Doubting the Validity of IQ

[Jason Menzies]

I was looking at some celebrity IQ scores.  On the list were Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh with SAT scores over 1500 - implying genius level IQ.  This really surprised me.  I have watched, listened to, and observed both of these celebrities, looking closely at their intellectual achievements (O'Reilly, for example, has recently written a book).   What these scores indicate is abilities at the level of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Noam Chomsky.  I have not seen either O'Reilly or Limbaugh produce any work or demonstrate reasoning beyond the level of someone like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan - people with perhaps less stellar SAT scores. In any event, I looked further into the issue, and found that Natalie Portman also has SAT scores over 1500 - someone else who, in my opinion, has not shown any profound level of intellectual achievement.  In fact, if you were to find a list of celebrity IQ scores, it would be hard to tell who is high IQ from who isn't - and that shocks me.  From this, I would infer that there are countless other people who have high IQs, with no substantial evidence of giftedness.  This has made me doubt the validity of IQ as a construct.  In any event, let's assume that there are countless people like this.  How could there be many people with extremely high IQs, who show no real evidence of this whatsoever, and yet IQ be a reasonably valid measure of intelligence?  In other words, what is going on here?  (I should also note that I'm not anti-IQ either.  I am simply in disbelief about what I've researched, and therefore about the validity of the concept, so an answer that defends the merits of IQ will not offend me - perhaps it would even help.)

[Jason Menzies]

I'll try to be more clear about what I'm trying to say: when you listen to an interview with Natalie Portman, do you hear something extremely abstract, over everyone's head, or more knowledgeable than, for example Courtney Cox?  (Someone with a lower SAT score.)  Do you see in her case any example of educational achievements, books, or anything else indicating high IQ?  The same could be said of any of the celebrities I mentioned, to the point it's hard to tell who has high IQ and who doesn't.  This flies directly in the face of what I'd expect of someone with high IQ.  Therefore, what is going on here?

[Pontus Granström]

Having an high IQ simply means you got better "plumbing" for processing information.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mercel]

It's not merely processing information, in my opinion, it's a particular way of processing information - of breaking down compounds and analyzing each component to see how they relate to each other, reconstructing atomized information to see larger patterns etc. I'd argue that IQ tests what one may call analytical information processing - and that this particular modality of relating to the world of information is one of many ways of approaching things - but it happens to be the dominant way of thinking in our society - and if you happen to be particularly skilled in this way of thinking, you'd be more likely to be seen as intelligent. 

I think that it's not so much we ourselves that engineer and create our own thoughts and ideas, but thoughts and ideas that comes to us more or less easily depending on the ways we position ourselves intellectually in relation to the world and how we let ourselves 'flow'; the particular ways we think about the world. Thinking analytically happens to be a effective way of generating scenarios of understanding and new ideas.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking at some celebrity IQ scores. On the list were Bill O'Reilly
> and Rush Limbaugh with SAT scores over 1500 - implying genius level IQ.

No, it doesn't.

And why do you think they can't be really smart? Do you think it is
easy to be O'Reilly and Limbaugh, to be as verbally adept as them, to
avoid all the pitfalls of being political pundits (say the wrong thing
about Jews or blacks while running your mouth to fill up your block,
and you're history), to go up there and day after day entertain their
audience? If it's that easy, you should do it - it's pretty good
money!

You make the classic mistake of thinking your opponents must be stupid
because they disagree with you, and mistaking their public personas
and statements for what they actually are. Chuck Schumer is a populist
Democrat who says idiotic popular things all the time - but he earned
a near-perfect SAT score and has never lost a race. Not a coincidence.

> I have not seen either O'Reilly or Limbaugh produce any work or demonstrate reasoning beyond the level of someone like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan - people with perhaps less stellar SAT scores.

Note the difference in occupations. Not that Ronald Reagan impressed
anyone with his brainpower, what with the early Alzheimer's and all...

> From this, I would infer that there are countless other people who have high IQs, with no substantial evidence of giftedness.

This refutes whatever undefined notion you have of 'giftedness'. Not
the other way around.

