea that is highly contextual, are probably intelligent. They are at least smart enough to question social conceptions and to recognize the contingent nature of such conceptions. People who uncritically view IQ as some kind of unassailable proof of "intelligence" may be good at solving certain classes of known problems but, I really am not surprised that they may lack the imagination to contribute meaningful things to society, as a blind faith in a measure developed by fallible human beings is indicative of limited thinking /creativity.
Obviously someone can score well on an IQ test and question its validity as a signifier of intelligence, just as one can score poorly and place a strong degree of faith in it—but the way someone approaches it, in either case, is a very telling indicator of their own intellectual biases and limitations.
Some years ago some TV show found presumably "the smartest man in Denmark". The title is disputed, obviously. Turns out he's basically some redneck type person who tinkers in his workshop, never held a job, just sells inventions/solutions to people who comes around asking for them. He put no value on IQ, but admitted that it might be what allows him do make a small living of his tinkering.
Then there's my wife's co-worker, member of Mensa and self-proclaimed intelligent person. She's barely functional in normal society, completely locked in a "I'm smart, so I'm right" mentality. Even if she may be technically correct, she completely fails to understand that rules might be wrong or needs to be bent to make society work. Yet somehow she also manages to overthink things, needlessly complicating things and designs procedures that requires a higher than average IQ to understand and gets upset when those procedures aren't followed. You'd think that smart people would design simpler and easier solutions, but apparently that's not a given.
IQ tests are a bit absurd if one looks at the changing definitions of intelligence over the past century.
Someone in the 1920s/30s would call the ability to solve equations or play chess well as signs of high intelligence. Not so long ago, translation of natural languages was considered a task requiring a good level of intelligence.
Each progress in AI changes the definition of intelligence as we realize that a machine finally able to do task X is not really as intelligent as we thought it had to be.
And today the AI/robotics industry struggles to build a machine that can perform the job of a room cleaner. Beating grand masters at chess was far easier.
Why would it say anything? The 100 meter dash wasn’t designed by the fastest 100 meter runner, but it’s still perfectly capable of identifying a winner.
Sure, but setting questions you theoretically need a certain threshold of ability in pattern recognition to pass without actually having that ability feels like trying to design a 100m dash whilst not really knowing what a sprint or a metre is. You might end up selecting for outlying distance runners instead...
Part of the test is the speed at which you get the answers.
So while one may not be able to solve the entire suite of questions within 10 minutes, we can know that someone who can is smarter than someone who can't.
Langan's only recorded lines in that TV segment are:
> Bonjo! 'Mon, boy!
> I think it's about, uh, 20 horses, two llamas, two cows.
> This particular paper's on something called a conspansive manifold.
> It's a-a theory that studies the relationship between mind and reality. In other words, what's out there in the real world, how does the mind relate to it?
> Yes. [/] You don't. [/] It's not that simple. I happen to know there's a heaven, because I know you can use your will to create things. In other words, do you continue to exist after you die? Absolutely. Nothing in this universe is wasted. Nothing ever ceases to exist, not really. The essence always remains preserved.
> We, ah, didn't have a lot of money. And the old man was always in need of money, so we had to go with a worklist.
> Well, as a matter of fact, I had to fight my way through high school.
> There's the foal, and there's Star, his mother.
> I mean, why am I not a famous politician, or a, a, a, financier? filthy rich? Ah, some of the business things don't mean that much to me. I'd rather have some meaning in my life, and this is how I get it. [/] In construction, ranch hand, farmhand, cowboy, firefighter — I worked for the forest service about four years. Um, just anything I could get my hands on.
> Jeannie was very very taken with the beauty of the place. As a matter of fact she started crying, she was looking at it, and I realized then I couldn't say no.
> No, it can't be done.
> There's a sort of mind that I call a garbage-trap sort of mind. [/] Usually that kind of mind does not belong to a person who is capable of deep thought.
> Sometimes it's hard to find the words when somebody expresses love. When I went to visit my mother, for instance — she's been a little bit ill lately — I had to tell her that I loved her, and she told me that she loved me, and, and then there was a long period of silence, because what can you follow that up with?
That doesn't qualify as "speaking like a book" in my book. I'd be interested to see videos of people who do habitually speak in well-formed sentences; I'm sure such people exist, although (from that one five-minute TV segment) Langan doesn't seem to be one of them.
I was recently asked, "Did people in the past really talk like that?" (i.e. in complex sentences like they do in the dialogue of your average 18th- or 19th-century novel) and I unfoundedly opined that while the answer was probably "no, the literary style is always an exaggeration of the natural speaking style; 21st-century people don't speak exactly like their novels, either," it seemed plausible to me that when all your educated people start their careers studying Latin grammar and rhetoric for several years, they do end up with more unconscious respect for grammatical structure and therefore more of an ability to generate complex yet well-formed sentences on the fly. I'd be interested to see what the experts think.
Self-awareness is so much more important than IQ for real-world success in my opinion. IQ tests measure an individuals personal intellect, but in the real world what matters is how we're able to pair our mental capacity with that of others.
Redirecting an unhealthy obsession with being the smartest person in the room, to just being as self-reflective as possible is far healthier for well being, but I think also it improves outcomes.
Of course you need a base level of IQ too, but if you're reasonably smart just being able to take a step back and ask if you're being reasonable, if you might be wrong, why someone feels the way they do about you, this makes you much better at any task that involves some level of collaboration – which the vast majority of tasks do.
People who just have high IQ might on average be good at reasoning on their own, but their ability to reason with others – playing into their strengths and knowledge and into that of others is what allows them to exceed beyond their IQ in terms of outcomes.
For what it's worth, I find Langan really interesting. He's clearly a smart guy, but also delusionally self-confident in himself.
And I kinda get that honestly. I've had a few official IQ tests in my life and I'm pretty confident I have a fairly high IQ. I know I've found in most cases I'm well served to not pay much attention to what the average person thinks about most things, but when I find people who think well, especially if they have more knowledge in some area than myself I become obsessively self-critical when I feel we're unaligned on something. Generally speaking in these cases I'm likely to be wrong.
My guess is that Langan doesn't do this. Perhaps he feels (mostly correctly) that trusting himself is generally the better strategy than trusting what anyone else thinks. Still, it's surprising he hasn't worked this out. Maybe there's more going on there.
People think of intelligence as some sort of magic. They ascribe all sorts of ability to intelligence, as if being smart should make you influential.
But why should that be? If you're a scientist, you are dependent on getting funding to do experiments, and the experiment showing something interesting. Neither of these things is very connected to intelligence, beyond that low IQ people will not be likely to get to the start line.
If you're an entrepreneur, you also have to do a bunch of things that are more social than smarts. Basically your life is going around meeting people and getting them to either invest or build something or buy something. Is it useful to be smart? Sure. But it isn't as useful as, say, having the right connections from school, or a family with a sensible budget so you can concentrate on building rather than finding food.
Pretty much the only area where being super smart works is pure maths, and even there you really want to be born in the parts of the world where the economy can support a young person on that path.
Then there's the transmission to suit your engine. A super smart person still needs to be mature enough to consume the intellectual royal jelly that develops them towards where they will make the greatest contribution. You won't just know what to do just because you're smart, you need to be shown what the interesting problems are. You need to have motivation, and motivation is often what you actually see when you meet someone impressive.
The way I think of it, the smart and useful people are plenty. Courses are taught so that universities can get a sensible number of people through some amount of content. Being smarter than your average student at a prestigious college is nice, but it mostly buys you some free time. Being at the cutoff is terribly stressful, but that guy is still pretty accomplished and useful for most things that we consider elite.
I like the car analogy for IQ. Having an engine with 50% or more horsepower above the people around you is only useful if you know how to handle it, how to steer, etc.
The transmission is another great analogy, IMHO for communication skills. Applying full power to the tarmac from a dead stop is a great way to spin your tires.
The very notion of IQ reduces the mind to a receptacle for some ineffable thing called 'intelligence'. One may as well have a CQ - Comedy Quotient and start speculating who has a higher GQ - Robin Williams or Dave Chapelle.
> They ascribe all sorts of ability to intelligence, as if being smart should make you influential.
By just applying some common sense it is obvious how absurd this statement is (and I thus rather have difficulties understanding how people can come to such a hypothesis):
Just look at your daily life: how much highly intellectual or academic content (for the latter: e.g. lecture recordings of complicated scientific lectures) do you watch on YouTube? If not: which kind of content do you then watch on YouTube?
This should make it insanely obvious which kinds of people are influential and which ones are not.
> If you're an entrepreneur, you also have to do a bunch of things that are more social than smarts
High social aptitude is "smarts". It has arguably been more central to our evolution, survival, and even advancement than "book smarts".
It would be highly surprising if it was any different, given that books have not been around long enough for us to begin to adapt to their existence in an evolutionary manner. They'll be long gone before we could have.
I also doubt that "social smart" and "book smart" are fundamentally different things. Just that different people have different sensors with different sensitivities, and different noise tolerances when operating with different types of information.
consider that books were designed by us, to benefit us. They are inherently optimized to accelerate what we define as book smarts, because that is what we designed them to do. Or another way, book smarts had always existed - its perhaps simply formal knowledge. But the tool (books) has been so effective at doing so that we replace the term knowledge with "books smarts". Books in that sense are perhaps the result of our evolution not the other way around.
I supposedly have an iq of 140+ (I don't believe it though) and there's been two experiences where I've been in the presence of someone that just blew me out of the water. (Fellow graduate students in my program)
I don't think I'm that far away intelligently from my friends and other people, but these far outliers were amazing. Not alien, but almost.
Indeed.
Most of life is like a 100m race where it's allowed to turn up and start early. ie anybody can easily beat Usain Bolt by just starting a few seconds before him.
There are some things which are perhaps a bit more like the highjump - where I'm never going to beat the worlds best no matter how many attempts I do - however these kind of things are very much the exception, not the rule.
Most fields which are like highjumps have considerable incentives to develop tools to aid in performance. Even the greatest high jumper can't beat a muggle with a ladder, after all. Nor is any weightlifter a match for a forklift.
This seems like a very flat view of intelligence. In my mind a sufficiently intelligent person isn't just "good at math" and is capable of understanding the landscapes you've laid out above and would also understand how to improve in them and to navigate them, assuming they're sufficiently motivated. Even then, intelligent people are better at parsing themselves, their own drives, knowing what they want and are motivated by and move towards it. I also think many of the most intelligent people I know are (gasp) extremely mature as well, as if those often go hand-in-hand.
