At Nautilus Dean Keith Simonton explains something I’ve remarked on many times. IQ is a weak predictor of success in life:
The relation between IQ and achieved eminence is not huge or even large. Most statisticians would classify it as a “moderate†relationship. In practical terms, that means that there’s ample room for exceptions at either end. The highly eminent can have IQs lower than average and supremely high IQs can be associated with relative obscurity. I’ve already given three examples of the former, so who illustrates the latter? How about Paolo Sarpi, the Venetian historian? Although his estimated IQ was as high as 195, making him one of the very brightest among the 301, his eminence ranking put him in the lower 20 percent, that is, 242nd!
A more contemporary example is Marilyn vos Savant, who was once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest recorded IQ. Reportedly, she had taken a revised version of the Stanford-Binet when she was just 10 years old, and got a perfect score! Although there’s some debate about how best to translate that performance into a precise IQ estimate, it is certainly arguable that she is more intelligent than the brightest Termite and any member of Cox’s 301. Yet what is her main accomplishment? Becoming famous for her super-high IQ!
It always amuses me how the fans of certain politicians put so much stock in the high IQs of their idols. They’re confusing IQ and accomplishment. Everything we know about Barack Obama or Bill Clinton tells us that their IQs are between median and one standard deviation above normal—completely ordinary members of the professional class. But there are other kinds of smarts than IQ, notably socio-emotional development which includes the ability to get people to do what you want. Bill Clinton in particular has that ability in spades. That’s a genius of sorts but it has little relationship with IQ.
Maybe being eminent isn’t a smart thing to be.
Besides frequently not having the social or other personal skills, many highly intelligent people find the things that lead to “eminence” boring.
I would guess that if we had a reliable way to measure social IQ that would turn out to be a better overall indicator. I think that to be useful it would be pretty complex. How would you rate someones social IQ who was also sociopathic? The sociopath may have little social development or empathy, but understand social interactions well enough to manipulate people to achieve stuff.
Steve
Seems to lend credence to my theory that the primary purpose of IQ tests are status and ego inflation.
And estimated IQ for historical figures? Complete sophistry.
B. Obama’s I.Q. at election was reportedly 397 and is now approaching 900+. Speaks for itself.
I suppose one needs to define success. As for career success…. Of the two smartest guys I have known not in the physical sciences, one was fabulously successful financially on Wall Street but a marginal investor. The other guy, (my asshole high school buddy) had a fascinating (almost intimidating) total and instant memory recall……of everything. But he was a marginal logician and difficult personality. A marginal career.
As for the physical sciences. Well, I’ve run into the proverbial pulsating brains. But they all had different career agendas.
IQ is a muddy way of determining a person’s overall knowledge level, schooling, memory retention, and training to use these attributes in problem solving. It does not evaluate a person’s determination, self-confidence (or lack thereof), social skills, and a myriad other facets of a personality. That is why it is such a ‘meh’ indicator of future success.
Also, I’ve noticed that not everyone goes in to have their I Q tested, I haven’t and I honestly don’t know anyone who has. Except Barrack Obama, and I only know that from an automobile bumper sticker.(It said it was very, very, high).