> when you listen to an interview with Natalie Portman, do you hear something extremely abstract, over everyone's head, or more knowledgeable than, for example Courtney Cox?

Think about what you are claiming here. A Hollywood interview with a
Hollywood star (who has spent most of her life working in
entertainment and dealing with fame) about Hollywood and entertainment
matters (entertainment often aimed at lowest common denominators, mind
you, following formulas laid out in works like _Save The Cat!_) is
supposed to be an indicator of her actual intelligence? Really?
*Really?* And as it happens, you picked a pisspoor example: recall
that Natalie Portman took time from acting to earn a degree in
psychology from Harvard.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[jotaro]

it seems you dont get what iq means.

you have a false notion as others have said, iq isnt about achievements,but

about reasoning or rather it seems to be pattern recognition mostly.

now if you can recognize patterns faster and better then everybody on the planet does it imply you will have extra ordinary success? isnt it also a matter of hard work and preference as well/? and luck and whatever not.

[jotaro]

though you can said that one with such ability has one of the biggest cheats ever created on the planet.

did you try using god mode in gta? :) its way easier to play like this, isnt it?

[Pontus Granström]

You are forgetting jessica simpson with her 150 iq

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM, jotaro <craz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it seems you dont get what iq means.

I'm glad you're here to explain it to me.

> you have a false notion as others have said, iq isnt about achievements,but
> about reasoning or rather it seems to be pattern recognition mostly.

And yet, when you measure IQ, you wind up measuring achievement too.
Go read some SMPY studies or something if you think there's no
connection.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jelani Sims]

Are we really doing this? 

Having a high IQ increases your probability of success

/end

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jason Menzies]

The obvious key that all of you are missing is that you cannot find any reason to discern one celebrity's IQ from another.  Do you think I could care less about Rush Limbaugh's IQ - or his politics for that matter?  Some here cite that it takes a lot of brainpower to do what Limbaugh does, BUT HOW DOES THAT DISTINGUISH HIM FROM BILL MAHR OR OPRAH, WHO MIGHT NOT BE HIGH IQ?  Once again, I could care less about politics.  It's just shocking that Limbaugh has an IQ over and above every other talk show host, but there is no tangible evidence of this whatsoever...  Really, take me up on it.  Come up with a list of celebrities and, beforehand, try and determine who is high IQ and who isn't. For instance, Bill Cosby scored below 500 on the SATs.  Do you see him as less intelligent than Courtney Cox (SAT 1100), and far less intelligent than Natalie Portman (SAT above 1500)?  I suspect that this happens countless times, and, therefore, it makes me doubt the validity of IQ as a construct, as IQ is not manifesting itself clearly in speech patterns, behaviours, or achievements.  However, there may be a logical answer to this antimony, and that is what I'm looking for...

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:42:48 AM UTC-4, Jason Menzies wrote:

[Jason Menzies]

I could also add this: how is anything observable about Natalie Portman's behaviour comparable to Noam Chomsky or Stephen Hawking - as they are supposedly close in IQ?  For instance, consider the notion that people with IQ differences of 30 points have trouble communicating on an equal level.  Do you think that's the case between Courtney Cox and Natalie Portman or between Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush (or between countless other celebrity examples)?  Once again, there might be an answer to this "riddle" (if you wish to call it that...)...

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The obvious key that all of you are missing is that you cannot find any
> reason to discern one celebrity's IQ from another. Do you think I could
> care less about Rush Limbaugh's IQ - or his politics for that matter? Some
> here cite that it takes a lot of brainpower to do what Limbaugh does, BUT
> HOW DOES THAT DISTINGUISH HIM FROM BILL MAHR OR OPRAH, WHO MIGHT NOT BE HIGH
> IQ?

What makes you think they don't have similar IQs? You're making a lot
of seriously questionable assumptions and claims, none of which you
have backed up.

> Come up with a list of celebrities and, beforehand, try and determine who is high IQ and who isn't.

Unlike you, I know my limits. I don't play these guessing games, I try
to stick with actual data and research.

> For instance, Bill Cosby scored below 500 on the SATs.