This sort of feels like a cope-comment trying to say that smart people aren't ACTUALLY smart, but I'm not sure the motivation for that.
> This seems like a very flat view of intelligence.
Yes, because the article leads with that. But I think we're actually in agreement.
I make a distinction between intelligence and wisdom, something I thought about from D&D.
Intelligence is having accurate models. Quick thinking, and correct predictions.
Wisdom is about making good decisions. Risk control, understanding rewards.
Both are a mental qualities we appreciate in people, but often we are more dazzled by intelligence, and we often mistake wisdom for intelligence.
Hear Hear! If you have the Social Intelligence and work hard to cultivate relationships you can become President of the United States, even if you think you have a good idea to stop a respiratory virus by injecting disinfectant.
A really good litmus test of individual perspective and maturity, here. Already seeing comments nitpick specific arguments or points, which is itself the trap to shine a light on those individuals more obsessed with arbitrary external measures of their personal definition of success, rather than self-reflecting on said definition and asking whether or not this definition fits who they are or want to be as a person, or their desired achievements and goals in life.
It’s a sonnet of sorts about the curse of intelligence in an increasingly insane world, a reminder that brilliant people can be absolute monsters, and that the only person who can bring you contentment in life is yourself.
Dunno - I think it's hard for a lot of us who rolled the dice on our interests early on, picked the winning combo of CS + Finance, and then just raced ahead in the career ladder over our peers as software work consumed the world.
Now it's ten years later, those ladders have disappeared, many of us seeing the writing on the wall, and wondering whether we were anything special at all.
(The answer of course is no, but it's a tough pill to swallow)
As a former gifted kid who has had their fair share of struggles around identity, competency, and success, having to redefine each multiple times as the world shifts around me and ladders are either yanked up or burned down just as I arrive to climb them:
It sucks. It sucks ass. It has lead to many a night shouting in rage, anger, depression, and malaise. It continues to incense me as I see reprehensible actions receive phenomenal rewards in the short term for inflicting harm, and ignorance of their consequences of the long-term. It sucks.
You’re not alone, at least, and acknowledging that reality helped me rally around more social causes as I accepted that individual success was more luck than talent or effort, at least at present. It doesn’t really get easier to accept that reality either, even as I work to create a better one that’s built more around objectivity than individuality. Still, I’ve been far calmer, more productive, and even happier as I acknowledge the reality around me instead of reject it out of some notion of “specialness” or exceptionalism.
Acknowledging the reality around you is, in its own way, quite liberating, even if it’s also frustrating and lonely at present.
I think the big mistake is to assume that the landscape remains static during your lifetime. This hasn't really been true for a hundred years now (and possibly a bit more than that), and that rate-of-change is only accelerating.
I sort of relate. I suspect the misplaced confidence one can develop from early successes in one's career eventually manifests as a lot of beliefs needing to be unlearned later in life (especially when facing challenges requiring resilience). I think I am a better person for it (and that is the point).
I've watched those ladders disappear at least twice and come back over my life (Dotcom bubble and the Global Financial Crisis). These things are cyclical and for somethings we are at a low point. But in the long run there will always be opportunities for talent to florish.
But isn’t being special rather… lonely?
When you're a rising star, they blend narcissistic personality disorders into your paycheck. The only metric you need in order to feel that societal love, is a good performance review and a bonus.
The observation in this article is part of a more general principle: Happiness isn't a single variable equation. It directly parallels the observation that "money doesn't buy happiness." 210 IQ will never be enough. $20M dollars will never be enough.
This article is interesting to me because I see people falsely equivocating money with happiness all the time, and pretty much never see it with IQ. I didn't realize it was a thing.
> 210 IQ will never be enough. $20M dollars will never be enough.
At least, $20M dollars exists, while 210 IQ is mathematically nonsense -- it means "one out of several trillions", which exceeds the human population. You would have to colonize the entire galaxy, and then be the smartest human in that galaxy. If even that is not enough, I am giving up.
Or the distribution could be leptokurtic like almost everything in the real world. Also galaxies are bigger than you think.
Bearing in mind that my lived experience is entirely subjective, and that your mileage may vary accordingly:
I find that when people associate money with happiness, what they fail to observe is that they actually want the presumed stability such money would afford them, at their current lifestyle. Failing to acknowledge and plan around that leads to “lifestyle creep” as income rises, which simply perpetuates the same grievances they currently have around instability or insecurity, just with higher price tags and consequences for failure. I strongly suspect that billionaires engage in wealth and asset hoarding for this very reason: a terror of status, security, and stability collapse.
Once I let go of lifestyle creep and found contentment and gratuity in what I had, I began realizing that stability is shockingly affordable even under modern policies and economics. Releasing yourself from this forced societal obligation to “Keep Up with the Jones’” is a key step towards objectively reflecting on your life as it’s lived, and identifying what’s of genuine import to you. Only by doing that do you find what is actually needed for personal fulfillment, and thus, happiness.
> billionaires engage in wealth and asset hoarding
That's not how money works. Nobody becomes a billionaire by hoarding. Money greater than a surprisingly low amount must be invested. Even the most obvious, boring, and low-risk investments still tend to have good returns. At scale lots of money just becomes a lot more money. There is no ego necessarily involved in this process.
Hoarding not as the act of accumulating such absurd wealth (they do that through exploitation), but hoarding in the sense of refusing to spend down, divest, or otherwise cease further acquisition despite the harms created or perpetuated in doing so.
You cannot look me in the eyes and keep a straight face while saying their megayachts, private jets, palatial estates, private islands, and state capture are completely ego-less. To willfully retain or grow such wealth is to have a gluttonous, insatiable ego.
I always love the articles that end up holding mirrors to some of the commenters. :)
What does that say about you? :)
The charitable answer would be that they admire self reflection and try to engage i it themselves.
yes, i'm pretty sure that's the case, i was just making a meta joke about holding up mirrors
High int, dump stat wis
> arbitrary external measures of their personal definition of success
You say 'external' meausures, but these do manifest as internal identities - all of which collectively form your social identity: https://srid.ca/identity/social
The "world's smartest man" very recently predicted on X that Bitcoin would hit $220k by the end of the year. [1]
Here's the thing: IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence. The training of AI systems critically requires benchmarks to understand gain/loss in training and determine if minute changes in the system is actually winging more intelligence out of that giant matrix of numbers.
What I deeply believe is: We're never going to invent superintelligence, not because its impossible for computers to achieve, but because we don't even know what intelligence is.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-smartest-man-predicts-b...
> As World's Highest IQ Record Holder, I expect #BITCOIN is going to $220,000 in the next 45 days.
> I will use 100% of my Bitcoin profits to build churches for Jesus Christ in every nation.
> “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37)
Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.
While it seems unlikely, I wouldn't find it impossible (edit: learning more about IQ score, yeah 276 is definitly BS). You can be "intelligent" as in very good at solving logic puzzle and math problem, and the most obtuse and subjectively dumb person when it comes to anything else. It might be less likely but definitely happened. I have met people working in very advanced field having the perspective and reflection of a middle schooler on politics, social challenges, etc. Somewhere also clearly blinded by their own capacity in own field and thought that it would absolutely transfer to other field and were talking with authority while anybody in the room with knowledge could smell the BS from miles away.
I'm not saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because it's impossible for someone who says that stuff to be smart, I'm saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because people who say that stuff tend to also lie about their IQ.
Well, it is mathematically impossible. Traditional IQ tests have a mean/median of 100, and follow a normal distribution with standard-deviation of 15 points.
So 270 would be 11 standard deviations above normal so 1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people.
So it is possible, and you just calculated the probability of that happening.
It's possible in the same way its possible that you will spontaneously phase through the floor due to a particular outcome of atomic resonance. Possible, but so unlikely it almost certainly has not, nor ever will happen.
Might something a small as a grain of sand have phased through a solid barrier as thin as a piece of paper somewhere on earth, at some point over billions of years? Sure. Paper is still pretty thick, and a grain of sand is enormous on the atomic scale, but it's at least in the realm of practical probability. When you start talking about cum(P) events in the realm of 1/1e30 you simply can't produce a scenario with that many dice rolls. If our population was 8 quadrillion and spanned a 40,000 year empire we would likely still never see an individual 11σ from the mean.
The probability is exactly zero by definition. The maximum score on a test is a raw score of 100%. Tests are normalized to have the reported scores fit a normal distribution. An out-of-distribution score indicates an error in normalizing the test.
In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.
The maximum IQ score anyone can get depends on the total number of people who have taken IQ tests so far. Even if every single person alive today took an IQ test (which is absurd in itself), the maximum IQ achievable would be between 190-197. In practice, I'd guess the maximum is somewhere between 170 and 185 (millions to tens of millions of IQ test results which were recorded).
Even then, you need special tests to distinguish between anyone with IQ higher than about 160 - all those people get the same (perfect) score on regular IQ tests.
So: claiming to have an IQ of 276? Bullshit. The guy whose parents claimed he scored 210 on an IQ test? Also bullshit. To get 210, there would have to have been ~500 billion IQ test results recorded.
How many people would you estimate exist?
Between 8 and 9 billion. But "impossible" means a chance of zero, and 8 billion / 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 0, so it's not impossible. The chances that he's lying or delusional are vastly higher of course, but that's no reason to use "impossible" incorrectly.
Impossible is almost always a colloquialism, almost everything is possible is you accept a low enough probability of success. We are talking about something less likely than almost anything else ever called impossible.
No, I think you are misunderstanding. IQ does not describe the likelihood of someone being that smart. It just means you order a number of people by their „intelligence“, the one in the middle is defined as 100 and then it depends on how many other people are in that line which IQ number the person at the end of the line gets. So it’s impossible because the definition of IQ is such that a certain number doesn’t come up without a certain number of measurements.
It‘s as if you would say 150% of all people are female. That is impossible, not just unlikely.
Depends on the exact "IQ" test but many do not have an upper bound. The thing to understand about IQ tests is that they were designed and are primarily used as a diagnosis tool by psychologists to identify learning deficiencies. There really isn't much evidence that having a 180 vs a 140 IQ means a whole lot of anything beyond one's ability to take that specific test. If anything, having an extremely high score outside of the normal range may indicate neuro-divergence and likely savant syndrome. Some people are savants in specific ways - working memory, pattern recognition, language skills, etc. IQ tests certainly test several different categories of intelligence, but also certainly leaves out a few other known forms of intelligence.
Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
> Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
“Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used.
Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145).
Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds.
Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success.
All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
Yes they do. Not that it ever stopped people from making claims about having higher IQ.
IQ 160 means that you are 1 in 30,000 of your age group. That means that to calibrate a test that can measure that high, the authors had to test more than 30,000 people in each age group (depending on what statistical certainty you need, but it could be 10x the number for reasonable values). Not sure how large the age groups typically are, but the total number of people necessary for calibration is counted in millions. You have to pay them all for participating in the calibration, and that's not going to be cheap.
And with values greater than IQ 160, the numbers grow exponentially. So I am rolling to disbelieve than anyone actually calibrated tests for such large numbers. (Especially once the numbers start to exceed the total population of Earth, which is around IQ 190.)
There are separate tests for the extremes, but obviously less researched because the further out you go the less they have to work on.
Many years ago, while unemployed, I was sent for a intelligence and dyslexia test (because of the very same perceived waste of potential that the article talks about). I was not dyslexic but scored above the range that the intelligence test could measure. The professor(I believe he was moonlighting for research funding) performing the test talked about the upper range tests, but said they were very long, required specialists to conduct and there's seldom any reason to investigate where you are in the upper range.
Then we went on to waste a huge amount of time talking about human perception and I remember describing an idea that finally seems to be feasible because the new Steam VR headset does it and calls it Foveated rendering.
I can't specifically recall the date of this but the tester was recording results on his palm pilot, which was a flash new thing at the time.
Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150.
When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter.
So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
> Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.
Con artist skill of 276, maybe.
You’re assuming he’s not playing at the Next Level(R)
Every 15 iq points makes you 1 standard deviation above the median. That means if you legitimately have an IQ of 276, you would 1 in 2.3 * 10^31, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of humans in history.
“What about second breakfast?” (Tolkien 27:3)
> his self-reported IQ of 276
In other words, this news is a completely irrelevant piece of information.
It's relevant, just not in terms of assessing good actual IQ.
This guy is a fraud, he isn't measured by any legit institute, only by some random one which stated he is intelligent and he claims he was measured at 276 IQ.
He's low-key just trolling at this point, aaying he wants asylum in the US and making videos about how jesus/God is real with some scientific methods etc.
Just go check out his YouTube you'll see what I'm talking about.
This is a weird argument.
First off, we don't have a good way to actually measure an individual's intelligence. IQ is actually meant to correlate with g which is a hidden factor we're trying to measure. IQ tests are good insofar as you look at the results of them from the perspective of a population. In these cases individual variation in how well it correlates smooths out. We design IQ tests and normalise IQ scores such that across time and over the course of many studies these tests appear to correlate with this hidden g factor. Moreover, anything below 70 and above 130 is difficult to measure accurately, IQ is benchmarked such that it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Below 70 and above 130 is outside of two standard deviations.
So, in summary, IQ is not a direct measure of intelligence. What you're doing here is pointing at some random guy who allegedly scored high on an IQ test and saying: "Look at how dumb that guy is. We must be really bad at testing."
But to say we don't know what intelligence is, is silly, since we are the ones defining that word. At least in this sense. And the definition we have come up with is grounded in pragmatism. The point of the whole field of research is to come up with and keep clarifying a useful definition.
Worth also noting that you can study for an IQ test which will produce an even less correlated score. The whole design and point of IQ tests is done with the idea of testing your ability to come up with solutions to puzzles on the spot.
> IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence.
IQ means a lot of things (higher IQ people are measurably better at making associations and generating original ideas, are more perceptive, learn faster, have better spatial awareness).
It doesn't give them the power to predict the future.
It is less meaningful than that. It identifies who does well at tests for those things. That is not the same thing as being "better" at such things, it often just means "faster". IQ tests are also notorious for cultural bias. In particular with the word associations, they often just test for "I'm a white American kid who grew up in private schools."
And I say this as one of the white amercian kids who did great on those tests. My scores are high, but they are not meaningful.
When I was a young kid my eldest sister (who was 17 years older than me) was an educational psychologist and used to give me loads of intelligence tests - so I got pretty good at doing those kinds of tests. I actually think they are pretty silly, mostly because I generally come out very well in them...
It somewhat indicates better pattern recognition so I might give them advantage on predicting things in general. Not that it will make them prophets or oracles. But Prediction from higher IQ person is more likely to be correct. Not that world cannot be illogical and go against those predictions.
Pattern matching is completely irrelevant when dealing with something that doesn’t follow patterns, such as stock prices
How would you measure these?
- making associations
- generating original ideas
- more perceptive
...
"spatial awareness" I can see though
> What I deeply believe is: We're never going to invent superintelligence, not because its impossible for computers to achieve, but because we don't even know what intelligence is.
Speak for yourself, not all of humanity. There are plenty of rigorous, mostly equivalent definitions for intelligence: The ability to find short programs that explain phenomena (compression). The capability to figure out how to do things (RL). Maximizing discounted future entropy (freedom). I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we don't know what intelligence is, just because they lack it. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when the word isn't even defined!
How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy? How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies? How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium? How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self? How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding irony or picking up subtle social cues? Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently? How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively? How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds?
Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come?
Can you tell me which part of an IQ test or your "rigorous, moslty equivalent definitions for intelligence" capture any of them?
How's this: "I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we know what intelligence is, just because they do well within the narrow definition that they made up. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when their definition of it fits their strengths and excludes their weaknesses!"> How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy?
What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions. You have to be good at predicting other's predictions to do this well.
> How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies?
You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
> How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium?
As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
> How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self?
They are better at explaining a phenomenon (their self).
> How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding complex, multi-faceted irony or picking up subtle social cues?
Refer to the above. Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
> Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently?
Compression = finding short programs that recover the data.
> How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively?
Quite often not an intelligence problem.
> How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds?
"incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds," however will you do this? Oh, I know! Your brain will have to come up with a small circuit that compresses other people's brain pretty well, as it doesn't have enough capacity to just run the other brain.
> Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come?
I am actually pretty good at pretty much all of these compared to the average person.
> What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions.
And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
> You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false. A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
> As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often.
People like Tolkien and Martin? Note taking as a sign of poor skill/intelligence is a wildly novel take from my point of view.
> Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
> interpersonal conflicts... Quite often not an intelligence problem.
Oh, I think this will get at the root of our misunderstandings. I believe I've seen this attitude before. Before I jump to conclusions: Why exactly do you say this skill is not intelligence-based?
> And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy.
> A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
Yeah, that's the sense of "better" I was going for. I could have been more clear here, so I'm glad you figured out what I meant.
> Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
It was a not-so-kind way of saying, "don't point at vague ideas to obscure what you really mean and make it difficult for others to understand what you mean to keep your opinion unassailable."
> Why exactly do you say this skill [resolving conflicts] is not intelligence-based?
Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability. That or a fundamental value difference (you want my food, I want my food).
> Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability.
This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Second, revolving conflicts is not the same thing as getting into them, so it's unclear why bring that up at all.
True. I expect most conflicts come from people preferring not to think, and I also expect most conflicts escalate from people preferring not to think. Those are separate statements, and I only said the former.
> This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Eh, I don't think it implies that, and I also don't think that is true.
Ok, but then... what does any of that have to do with "conflict resolution is not usually a function of intelligence"?
What you need for conflict resolution is usually a willingness to try to resolve the conflict. In rare situations, where communication and time is limited, you can actually run into the issue where you have to be smart enough to figure out what the other person wants (and see if you can come up with a mutually beneficial offer), but often in real life you can just spend more time thinking and ask them what they want.
Reducing comedy to 'subverting predictions' and empathy to 'compression algorithms' is like explaining music as 'organized sound waves', technically defensible yet completely missing the point. Missing the forest for the trees is an objective sign of limited metacognition, by the way.
The fact that you claim to be 'above average' at empathy and social cues while writing this robotic dismissal that completely misses the point (I asked for measurement methods, you provided questionable definitions) is the ultimate proof of my argument. You haven't defined intelligence, you've just compressed the meaning of it until it's small enough to fit inside your ego.
I purposefully do not give out methods to measure intelligence, because people can train on them. I knew you wanted that, but that does not mean you get what you want. I also find it strange how you expect me to be empathetic in a way that makes you feel good about yourself, when you deserve no such compassion after pulling the dark arts on me.
That's ok, me and my "dark arts" will have to make do without your "compassion", somehow. And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something. You sound young, so I hope one day you "find a short program" to recover that data.
That last part was not sarcasm, in case you have any trouble picking it up.
> I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something.
It was the first edit where I added them, since I could not reply to your post, and I removed them once I could reply. Yes, I lost my temper. You did too (and first)... you're just less honest and put up a facade of politeness.
> And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
Is the goal here to provoke me enough to get what you want? lol. Maximally adversarial.
Honestly not sure if this is a bit, it's so on-the-nose... Taking it at face value, you are literally claiming to know precisely what intelligence is? You would be the first to know if so. You should probably publish quickly before someone steals your definition!
In your post is demonstrated one of the deep mysteries of intelligence: How can a smart person make such a dumb assertion? (I'll give a hint: consider that "intelligence" is not a single axis)
I think Solomonoff beat me by about 70 years, and Wissner-Gross & Freer by about 10 years. Even if I had something novel to publish in this area, I think I would rather do something like solve ARC-AGI and make a lot of money.
If that's true, why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?
1. Religious mysticism. The murkier people are on concepts like thinking, consciousness, and intelligence, the easier it is to claim they include some metaphysical aspect. Since you cannot actually pin down the metaphysical aspect, they must claim it is because you cannot pin down the physical aspect.
2. People do not like feeling less intelligent than other people, so they try to make the comparator ill-defined.
#2 is not relevant, and it also seems basically untrue.
So your belief is that the global scientific community broadly agrees that "intelligence" has not been rigorously defined because the global scientific community is trapped in religious mysticism?
I am going to be honest, and I'm not saying this as a jab - this is starting to sound completely disconnected from reality. The people who study intelligence are not, as a rule, mired in metsphysical hand-waving.
Huh? You asked, "why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?" That's what I answered. Did you mean to ask a different question, "why is there broad consensus among people who research intelligence that it is ill-defined?" Which kinds of people are you talking about? The information theorists? The machine learning researchers? The linguists? The psychologists?