I find it hard to believe that Dr. Cosby (PhD, 1976) had a <500 SAT
without some sort of extenuating circumstance, inasmuch as IIRC,
giving no answers at all would give you somewhere in the 400s on the
old SAT.

> I suspect that this happens countless times, and, therefore, it makes me doubt the validity of IQ as a construct, as IQ is not manifesting itself clearly in speech patterns, behaviours, or achievements.

You're right. You should totally dismiss the validity of IQ as a
construct, based on a century of research across millions of people by
many thousands of researchers applying many kinds of criticism and
statistical analysis in all sorts of study designs, a construct
repeatedly replicated across all sorts of test batteries which involve
thinking, simply because you don't think a few celebrities' unknown,
questionably sourced, unverified scores match up with your gut
estimate. That's totally reasonable, and definitely scientific!

Seriously, get a clue.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jason Menzies]

I thought of it, and in a eureka moment, I got the answer I was looking for.  The problem is that actor, talk show host, etc. are not highly g-loaded careers.  Therefore, it is difficult to discern one person's IQ from the next.  HOWEVER, ACROSS DIFFERENT FIELDS, THERE IS A REAL, VISIBLE DIFFERENCE IN IQ.   For instance, wouldn't you expect the average IQ of a scientist to be higher than the average IQ of an accountant, and much higher than the average IQ of a salesperson?  Therefore, you cannot select a group of celebrities and compare achievements in such a relatively poorly g-loaded profession anymore than you can a group of secretaries!  However, as I said, you can more often compare ACROSS fields, because, as I said once again, SOME FIELDS ARE MORE G-LOADED THAN OTHERS, AND SO IQ PLAYS A BIGGER ROLE...  In any event, what I cannot believe about this discussion is how most people, instead of trying to find an answer, dogmatically cling to the notion of IQ, as if its's something sacred, and then come out and kick me in the shins like some type of juvenile bully over the accuracy of an intellectual concept, as if it should be anything as personal as religious belief!

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:42:48 AM UTC-4, Jason Menzies wrote:

[Gwern Branwen]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought of it, and in a eureka moment, I got the answer I was looking for.
> The problem is that actor, talk show host, etc. are not highly g-loaded
> careers. Therefore, it is difficult to discern one person's IQ from the
> next. HOWEVER, ACROSS DIFFERENT FIELDS, THERE IS A REAL, VISIBLE DIFFERENCE
> IN IQ.

You are again simply making stuff up - where is your source that actor
and talk show host are not heavily g-loaded? I would have said that
they require huge amounts of verbal fluency and related skills which
are, unsurprisingly, heavily g-loaded themselves.

> For instance, wouldn't you expect the average IQ of a scientist to
> be higher than the average IQ of an accountant, and much higher than the
> average IQ of a salesperson?

I would, but that is because I've actually read the studies estimating
IQ by occupation, I'm not making up wild shit on a mailing list,
ignoring criticisms, and writing like a lunatic.

> In any event, what I cannot believe about this discussion is how most people, instead of trying to find an answer, dogmatically cling to the notion of IQ, as if its's something sacred, and then come out and kick me in the shins like some type of juvenile bully over the accuracy of an intellectual concept, as if it should be anything as personal as religious belief!

Your emails are incoherent, your ideas are founded on nothing, your
starting point ridiculous. There is nothing bullying about pointing
out your bullshit. Incidentally, I regard religious beliefs as
perfectly open to criticism and generally refuted, so that wasn't a
very good comparison either.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[jotaro]

?what dude

i was talking about that with my gta god mode analogy ,glad to see you dont take

everything that i say only the part you just want to see.

dont spin my words.

also didnt you also say he has a false notion as well?

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[jotaro]

gwern it is like you just want to copy argumzio though ahaha, seems you try way too hard

[Jelani Sims]

He's trying too hard? Because he dismantles a ridiculous argument?

[Jason Menzies]

>You are again simply making stuff up - where is your source that actor
>and talk show host are not heavily g-loaded? I would have said that
>they require huge amounts of verbal fluency and related skills which
>are, unsurprisingly, heavily g-loaded themselves.