The information theorists generally agree it has a precise definition, though they may choose different ones. The machine learning researchers typically only know how to run empirical experiments, but a small group of them do theory, and they generally agree intelligence is low Kolmogorov complexity. The linguists generally agree it cannot be defined, in the nihilistic sense, but if you posit a bunch of brains, then words have meaning by being signals between brains and intelligence is moving the words closer to the information bottleneck. I don't know what the psychologists say on the matter, though I wonder if they have the mathematical tools to even say things precisely.
Ok.. Let’s ask a different question. Assuming development of super-intelligence is possible.. How do you measure it? What criteria satisfies the “this is super intelligence”? You honestly sound like most pseudo-intellectuals I hear discussing this very topic..: Ironic how you think you’re the brilliant one and it’s others who are stupid… Actually not really ironic a fool doesn’t know he is a fool.
I literally gave you the criterion. You can measure, "I have this model that is supposed to compress data. I have this data. Does it compress the data into fewer bits than other models? Than humans?"
Or, "I have this game and this model. Does the model win the game more often than other models or humans?"
Or, "I have this model that takes in states in an environment and outputs actions. I have this environment. Does the actions it outputs have a higher discounted future entropy than other models or humans?"
tbf you started with what intelligence is in rejecting their claim of being the smartest: ability to predict the future
This isn't even that. If I'm a person others may take as a reference and I hold Bitcoin, it is in my interest to publicly state that Bitcoin is going to increase in value, because that in itself makes it increase in value and it's good for me.
But doing what is in one's best interest isn't necessarily the more intelligent decision. In a rat society, the more "intelligent" rats can possibly be better at acquiring resources to survive if selective pressure is put upon those with such talents but can just as well be early signifiers of 'behavioral sinks'[0]. Not to mention, certain illnesses, mental and otherwise can change motive regardless of IQ.
Actions don't necessarily dictate intelligence. The goal of life has to be defined to make such arguments. For example, using a maze as an analog you could argue the more intelligent person can arrive to the end faster and more elegantly but with life, it has no such defined and agreed on ends. If we're arguing that selfishness is a sign of intelligence then that view is quite myopic.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
Exactly. We don't have a good definition of intelligence and I don't think we ever will. Like all social concepts, it is highly dependent on the needs, goals, and values of the human societies that define it, and so it is impossible to come up with a universal definition. If your needs don't align with the needs an AI has been trained to meet, you are not going to find it very intelligent of helpful for meeting those needs.
You're quite literally babbling. If a word has no good definition, it ceases to be a word. All you really mean is you use the word "intelligence" very loosely, without really knowing what you mean when you use it. You just use it to point at a concept that's vague in your head. That does not mean you could not make that concept more precise, if you felt inclined to be more introspective. It also does not mean that the precise idea I think of when I use the word "intelligence" is the same as your idea. But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically, as long as we both have precise definitions in mind.
> But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically
Who is babbling? The number of concepts in human language that have no mathematical formalization far outnumber the ones that do, lol.
Yes, we can, obviously, come up with shared, mathematically precise definitions for certain concepts. Keep in mind that:
A. These formal or scientific definitions are not the full exhaustion of the concept. Linguistic usage is varied and wide. Anyone who has bothered to open an introductory linguistics textbook understands this.
B. The scientific and mathematical definitions still change over time and can also change across cultures and contexts.
I can assure you that someone who has scored very high on an IQ test would not be considered "intelligent" in a group of film snobs if they were not aware of the history of film, up to date on the latest greats, etc. etc. These people would probably use the word intelligent to describe what they mean (knowledge of film) and not the precise technical definition we've come up with, if any, whether you like it or not.
My point is not that it is impossible to come up with definitions, my point is that for socially fluid concepts like intelligence, which are highly dependent on the needs and circumstances of the people employing the word, we will likely never pin it down. There is an asterisk on every use of the word. This is the case with basically every word to more or lesser degree, that's why language and ideas evolve in the first place.
My whole point is that people that don't realize this and put faith in IQ as though it is some absolute, or final, indicator of intelligence are dumb and probably just egotists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty and want reassurance that they are smart so that they can tell other people they are "babbling" and feel good about themselves and their intellectual superiority complex (read: self justified pride in being an asshole).
My claim is that this high variability and contextual sensitivity is a core part of this word and the way we use it. That's what I mean when I say I don't think we'll ever have a good definition.
EDIT: Or, to make it a little easier to understand. We will never have a universal definition of "moral good" because it is dependent on value claims, people will argue morality forever. My position is that "intelligence" is equally dependent on value claims which I think anyone who has spent more than five minutes with people not like themselves or trained in different forms of knowledge intuitively understands this.
Babbling in the mathematics sense: no information transmitted.
I agree with you in the linguistic sense on the word 'intelligence'. Everyone has their own colloquial meaning. That doesn't make their definitions correct. If someone says, "exponential growth," just to mean fast growth, they're wrong (according to me). It's impossible to have universally agreed upon definitions, but we can at least try to standardize some of them. If you only care about intelligence in regards to a specific niche, add adjectives not definitions.
IQ tests measure 'intelligence' in the general, correct sense of the word. Not perfectly, but they're pretty good. If you care about a specific task, you can finetune on that task. While a generally intelligent agent will do better than a less intelligent agent at pretty much all tasks, it can still be defeated by test-time compute.
> According to Yoo, by the time he was 1, her son learned both the Korean alphabet and 1,000 Chinese characters by studying the Thousand Character Classic, a sixth-century Chinese poem.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong
Is that true? How is that even possible? Like, biologically.
Not sure it is, so I assume a lot of stretching of the truth is involved. Most twelve month olds struggle to support their head, are just learning to shape their mouths to form syllables, and have only had eyes capable of resolving letters on a page for a few months. IQ won’t make blurry images sharp, or your neck muscles stronger.
> Most twelve month olds struggle to support their head
I don't know about the other claims, but this one is false. It would be somewhat concerning if a 6-month-old struggled to support their head.
Bent over, as in reading, for long periods of time? (Admittedly it’s been a while)
If a 12 month old can’t support its head that’s a big problem. That’s a 4-6 month milestone. 12 months is starting to walk.
My son started walking at 8.5 months. He's got a 3.5 month head start on those 12 month walking late bloomers. I have very high expectations. I wonder where his walking skills are going to take him one day, but this comment worries me because he has so far not shown any interest in the Korean alphabet.
Wow that is quite a feat! All of my kids started walking between 13-14 months.
I heard that walking that early is actually not good because bones are not prepared but still kudos to your kid.
> Most twelve month olds struggle to support their head
Skill issue. Needs more belly time!
My nephew was reading at age two… he is obviously a very special kid, but no one really pushed him to do that. Apparently this would kind of freak people out in public.
I’m not sure if reading before age one is biologically possible, but I have a surprising data point in my life, so who knows.
My daughter turns two today, and she points out about half of capital letters when we’re reading a book. “That’s A”, etc.
Bullshit detectors are blaring. Asian parent embellish the intelligence of their child without any verification. From what I understand Kim Ung-yong himself said many of the stories about him when he was young were misunderstood or exaggerated.
I guess it's not clear what they mean by learned the alphabet. Could point to the character and say the sound I guess? Know their meaning (you couldn't verify this easily if they cant talk)?
It's considered prodigious to be able to read at 3. I guess recognizing characters is short of that, but barely. And at 1? Im open to more information but I see no reason to think its true.
Age reckoning in South Korea (and other east Asian countries) is quite different than what you might expect. Age 1 in this context could be up to 3; if year 1 is your birth date and you age up at the new year, you could be "2 years old" while being alive for only 3 days. It could also work the other way around if they follow one of the other methods. Pretty interesting and not yet fully standardized!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
Thanks, I'm gonna start using East Asian age reckoning to indicate how many professional years of experience I have.
> Langan has not produced any acclaimed works of art or science. In this way, he differs significantly he differs significantly from outsider intellectuals like Paul Erdös, Stephen Wolfram, Nassim Taleb, etc.
Paul Erdős is the only outsider intellectual on that list, IMO.
(Also note that ő and ö are different!)
Can you even be called an "outsider" when everyone who recognizes the name associates it with "eccentric but well respected mathematician who was well liked enough in the community that people would regularly let him sleep in their homes for days on end"? According to his wikipedia page, Erdős collaborated with hundreds of other mathematicians. That's the very opposite of being an outsider IMO.
210 on a standard IQ scale (15 points per std dev) would mean more than 7 std deviations, order of 10^-12
it's hard for me to not reject the article already for it's click bait headline...
ps: 170 is 4.666 std dev, about 10^-6. that's very rare, hard to measure but at least real.
Yeah, IQ tests don't really go above 160 precisely because there's no way to statistically validate the result. There aren't enough people.
Someone can design a test and claim it determines IQ up to 210, but there's no way to statistically validate that so it's simply meaningless.
yes, and there were other scales with other std deviations, decades ago. but that really shouldn't be a headline any more.
to me the 210 simply signals a certain distance of the author to the topic. that may be unjust, but I can't help it.
If you just take the statistical definition of IQ and run with it, AFAIK the smartest person alive will be at something like 190 IQ. If you really run with it, the smartest person that has ever lived should be around 200.
As a New Zealander, I have often wondered about the standard deviation of sheep intelligence.
Chris Langan is a fraud, and not even a good one, he claims to have discovered a revolutionary new neural network architecture but lost the napkin he wrote it on.
This is my favorite video mocking Langan, made by someone smarter than him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57IN9sBhYyg
Yes, but focusing on that is pretty much the opposite of the intent of the article.
It keeps astounding me that people assign value to a score whose purpose was mainly intended to find outliers in the education system as being anything besides that.
Or to quote the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking: "People who boast about their IQ are losers".
I've never understood IQ tests. Granted, i have only seen the beginning of some of them where they show you those 3/4 figures and tell you to choose the "next one" ... I have never had a clue of what am I supposed to look for.
Maybe I am just extremely stupid. But then I'm a walking example that you can be averagly successful even being dumb as a rock, if you are stubborn enough haha.
The whole "Heaven is real because this guy with high IQ said so" is extremely cringe. They treat him like a show pony lol.
There are no such thing as 210 IQ.
It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth.
These absurd claims about IQ is almost evidence that the claimant are nowhere close. For starters, any IQ tests are not going to be normalized to that range because it is impossible to normalize to that range as there are 0 realistic samples.
> It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth.
why can't you use historical population? like, the total amount of humans that ever existed? rough google shows around 100billion. seems legit that in the history of humanity, we could pop out someone so intelligent? But I do agree that IQ is probably a decent signal but entirely meaningless as sole measurement.
The other problem with IQ is that it's not a fixed scale, so you can't really compare IQ scores across time. An IQ of 100 is average by definition. Even if the average "intelligence" (or whatever IQ measures, because it doesn't seem to be intelligence as people think of intelligence) rises or falls over time, that average will always be a 100 IQ.
why couldn't you? i've always imagined IQ as the raw potential? or am I misunderstanding
It's not raw, in the sense that it's not an objective measurement. It's a comparison with other humans of the same age that took the same tests. 100 IQ means that you score in a perfectly average way, you're better than 50% of people that took that test and worse than 50% other people that took that test, it's a comparison, not really an absolute score.
So, to compare 100 IQ now with 100 IQ 50 years ago is hard, since you're not using the same test anymore.
There's an effect called the Flynn Effect which is essentially an inflation of IQ, so the tests are changed every few years so that it keeps the same distribution (so that the averagely intelligent human would score 100)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
In fact, you can't always compare the IQ tests of 2 humans alive, because the given score is comparing you to the other people of your age, not to the global population. So if you compare the IQ of a kid and middle aged man, it doesn't mean that one is more smart than the other in an absolute way (it's more a theoretical potential)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that people in the '60s were twice as smart as people now.
The average IQ of the people then would be 100, and the average IQ of people now would also be 100, even though there was a huge difference in intelligence. This is because 100 is defined as being the average rather than being an absolute measure.
Ah. okay yeah that makes sense. I didn't realize it's a relative measurement. I'm surprised it's not more robust. Something like using historical results to compare against, and updating tests in a very standardized way where the math/logic is always fairly similar, but the fact checking/knowledge that requires understanding of current world might be different data wise, but tests similar attributes or qualities.
That's only true if you renorm. Look up the Flynn effect.
side note: the flynn effect is reversing in most developed countries, and started doing so between 1991-1997.
That one person in our entire history somehow got tested accurately (is that even possible? there isn't any sense or point for any IQ test to even go into that range, because what would you be baselining and verifying the test against?) and is advertising about it? Count me skeptical.
It does bring to mind the concept of history’s smartest person, though:
* Ug, the hunter gatherer
* Definitely could have invented fire-cooking if it didn’t predate homo-sapiens
* Can design novel knots and traps from scratch
* Second best stone knapper in the tribe without even trying (Og is better at knapping but that is all he does)
* Predicts movements of roaming antelopes faster than anyone else, and his extrapolations are accurate for days longer
* Can handle 200 social contacts (this skill is useless because the tribe is only 40 people big).
Someone crazy smart is far more likely to take an IQ test at some point in their life. Ask the opposite - how hard would it be to overlook the fact that a 3 year old is doing fucking calculus? That's just insane. There is virtually no chance that gets looked over.
That's not really how statistics works.
It is not impossible to roll two sixes on a single roll of two dies because it is more likely you won't.
It's absolutely possible, but it means that you need a lot of good evidence for a 210 IQ to outweigh the odds that the score is a mistake or a lie.
Even if we could positively confirm that the person is smarter than literally every human who has ever lived... that would be about IQ 200, still far from IQ 210. (The required number of humans grows exponentially.)
IQ isn't some intrinsic property that we can measure that has a probability distribution. It's something we construct to have a specific probability distribution. Essentially, you have >145 IQ not because 0.1% people happen to have that high of an IQ but because we define 145 IQ to be the cutoff between the smartest 0.1% of the population and the dumbest 99.9%.
As a consequence, an IQ above ~3 standard deviations is basically unmeasurable with more tests, and by 6 standard deviations I'm not sure is even possible to theoretically construct since I don't think what it's trying to measure can be meaningfully defined to discriminate the order of just 8 people on the entire planet.
That's right. If the event has a 1 in 390B chance, and there are 8B tries, you would expect to observe the event 2% of the time you conduct the 8B tries. So if you did 8B tries 50 times you would expect it to happen once. And its something higher than 8B - current population isn't the correct sample size.
There's a lot of things that are theoretically possible, but to realistically consider them based on the known likelihood is something I'm not entertaining here.
That's assuming that the distribution is purely gaussian and nothing weird happens at the tails.
I agree 276 is unlikely (and how would you even test/norm such a thing?)
It's not impossible, but improbable.
Practically speaking, it's impossible to roll 6 one hundred times in a row on fair dice. Not technically impossible, but we each get to calibrate our skepticism based on how far out the probabilities are.
In this case we can be sure the dice aren't fair because there's significant motivation for them not to be, or at least it's easy to imagine a manufacturing defect in the dice.
This is a 1 in 50 chance we are dismissing as practically impossible though.
Everyone who actually studied psychometrics has to upvote this.
(Which is why it stays at the bottom of the HN comment thread.)
It's more likely that someone screwed up on the test, or that he cheated somehow. Maybe he's articulate and good at solving logic puzzles, but his Wikipedia article clearly shows that the guy has a screw loose.
You can solve every one of the logic puzzles and it should not give you any score that high, unless it's a specifically designed bogus test to make certain person look and feel good.
It's like saying your regular thermometer returned a reading of 1000C, sure buddy.
We only have 8 billion people on Earth _today_. Over 100 billion have lived through history, they say.
Also just because it's statistically unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen.
All else being equal, the very first human is just as likely to have had 210 IQ as the one born this morning.
How can person have 210 IQ in isolation? The whole points system is based on standard deviation. What is this first person's IQ deviating from?
That assumes a normal distribution.
I thought IQ was specifically designed to be normally distributed?
That’s true.
Also, this is where theory meets reality.
Defining something as “the average” or “one std deviation “ is strange when the population is unmeasured and changing.
There is no assumption, that is the definition of IQ.
Is human intelligence a normal distribution? Probably not. But IQ is extrapolated as such, and probably useless anyway. Which make absurd claims like this even more laughable.
IQ is offset and scaled with the goal of producing that normal distribution, but that process is informed by the available data. Outliers don't get forced onto the curve, because there definitionally isn't enough data to figure out how outlying they are as a percentile.
Exactly.
When I was at Google a long time ago, the hiring criteria were simple: Smart, and gets things done.
A lot of people are smart, but don't get much brilliant work done. Even more people do a lot of work, but aren't very smart about it.
To be a genius with important contributions, you need to have both the brains and the work ethic.
To be clear, if the quality and quantity of output of the hard worker exceeds someone who works hard and is smart about it, smart and hard would be preferable?
Right, the reason a certain demographic can't get hired right now is because they aren't smart or hard-working.
Intellectual horsepower is just one element. If you're trying to build the world's fastest car, you can't just grab the world's most powerful engine and call it a day. If you can harness it, sure – it could provide an edge. But there are a lot of other elements that come into play.
I often think about exposure to music, and the fact that Einstein liked to play around on his violin. My suspicion is that this was more than just a hobby – and that these context switches, and exposure to different types of creative thought, all played into his discoveries.
It’s probably even simpler… they simply don’t have that much “intellectual horsepower” in the first place.
It just’s an artifact of testing methodologies that can’t resolve very lumpy or spiky intelligence.
And therefore ends up being confused with genuine supergenius which is more correlated to the total area under the curve, so to speak.
The fact that you can do poorly (by external measure) despite high IQ doesn't really mean much. It correlates well with a swath of positive outcomes and I'd still take legitimate 150 IQ (for myself, for my kids) over virtually any other real-world ability. I think only looks are even in the running here.
It's not just that IQ allows you to succeed. It allows you to navigate the modern world. I see people having trouble with pointers, simple abstractions, basic diagrams, or statistics and wonder: what am I missing? And I'm no von Neumann to not miss anything.
If I could choose for myself and family, I'd suggest something more like 120, maybe 125. More IQ is frequently worse for well being. The benefits from correlations with positive factors get overwhelmed by emergent negative factors. Consider the stupid statement many smart people make "people are so stupid" (when in fact they are normal and the smart person is saying that they are on the upper end of the distribution). It reflects a fact of aloneness; a lack of peers; exclusion from socially controlled circles of success; endlessly watching struggle and underperformance; being stuck in a world that is dysfunctional because making it more functional is "too hard" for others; unlocking "because you're smart you have to do it for them"; and so many more little tortures and asynchronous social bullshit.
This reminds me of Liu Zhiyu who won a gold medal for China at the IMO in 2006 and was offered a full scholarship to MIT but turned it down to become a monk.
I think wisdom and peace is more valuable than raw IQ and I think Zhiyu and Ung-yong and even Langan realized this, wanted nothing to do with "The Machine", and chose their life trajectories accordingly.
> Liu Zhiyu
From Google, that bro is back, married, and runs a (probably quite profitable) psychiatry business now.
Be wary of success measure games, a lot of people with a lot less intelligence/capability are doing so much. Luck and network effects trump intelligence, ability and so on. It’s better to always just reflect on yourself…unless you’re some unlucky schmuck that someone took time out of their precious life to personally disadvantage somehow.
The other thing that’s occurred to me lately is how some “impressive” resumes and experience just won’t be possible about nation state level backing. So yeah, if you’re going to talk about games, be aware that there’s always more than one at play.
With age and experience I learned that intelligence has a lot of axis, IQ test is only one of them, it is meaningful but narrow. My favorites questions I like to ask people I know or I don't see often are: what are you passions, what do you like in life? It's often much more interesting about what it reveals of the person, than their ability of solving logic puzzles.
I like to think that Robin Williams was as intelligent as Stephen Hawking, but they both excelled at very different types of information to process and express insight on. Also some of the best athletes in the world are processing information and making decisions in ways those 2 never could.
I mean.. I don’t think Stephen hawking’s information processing was the issue here..
Kim Ung-yong (the one from the article with 210 IQ sounds like a good guy with a respectable career and a healthy self-conception. He even describes himself as happy!
It seems like 210 IQ has proven to be plenty for him, although measurement of his IQ and intense childhood pressure may not have been beneficial to him.
It is entirely possible he would not have reached where he is in his life without all of that negativity. No life is complete without deep and woeful strife.
Maybe. From one¹ of the articles quoted in OP:
> According to reports, he was working at NASA at the age of eight, and in 1978, his name was recorded in the Guinness Book Of World Records for the highest IQ at 210.