Does verbal IQ = verbal skills?  Verbal IQ is generally a measure of one's knowledge of factual information, working memory, and fluid intelligence, all with respect to verbal processing.  It isn't completely relevant to whether one could write a good paper, give a lecture, or host a talkshow apart from those skills.  Something tells me you're still not convinced.  Why not go look at the typical SAT score of journalism majors if you wish?  Or look at Grady Tower's data on the IQ of various professions at www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch via archive.org.  You'll see that many professions that involve verbal skills are still not highly g-loaded.

   

>> For instance, wouldn't you expect the average IQ of a scientist to
>> be higher than the average IQ of an accountant, and much higher than the
>> average IQ of a salesperson?

>I would, but that is because I've actually read the studies estimating
>IQ by occupation, I'm not making up wild shit on a mailing list,
>ignoring criticisms, and writing like a lunatic.

And I haven't read any such studies?  See Grady Towers again.  Ironically, I can make that point without resorting to namecalling, swearing, and bellittlement...  Or am I talking to someone with the social skills and IQ of a neanderthal?  (Whoops, maybe not...) 

 

>>Your emails are incoherent, your ideas are founded on nothing, your
>>starting point ridiculous. There is nothing bullying about pointing
>>out your bullshit. Incidentally, I regard religious beliefs as
>>perfectly open to criticism and generally refuted, so that wasn't a
>>very good comparison either.  

--

 "Your e-mails are ridiculous, your starting point ludicrous, your ideas founded on nothing"  - all of this pointed out with the hatred of some KKK bigot, because someone dare question the validity of IQ - and your PRECIOUS IQ - something I couldn't give a shit about.  Oh, and like it comes as a surprise to me or anyone that you have anger towards religion!  HAHAHAHAHA!!!  All, in reality, because someone here has the self-control of some sort of KKK-bigot!  (Whoops, I did it again!  As if I could care less at this point!...)

gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[jotaro]

it probably is pointless though.

--

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >You are again simply making stuff up - where is your source that actor
>> >and talk show host are not heavily g-loaded? I would have said that
>> >they require huge amounts of verbal fluency and related skills which
>> >are, unsurprisingly, heavily g-loaded themselves.
>>
> Does verbal IQ = verbal skills? Verbal IQ is generally a measure of one's
> knowledge of factual information, working memory, and fluid intelligence,
> all with respect to verbal processing. It isn't completely relevant to
> whether one could write a good paper, give a lecture, or host a talkshow
> apart from those skills.

It isn't completely relevant? That's wrong, and partial relevance
still gives loading.

> Something tells me you're still not convinced.
> Why not go look at the typical SAT score of journalism majors if you wish?

This thread is not discussing the SAT score of the average journalism major.

> Or look at Grady Tower's data on the IQ of various professions at
> www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch via archive.org. You'll see that many professions
> that involve verbal skills are still not highly g-loaded.

Sure. Where's the link? If you're making a claim, you should provide the link.

And please don't give me a link to some worthless bit of speculation
about the average journalist or something, because we weren't
discussing the average person but rather the people at the tops of
these professions. You do understand that even a small loading on g
means that high-g people will be hugely overrepresented at the top
levels, right? You're not assuming that because the average journalist
has an IQ like 110 that famous top-level world-class journalist will
also have IQs like 110? Right?

> And I haven't read any such studies? See Grady Towers again.

What journal did Towers publish in? Based on what dataset? I'd look
but you didn't specify either by link or title what you're thinking
of.

> Ironically, I
> can make that point without resorting to namecalling, swearing, and
> bellittlement... Or am I talking to someone with the social skills and IQ
> of a neanderthal? (Whoops, maybe not...)

So far you haven't made any points worth responding to. You've drawn
on worthless material, you've failed to investigate claims you made
(did you ever look up why Cosby had such low SAT scores?), you've
vaguely gestured in the direction of possible materials but probably
only because you misunderstood them... No, I think 'bellittlement' is
the right reaction here. IQ is a subtle technical area with many ways
to make mistakes; it is sheer hubris to watch TV and think that
qualifies you to doubt its validity.