> While his career as an academic genius was soaring to unprecedented heights, Kim Ung Yong decided to pull the plug on it abruptly. He returned to South Korea in 1978 and decided to pursue higher education at Chungbuk National University where he obtained his Ph.D. in civil engineering.
> The reason behind this decision was his growing dissatisfaction with the life of a genius. According to Mr. Kim, he missed out on many things in life while excelling academically. He spent his days couped up, deprived of the finer joys of life. His lifestyle also drew in some nasty rumors from the media.
> So, he left that life behind in pursuit of his own identity and a normal life with his family and friends. Though the media labeled him as a “failed genius”, a living proof of how things can go horribly wrong with gifted kids, Mr. Kim has no regrets about his decision. In a society that puts academic intelligence on a pedestal, he is adamant that a high IQ really doesn’t determine anything about a person’s character.
It seems like indeed he learned some valuable lessons. But it's also clear that he felt the extreme pressure was ruining his life at that time, and it took him off the (more prestigious— you can decide if you think it's "more valuable") path of science in favor of engineering.
If you asked him, he'd probably say that the most vital decision he ever made was rejecting the "deep and woeful strife" that came from his ultra-disciplined, intellectual, and otherwise profoundly empty childhood.
It also seems like he'd probably reject the notion of measuring him by "where he ended up in life", even if that judgment is favorable. If the more relevant question is "could he have wound up contented and emotionally healthy with some other kind of childhood", it seems hard to argue that the painful childhood he rejected is the only way that could have happened.
----
1: https://www.koreaboo.com/stories/south-korean-professor-once...
Ah, you misunderstand what I mean.
When I say "where he ended up in life", I don't mean his job, where he lives, etc. These are irrelevant material conditions. I mean who he is as a person. How he carries himself, his perspectives, the set of mental frameworks he's capable of utilizing, etc. Essentially "could he have wounded up contented and emotionally healthy" is what I assert is effectively impossible. How could he have? Without having the experience to internalize, process, interpret, and evade what is left to reject? How is he to know what he does not value? And my point even extends beyond that, it is not a utilitarian one.
> he'd probably say that the most vital decision he ever made was rejecting the "deep and woeful strife" that came from his ultra-disciplined, intellectual, and otherwise profoundly empty childhood.
This too isn't quite understanding what I mean, along a few axes. I think I'll cast the same point in different light and context:
No life which is spent from cradle to grave without ever knowing deep and personal loss can have claim to have been a proper or healthy life, or to be truly human at that. It is an existence left stunted and incomplete. The take away from this is not that we are to maximize our propriety or healthiness by killing those closest to us. What I broadcast is excruciatingly a non-dualistic, anti-utilitarian signal.
> it seems hard to argue that the painful childhood he rejected is the only way that could have happened.
I don't mean to imply that the environmental stress from being raised as a child prodigy is particularly unique in substance. Only that the stress (in a sense which extends beyond the shallow emotional sense of the word) with a valence aligned with the experiencer at that moment in time is an essential part to living.
See also: "Major IQ differences in identical twins linked to schooling, challenging decades of research" [1] [2]
I.e. the idea that IQ is some innate fixed quality has evidence against it. It seems obvious that this is the case, given that people get their children tutors so they can do better at IQ tests to get into schools...
[1] https://www.psypost.org/major-iq-differences-in-identical-tw...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169182...
> The most striking finding came from the 10 pairs with “very dissimilar” educational experiences. In this group, the average IQ difference was 15.1 points. This gap is approaching the average difference seen between two randomly selected, unrelated individuals, which is about 17 points
> The authors note some limitations to their work. The group with “very dissimilar” education contained only 10 twin pairs. While this represents all such published individual data from the last century, it is a small sample size
Thanks, the study is interesting, but needs further research.
There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality". There are two separate actual ideas being conflated there: that intelligence is an innate fixed quality (which is more or less definitional), and that IQ accurately measures intelligence (it doesn't, and we already knew that, but it's the best we have).
> There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality"
Actually yes there is; I have come across many people who believe this, specifically saying that IQ is fixed.
> that intelligence is an innate fixed quality
I would also disagree with this — intelligence can be increased, (e.g. through education, training, and practice), and also decreased, (e.g. by lifestyle / environment).
> You are allowed to like yourself.
Yes, of course, but how?! I don't right now, how do I go about doing that? Play more golf/chess/adult-tag/leetcode/etc? Talk to chaGPT/therapist? I ... I just don't even know where to start.
> You will never have enough IQ, nor money, nor time, nor energy. It's no excuse. You are enough -- no, no, you are plenty.
What the hell does this mean? Is this not a contradiction? What, probably obvious, thing am I missing here?
> But this is still about you. There exist no certificates nor trophies nor titles that can quench your thirst for permanence. If you worship human intelligence, 210 IQ is not enough. It is only plenty if you let it be.
I am so confused here! I'm not permanent! Only my works will survive me, and even then only the really good ones, and even then only the ones that the flukes of history deem passable.
What does plenty even mean here?
-
Man alive! This is hitting hard to me and I don;t even know why it does. Is this some sort of Escher-AI-scissor-statement thingy?
> > You are allowed to like yourself. > Yes, of course, but how?! I don't right now, how do I go about doing that?
You can start by deliberately being bored a bit, that allows some of the the inner noise and judgements to pass. And then there's also self-compassion.
IQ has an enduring mystique, but before getting to excited by it, people should ask themselves a question:
Does "IQ" measure something particularly useful or meaningful?
(I think, at best, it's a very incomplete measure of something quite vague and ill-defined.)
Yes. It correlates strongly with problem solving abilities on most tasks, predicts health outcomes, educational outcomes, career outcomes and finances all pretty significantly.
I don't see the particularly useful/meaningful part here.
Who knows what you're referring to, but generally IQ tests measure general mental abilities on things society generally finds good. That's fine, but general education does the same in far more detail and comes with a robust achievement measurement (grades, and graduation/degrees).
IQ competes with other measures that exist anyway and comes up short.
Grades aren't necessarily an indicator on if a person comprehends the educational material. Someone can visibly under-perform on general tests, but when questioned in-person/made to do an exam still recite the educational material from the top of their head, apply it correctly and even take it in a new direction. Those are underachievers; they know what they can do, but for one reason or another, they simply refuse to show it (a pretty common cause tends to be just finding the general coursework to be demeaning or the teachers using the wrong education methods, so they don't put a lot of effort into it[0].) Give them coursework above their level, and they'll suddenly get acceptable/correct results.
IQ can be used somewhat reliably to identify if someone is an underachiever, or if they're legitimately struggling. That's what the tests are made and optimized for; they're designed to test how quickly a person can make the connection between two unrelated concepts. If they do it quick enough, they're probably underachieving compared to what they actually can do and it may be worth trying to give them more complicated material to see if they can actually handle it. (And conversely, if it turns out they're actually struggling, it may be worth dedicating more time to help them.)
That's the main use of it. Anything else you attach to IQ is a case of correlation not being causation, and anyone who thinks it's worth more than that is being silly. High/Low IQ correlates to very little besides a sort of general trend on how quickly you can recognize patterns (because of statistical anomaly rules, any score outside the 95th percentile is basically the same anyways and IQ scores are normalized every couple years; this is about as far as you can go with IQ - there's very little difference between 150/180/210 or whatever other high number you imagine).
Everyone always interprets this guy's situation to mean that IQ tests aren't actually that accurate/are flawed as a tool.
But I think it's much more likely that intelligence itself is just a bit overrated amongst "intellectual" / white collar types, as in, people that define their identity and self-worth by how smart they are, or think they are.
At the end of the day, being disciplined, sociable, focused, or even just having a narrow set of interests is probably more of a recipe for success than mere raw intelligence. And ironically I think there are a lot of people that would be more successful – in careers, personal relationships, etc. – if they were a little bit less intelligent.
Intelligence is a lot like height. The world is designed for people of a certain level. If you're far below that, you're going to struggle. If you meet a certain threshold, you'll be fine.
And if you're far above, it may give you a slight boost, but is not going to magically propel you to success. You can do math in your head? Okay, your competitor will just use a calculator. You have impeccable spatial reasoning? Okay, the other guy will just draw himself a visual diagram.
There are only a few narrow domains where the raw processing power of your brain is going to automatically cause you to become richer or more successful than your peers. For everything else, luck, people skills, creativity and hard work are the dominant factors (in roughly that order).
The curse of intelligence is being able to see the world as it is. And (as TFA points out) the benefits is that then you also have the choice of what to do about it.
But talking about intelligence always brings visceral reactions. While we readily admit that someone can be stronger, or taller, the need to somehow negate that people can be genuinely smarter is somehow evil.
Also I disagree with comments saying we don’t have a good definition of intelligence. We have several but to me the most important is to plan ahead, and then be able to successfully improvise when the plan goes wrong.
What you worship owns you, and everyone worships something.
The modern world makes a lot of money off psychological vulnerabilities. Better to know yours than be unaware and played.
Reading the text of the article, and not just reacting to the title, I do think this article has a kernal of truth to it that resonates with me. It's not really talking about intelligence, but MEASURES, and how individuals contort themselves into what they believe is valuable.
But at the end of the day, we do not have an inherent value. I wonder if people that get hung up on these metrics and what value they seemingly hold either that a person is a whole person, not just some measurement about them. The world's tallest man also has a favorite food, favorite color, and hobbies. He has friends and family. The metric you assigned to him is not the totality of the man.
I say this because recently I've been struggling with work and I feel like I have to say to myself sometimes, I am more than just a source of income and health insurance to my family. To someone who isn't in my situation, it might seem silly, but it has been scary and stressful and in some ways I did say to myself, you have value because you provide. But we have money saved, and are in a stable situation, and I could always find a new job, but my ego assigned value to the job regardless despite my best efforts at pretending that I don't play games with corporations. The stress that keeping a 9 to 5 causes in my mind is entirely self-inflicted by me.
I guess what I'm saying is that I should value other things about myself more highly, or maybe even not value anything about myself if that makes sense. What value is there in in measuring my success, as long as I am honest about my efforts and happiness?
I will never conquer the entire world by 25, or have a billion dollars, so maybe I need to learn to measure less and focus on true personal accountability and happiness instead. Hopefully that's a simple task...
I wholeheartedly agree with the point of the article, but the phrase “You are enough” really grinds my gears for some reason. Enough for what?