> "Your e-mails are ridiculous, your starting point ludicrous, your ideas
> founded on nothing" - all of this pointed out with the hatred of some KKK
> bigot, because someone dare question the validity of IQ - and your PRECIOUS
> IQ - something I couldn't give a shit about.

No, you simply decided to join a mailing list on it and argue about
IQ. You clearly don't give a shit about it. Does that mean you're
simply a troll and should be banned?

> Oh, and like it comes as a
> surprise to me or anyone that you have anger towards religion!
> HAHAHAHAHA!!! All, in reality, because someone here has the self-control of
> some sort of KKK-bigot! (Whoops, I did it again! As if I could care less
> at this point!...)

I don't hate religion, and it's interesting you claim to read hatred
into my line that religion is open to criticism and refuted.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[jotaro]

but gwern i am sorta curious

do you have your own ideas? or you just will criticize everything based
on your own knowledge? and not go beyond that?

because all you did until now is criticize, without a life of your own.:)

but oh well.

if he is wrong, why is he wrong? i know he doesnt back up his claim
and everything but why is he wrong? why are you right?

except for studies do you have anything to back yourself on?

it kinda feels like you just repeat something you read in study without really

thinking about it on your own. like a machine.

gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:06 PM, jotaro <craz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> do you have your own ideas? or you just will criticize everything based
> on your own knowledge? and not go beyond that?

I have plenty of my own ideas. If you read the emails I sent instead
of interjecting random comments, you'd know about my many projects &
writings.

> if he is wrong, why is he wrong? i know he doesnt back up his claim
> and everything but why is he wrong? why are you right?

It's like you haven't read any of my emails, such as the one I sent
this morning.

> except for studies do you have anything to back yourself on?

I'm sorry, do I not use enough bullshit anecdotes for your taste?
Would it be better if I could work in some snarky comments about Paris
Hilton or something?

Well, it's like my grandma always said: 'you can lead people to the
data, but you can't make them drink'. (She was a funny old bird,
always complaining about systematic biases and yelling at p-values to
get off her lawn.)

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jelani Sims]

Jotaro please leave this group and take jason with you. Enough with your nonsense. 

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jason Menzies]

Let me get this straight. I post an honest question about why a subset of the population shows no pattern with respect to IQ, hoping to get an honest answer - with no concern towards what the answer should be.  What I get from some people is insults, belittlement, and personal attacks.  Unfortunately, I respond in kind - which I agree I probably should not have done.  Your answer then is that I should leave the group?!  UNLESS YOU'RE THE MOST UNFAIR, BIASED ETHICIST ON THE PLANET, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT?!  I realize that my initial post is controversial, but unless you are someone who needs some type of special protection - which is as hypocritical as it gets here - then why should I leave?  I am defending my right not to leave - something that anyone would be interested in my situation.  What are you defending?  The integrity of IQ as a construct?!  Something that any researcher in academia probably does not think is foolproof!  I would like to see if you can give an intelligent response, without resorting to personal attacks and throwing words around like "idiot" or "know-nothing."  If you're not capable of doing even that, then why should I not call you out on trolling and simply not even bother to respond?  

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me get this straight. I post an honest question about why a subset of
> the population shows no pattern with respect to IQ, hoping to get an honest
> answer - with no concern towards what the answer should be. What I get from
> some people is insults, belittlement, and personal attacks. Unfortunately,
> I respond in kind - which I agree I probably should not have done. Your
> answer then is that I should leave the group?! UNLESS YOU'RE THE MOST
> UNFAIR, BIASED ETHICIST ON THE PLANET, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT?! I realize
> that my initial post is controversial, but unless you are someone who needs
> some type of special protection - which is as hypocritical as it gets here -
> then why should I leave? I am defending my right not to leave - something
> that anyone would be interested in my situation. What are you defending?
> The integrity of IQ as a construct?! Something that any researcher in
> academia probably does not think is foolproof! I would like to see if you
> can give an intelligent response, without resorting to personal attacks and
> throwing words around like "idiot" or "know-nothing." If you're not capable
> of doing even that, then why should I not call you out on trolling and
> simply not even bother to respond?