I tend to agree, most platitudes are less impactful simply because your mind inserts what it already knows/autocompletes the phrase meaning because it's something so commonly heard. I read it as something like... you have enough resources to lead a life that has prosperity relative to the limited faculties of a human organism. That seems less catchy, and if you're too literal in your phrasing in writing, then you get the opposite problem where the reader limits their thinking to just what is written. Do you come to a different conclusion?
This phrase comes up alot in mindfulness and self-esteem related writings. I interpret it to mean that you don't have to do anything to justify your existence on the planet or prove your worth. I agree with this. But the phrasing of "you are enough" implies that it is possible to not be enough, but I don't think that's true since there's no bar that you have to meet, you just are.
FTA:
> Instead of competing in real games,
Define real games.
War.
It never was.
I can’t think of one genius that became really famous and successful that also didn’t have to work their friggin’ as s off or who had everything handed to them, or who didn’t have to collaborate with or appeal to normies to get ahead in this world.
“It’s a long way to the top if you want to Rock ‘n Roll”
There's always someone else just as smart, willing to work harder. On the other hand, there's an inexhaustible amount of work & new ideas to work on. If you don't want to do new things, most "old ideas" have been poorly executed: go redo them well.
intelligence is an abstract concept, and sure, iq is a lossy way to measure it. but the idea that you could quantify intelligence into a scalar is absurd on its face and impossible to take seriously
Perhaps 210 IQ isn't enough because IQ isn't a meaningful measurement.
That is the point, isn't it?
The title of the article is obnoxious.
The first part of the article puts down a person whose IQ is in the 140-180 range. If you read about the person, that part makes sense as an opinion.
The second part of the article explains that the person referred to in the title, the alleged 210 IQ, has chosen a middle manager job because it makes them happy.
> I'm trying to tell people that I'm happy the way I am.
The author never explains the problem they have with this person.
Instead, I think the title should be more along the lines of "an IQ of 176 does not make you a good person". I guess people would not engage if the conclusion was obvious? The baiting title is totally misplaced.
Actually, the whole treatment of Kim Ung-yong is even worse than I make out in this comment. I am left with a really negative impression of the author.
As I read it, the author is presenting a positive assessment of Kim Ung-yon's life in contrast to his negative assessment of Christopher Langan's.
I think you misunderstood the article. 210 IQ isn't enough. The man with 210 IQ is happy not because he has 210 IQ but because he made the choice to be happy.
Having a high IQ isn't enough - you must also choose to be happy.
> The first part of the article puts down a person whose IQ is in the 140-180 range. If you read about the person, that part makes sense as an opinion.
It's worse. In both cases the IQ scores are basically fake. The first one probably does not reach moderate 130 required for Mensa based on the report of repeatedly trying the same test and not passing some not-too-high bar the first time (the first _known_ time; the test is only valid when taken once).
The second one does not have any credible backing to their IQ score whatsoever and for all we know could be under 100.
Maybe, but what the article is really about is how these two people responded to being marked for greatness at a young age. I don't see a reason to disbelieve that part.
Then the article should be titled "being famous as a child is not enough". But then it would not be a very interesting article.
Also, it's not just "maybe" that neither of these people have exceptional IQ. It is more like "most certainly not, unless they have some strong proof, because they lied multiple times".
"author never explains the problem they have with this person"
As far as I can tell, the author doesn't have a problem.
The article is using common societal opinions on these people, which are demonstrated with quotes from those same people.
PSA: Chris Langan has never achieved a super high score on a real IQ test.
Since the 90's he is feuding with Rick Rosner, when they both edited the Mega Society’s journal Noesis, over the title of smartest guy. They both took an untimed Richard Hoeflin test (that maybe only a few hundred people have actually taken and therefore impossible to norm) with completely arbitrary scoring criteria and self-assigned “record setting” IQs.
Neither has any outstanding intellectual contributions to their name. They are weirdos who have made "being smart" their identity.
How is Langan thought of as a smart guy? I can't read further because this guy to me is either a grifter or suffering from mental illness. The linked interview doesn't surprise me at all, daily wire readers/listeners are just as gullible and exploitable as people who would think that Langan is smart.
Every smart person I've met in life so far has known that humility is key if you want other smart people to take you seriously. And to let your work speak for yourself.
It's somewhat similar to those YouTubers who help homeless people on camera. It's a paradox where if it's done on film it seems more self serving than generous but if it wasn't on film no one would know.
But there is a difference. Instead of going on film, smart people can produce actual works for others to read and validate.
> It's a paradox where if it's done on film it seems more self serving than generous but if it wasn't on film no one would know.
What is wrong with no one knowing?
Its not really a problem, and its old - its mentioned in the Bible (obviously not videos, but doing good publicly for status).
Nothing is wrong with no one knowing technically. Which is kind of the point. The desire to tell everyone how smart/generous you are is what makes others think you're a grifter and fraud (even if not), which is what an intelligent person would know and thus avoid.
> humility is key if you want other smart people to take you seriously
Why assume he wants other smart people to take him seriously more than he wants to be authentic?
IQ without emotional intelligence is like racing car with no tires.
All that raw power and no way to direct it in a useful manner.
IQ and EQ are two different things often not found in the same individual. IQ is being smart enough to know that something is happening. EQ is being smart enough to be able to convince other humans to do something about it.
High IQ low EQ folks often struggle in careers and life because they’re “right” but can’t get anything done.
The most successful tend to be high-ish IQ but with enough EQ to get things done. Those folks are unstoppable.
IQ and EQ are different things that we have labeled.
There are probably a very large number of skills along other vectors that we haven’t identified/labeled that are equally, more or less important.
IE and EQ do however positively correlate with each other.
High EQ correlates with manipulativeness and sociopathic behavior. So maybe their success can be chalked up to their willingness to sell out and kiss evil's ass.
What is the biggest problem: that smart people achieve too little, or that dumb people achieve too much?
I'd choose "smart people achieve too little." The reason is that, looking at the world around me (more or less) sustaining the lives of more than 8 billion people, I'm sure it's because of the scientific and inventive revelations of a few, not just the hard work of millions. (Sorry, millions, your work is important, but without those few, 99% of us would still spend much of our time just seeking and growing food). If the problem is fixed, maybe those 8 billion (or more) people would have much better, healthier lives without the risk of the upcoming climate fiasco. Just my two cents.
If they're dumb and achieve a lot... are they really dumb? Should intelligence be correlated with success?
So the lesson is that IQ tests are unreliable? Weird.
Smart comes in a lot of flavors.
My wife's nephew is the smartest person I've ever met (and I've met a lot of really smart people).
Aced the SAT as a teen, and interned at JPL, etc. Got a free full ride, wherever he wanted. He got his undergraduate at CalTech. Ph.D at Some midwest college -a good one, but can't remember which one -may have been Urbana-Champagne.
His mother was adamant that he have as normal a childhood as possible. She deliberately kept his K12 at a normal pace.
He's now a regular professor at a fairly good college (but not an Ivy League one).
He's married, has a kid, and two cats. Has a great life.
Part of me wants to say "What a waste!", but that part needs to get smothered with a pillow.
He's quite happy, and is doing something that he really wants to do.
Most of us could be so fortunate.
I've found "I.Q. smart" to be overrated. It opens a lot of doors, but it can also get in the way.
Many of my heroes have 2-digit IQs.
Wondering what being 'smart' means? Is it:
1. being right most of the time?
2. knowing a lot (breadth)?
3. knowing a couple things in depth?
4. knowing in breadth and depth?
5. understanding new things fast (which is only measurable by someone who knows more?)?
6. solving puzzle and brainteasers easily?
7. being able to speak multiple languages?
8. being self-taught in what people may claim to be complex subjects?
9. being able to derive truths that other people fail to see?
10. being less prone to cognitive biases?
11. Mental clarity and easier data acquisition and processing?
Or something else?
I've heard it defined as the ability to learn quickly. Not just in the narrow, academic sense, but also by observing the world and people and drawing conclusions about them. It has to do with pattern recognition and abstraction.
Usually these people are knowledgeable because they are constantly learning. Eventually they become wise.
What do you think of that definition?
I had heard that as well. But it is never clear to me what it consists in exactly. What are the tell-tale signs/examples?
I have probably met a lot of people who might be highly rated in terms of IQ but I haven't found anyone particularly clever so far. So I am curious.
That’s a great one!
Why would that be a waste? The average professor at any college would probably be as smart as your friend. Professors (at least in the field I did my PhD in) are smart as hell.
I have a fairly Ivy-League family, including a number of teachers and professors (I'm the redneck engineer).
This guy is in a league of his own. Pretty stunning.
I would be quite surprised if "any college professor" is at the same level.
That said, I am also very much a "maker and doer." I spent my career amongst folks sort of like him, but focused on producing stuff. He would have knocked most of them, into a cocked hat.
The average college professor did their PhD at an ivy league school and everyone said exactly what you're saying about them their whole lives. A professor job is extremely competitive.
Fair’nuff.
Not worth arguing about.
It just sounds like you're describing almost the ideal outcome for this person as a failure. They're actually incredibly successful if they've got tenure at a good American college.
Actually, I meant the opposite.
I apologize for being unclear.
Is it me or was that somewhat incoherent?
This reads like it was AI generated, was it?
Worked in education sector for a few months, and noticed that the aptitude tests that I've seen always lack one thing:
They don't check your memory association skills. You mostly solve patterns and logic puzzles, but future questions don't refer to the previous ones.
I don’t know, 210 is a lot. I’d expect him to solve the P =? NP problem during his morning coffe
People do well on a test of short term memory and pattern recognition and other people think it's a super power.
Nassim Taleb's book starts out as self indulgent, self aggrandizing nonsense. It's basically summed up as "probability won't help you when something happens that hasn't happened before". You don't say, what an incredible insight for the first 40 pages.
Christopher Langan does not have an IQ of 210.
He took a custom “iq” test of 48 questions, scored average, then retook the test knowing the questions, and got 47 right.
Bullshit on an IQ of 170 or 210
Well of course it is not enough. This is well known.
"Success" is hard to nail down. Is it academic success? SES succes? Job performance? It's all over the map.
However we know that :
IQ is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
Conscientiousness is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
Low neuroticism is correlated with the above somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2, with many definitions and studies being near the top of that range.
And there are other "personality" metrics that have been studied. It is very easy for someone who has an exceptional IQ to be sert back by neuroticism for example and exceptional IQ is near useless if the person does not have the conscientiousness to follow through on tasks, these people will likely be exceptional a "shallow" tasks.
I think this is well trodden ground.
Tangent: It's interesting that the author linked to an article that linked to Sirlin's article about "scrub mentality" rather than linking directly to Sirlin's article.
But I agree with what the author is trying to say: Intelligence is not enough to be successful. No one is going to pay you to "be smart". You have to do something with that intelligence that is worthwhile.
Which is why you have people like Richard Feynman who famously had just "an above average" IQ while contributing greatly to several fields of math and science.
Now, it could be that Feynman just didn't care about the test when he took it. Because he intuitively knew that "being smart" wasn't enough. You had to apply yourself. You have to put in the work and there are no real shortcuts.
Being successful is a multifaceted thing and there are many pitfalls. And the real trick seems to be avoiding as many pitfalls as possible. Being smart helps, but it's not a guarantee.
lordnacho mentioned people think of intelligence as magic, and that's a good way to put it. Every other quality we have as people is not really disputed. If you're taller, we acknowledge it. If you're faster, we can test it. If you're stronger in your arms, we can test it. Etc. And we accept the results. And we accept that if we want to change things, we have to do the work.
But not intelligence. For some reason, no one can be smarter than anyone else. And everyone has to be smart in something. And if you're smart in one thing, you can't be smart in others. We invent things like EQ, street smarts, book smarts, etc to try and put everyone on equal footing. But a lot of times, people who have higher IQs also have higher EQs. And when people talk about "street smarts", what they're really describing is a sort of institutional knowledge that can only be gained by living in an area as often these "street smarts" are highly local to a certain subset of streets. And people often mistake trivia for intelligence. They think knowing a fact makes one smart. It makes one knowledgeable. And often having a lot of knowledge can be beneficial to those with higher intelligence. But high intelligence is often apparent even in those with little knowledge. For instance, my wife is a special education teacher and she has a non-verbal autistic child in her class. He clearly does not have a lot of knowledge, but he's apparently very intelligent. He can work things out. He can make references. He grasps concepts quickly. He gets frustrated by his own inability to articulate his thoughts.
I never get tired of telling this story about high IQs. One of my employees was in Mensa. Brilliant guy, incredibly humble, with Windows Internals knowledge so deep Microsoft acquired a company where we developed an entire product that big companies thought was impossible. I'm convinced he joined Mensa mostly as a hobby, like some people do crossword puzzles, he took IQ tests.
He used to come back from the local Mensa chapter meetings with the best stories. According to him, watching a room full of geniuses try to solve basic organizational issues was exactly like attending the annual meeting of a very dysfunctional condo board. Same arguments, same confusion, just with a higher average IQ.
The premise of the article is Langan has a high IQ, but is a bad person because he's conservative? Major political parties you disagree with are not "poisonous rhetoric", and political articles like this really don't belong on HN. People may know things you don't, and they base their world view on experiences you may not have had.
If you disagree with my opinions, it means you aren’t as smart as me.
This a great intro to an article or even a book, but alone it kind of leaves you hanging. He should pair this with something
IQ by its own is not enough. A higher than average IQ is probably the result of a larger than average working memory, and maybe also some ability to make more "long-range" connections between concepts in the brain. That's raw processing power. But raw processing power isn't everything. You also need an otherwise healthy mind, the sustained motivation to accomplish great things and the ability to focus to dedicate enough time towards those goals.
For example if you read the biography of Von Neumann, it's remarkable that he was able to focus and work in the most noisy and distracting environments.
Its a failure to be the smartest person in the room. Or, if you think you are- you are likely not, and thinking about yourself instead of listening...
> Or, if you think you are- you are likely not
In my experience the gut feeling of being the smartest person in the room is often true. Many highly smart people don't have the social position that they are surrounded by like-minded or even smarter people.
The gauge I use for intelligence is how much stock a person puts into an IQ test.
In my view, people who are able to question the legitimacy or applicability of IQ as a general measure of "intelligence", an idea that is highly contextual, are probably intelligent. They are at least smart enough to question social conceptions and to recognize the contingent nature of such conceptions. People who uncritically view IQ as some kind of unassailable proof of "intelligence" may be good at solving certain classes of known problems but, I really am not surprised that they may lack the imagination to contribute meaningful things to society, as a blind faith in a measure developed by fallible human beings is indicative of limited thinking /creativity.
Obviously someone can score well on an IQ test and question its validity as a signifier of intelligence, just as one can score poorly and place a strong degree of faith in it—but the way someone approaches it, in either case, is a very telling indicator of their own intellectual biases and limitations.
Some years ago some TV show found presumably "the smartest man in Denmark". The title is disputed, obviously. Turns out he's basically some redneck type person who tinkers in his workshop, never held a job, just sells inventions/solutions to people who comes around asking for them. He put no value on IQ, but admitted that it might be what allows him do make a small living of his tinkering.
Then there's my wife's co-worker, member of Mensa and self-proclaimed intelligent person. She's barely functional in normal society, completely locked in a "I'm smart, so I'm right" mentality. Even if she may be technically correct, she completely fails to understand that rules might be wrong or needs to be bent to make society work. Yet somehow she also manages to overthink things, needlessly complicating things and designs procedures that requires a higher than average IQ to understand and gets upset when those procedures aren't followed. You'd think that smart people would design simpler and easier solutions, but apparently that's not a given.
IQ tests are a bit absurd if one looks at the changing definitions of intelligence over the past century.
Someone in the 1920s/30s would call the ability to solve equations or play chess well as signs of high intelligence. Not so long ago, translation of natural languages was considered a task requiring a good level of intelligence.
Each progress in AI changes the definition of intelligence as we realize that a machine finally able to do task X is not really as intelligent as we thought it had to be.
And today the AI/robotics industry struggles to build a machine that can perform the job of a room cleaner. Beating grand masters at chess was far easier.
if IQ tests are designed by people with lower IQ what does it say about high IQ scores?
Why would it say anything? The 100 meter dash wasn’t designed by the fastest 100 meter runner, but it’s still perfectly capable of identifying a winner.
Sure, but setting questions you theoretically need a certain threshold of ability in pattern recognition to pass without actually having that ability feels like trying to design a 100m dash whilst not really knowing what a sprint or a metre is. You might end up selecting for outlying distance runners instead...
Part of the test is the speed at which you get the answers.
So while one may not be able to solve the entire suite of questions within 10 minutes, we can know that someone who can is smarter than someone who can't.
> Yes, he actively promotes poisonous rhetoric -- ignore that for now.
Saying someone is poisonous (watch this two hour YouTube video for why) is cheap.
From TFA:
> But Langan is clearly a smart guy. He probably cleared 140+ on an IQ test. He speaks like a book.[1]
where that last sentence is a link to a local-TV segment
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-788Upky2Y
Langan's only recorded lines in that TV segment are:
> Bonjo! 'Mon, boy! > I think it's about, uh, 20 horses, two llamas, two cows. > This particular paper's on something called a conspansive manifold. > It's a-a theory that studies the relationship between mind and reality. In other words, what's out there in the real world, how does the mind relate to it? > Yes. [/] You don't. [/] It's not that simple. I happen to know there's a heaven, because I know you can use your will to create things. In other words, do you continue to exist after you die? Absolutely. Nothing in this universe is wasted. Nothing ever ceases to exist, not really. The essence always remains preserved. > We, ah, didn't have a lot of money. And the old man was always in need of money, so we had to go with a worklist. > Well, as a matter of fact, I had to fight my way through high school. > There's the foal, and there's Star, his mother. > I mean, why am I not a famous politician, or a, a, a, financier? filthy rich? Ah, some of the business things don't mean that much to me. I'd rather have some meaning in my life, and this is how I get it. [/] In construction, ranch hand, farmhand, cowboy, firefighter — I worked for the forest service about four years. Um, just anything I could get my hands on. > Jeannie was very very taken with the beauty of the place. As a matter of fact she started crying, she was looking at it, and I realized then I couldn't say no. > No, it can't be done. > There's a sort of mind that I call a garbage-trap sort of mind. [/] Usually that kind of mind does not belong to a person who is capable of deep thought. > Sometimes it's hard to find the words when somebody expresses love. When I went to visit my mother, for instance — she's been a little bit ill lately — I had to tell her that I loved her, and she told me that she loved me, and, and then there was a long period of silence, because what can you follow that up with?
That doesn't qualify as "speaking like a book" in my book. I'd be interested to see videos of people who do habitually speak in well-formed sentences; I'm sure such people exist, although (from that one five-minute TV segment) Langan doesn't seem to be one of them.
I was recently asked, "Did people in the past really talk like that?" (i.e. in complex sentences like they do in the dialogue of your average 18th- or 19th-century novel) and I unfoundedly opined that while the answer was probably "no, the literary style is always an exaggeration of the natural speaking style; 21st-century people don't speak exactly like their novels, either," it seemed plausible to me that when all your educated people start their careers studying Latin grammar and rhetoric for several years, they do end up with more unconscious respect for grammatical structure and therefore more of an ability to generate complex yet well-formed sentences on the fly. I'd be interested to see what the experts think.
Self-awareness is so much more important than IQ for real-world success in my opinion. IQ tests measure an individuals personal intellect, but in the real world what matters is how we're able to pair our mental capacity with that of others.
Redirecting an unhealthy obsession with being the smartest person in the room, to just being as self-reflective as possible is far healthier for well being, but I think also it improves outcomes.
Of course you need a base level of IQ too, but if you're reasonably smart just being able to take a step back and ask if you're being reasonable, if you might be wrong, why someone feels the way they do about you, this makes you much better at any task that involves some level of collaboration – which the vast majority of tasks do.
People who just have high IQ might on average be good at reasoning on their own, but their ability to reason with others – playing into their strengths and knowledge and into that of others is what allows them to exceed beyond their IQ in terms of outcomes.
For what it's worth, I find Langan really interesting. He's clearly a smart guy, but also delusionally self-confident in himself.
And I kinda get that honestly. I've had a few official IQ tests in my life and I'm pretty confident I have a fairly high IQ. I know I've found in most cases I'm well served to not pay much attention to what the average person thinks about most things, but when I find people who think well, especially if they have more knowledge in some area than myself I become obsessively self-critical when I feel we're unaligned on something. Generally speaking in these cases I'm likely to be wrong.
My guess is that Langan doesn't do this. Perhaps he feels (mostly correctly) that trusting himself is generally the better strategy than trusting what anyone else thinks. Still, it's surprising he hasn't worked this out. Maybe there's more going on there.