Not a single response to my object-level points, but instead, an
attempt to take it to meta grounds and appeal to free speech. Classic
trolling behavior: if you can paint your own behavior in a positive
enough light, and divert any criticism to the usual endless
discussions about free speech, you can tie people up endlessly and
grab the moral high ground.

To reply to your free speech claim claims: no. There is no right to be
in this group. You have zero 'right to not leave'. It doesn't exist.
Period. No one has a right to be in it except the list owner, and he
decides who goes and who stays. You would not be the first
argumentative troll we have ejected (the last one was a supposed chess
master), and the group is much the better that he's gone. This group
is for discussing Brain Workshop, dual n-back, and related topics.
That's all there is to it, and there's nothing further to discuss.

Why should you stay and not be banned? What have you contributed? Some
inane speculation about people you see on TV? Not real impressive.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jason Menzies]

It is beyond obvious my "inane speculation" is not a personal attack or anything like it.  My "puzzle" (as I would like to call it) was not a simple question, but it demanded a simple answer.  I don't see why stating something controversial is wrong - there are countless controversial issues in philosophy, psychology and many scientific areas.  I could take a shot at you for not being able to reason without factual information the way you take shots at me (i.e., am I too speculative to the point of "fringe theorist" or are you too pedantic to the point of having no imagination whatsoever?  But these are meaningless insults, which are merely defense mechanisms, probably used in defense of a basic belief being challenged.), Anyway, given the fact that you are the one who started taking shots at me and cannot address the issues without getting personal, I will not continue to argue with you.  A personal attack is personal by definition, it's an obvious fallacy, it's mean-spirited, and brings nothing to the table in a debate - all of this goes without saying to me - and to most people, for that matter.  Since you cannot play by the rules of debate without resorting to such attacks, I see no point in arguing with you further.  Good-bye.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Jason Menzies
<jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, given the fact that you are the one who started taking shots at me
> and cannot address the issues without getting personal, I will not continue
> to argue with you. A personal attack is personal by definition, it's an
> obvious fallacy, it's mean-spirited, and brings nothing to the table in a
> debate - all of this goes without saying to me - and to most people, for
> that matter. Since you cannot play by the rules of debate without resorting
> to such attacks, I see no point in arguing with you further.

More meta, no object, just as I predicted a troll like you would do in
my previous email.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Pheonoxia]

The entire premise of this thread is flawed as crystallized intelligence is not fluid intelligence, therefore SAT >< IQ. The SAT measures your crystallized knowledge, education, and the words and maths you have memorized, not raw processing power. SAT scores have more to do with how much and the quality of schooling you've had, as well as the tutors and extracurriculars that parents pay for, not your mostly-innate fluid intelligence.

[jttoto2]

Lack of intellectual achievement, which I assume you mean scientific discoveries and achievement,  doesn't mean you have average intelligence, especially when you consider the career choice of your examples.  Whatever you think about their politics, Limbaugh and O'Reilly have achieved great financial success and fame in a field that is very easy to commit career suicide (conservative pundits tend to have a short career span).  Using specific examples of celebrities doesn't disprove the validity of IQ, but since we are playing that game: Natalie Portman (1500), winner of an Academy award, is better in her craft than Courtney Cox(1100), who was never nominated for one.  In fact, your data on their SAT scores solidifies its validity more than anything. Your perception of their intelligence, and what constitutes as intelligent behavior, is not relevant.

[whoisbambam]

but there is frequently a relationship; higher IQ can mean more crystallized intelligence per given minute of study, etc etc.

[Jason Menzies]

I looked back at the history of this thread to understand it in context.  I stated clearly that I am not anti-IQ.  The situation was just a puzzle to me, one to which I desired an answer - regardless of what the answer is.  When I said that, I meant it.  Some people simply did not listen, and came out and bashed me about using Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as examples.  Those two celebrities are not idiots to me, but simply people who don't seem to be any more gifted than anyone else in their profession.  That's genuinely why I was puzzled (in addition to the other issues I mentioned).  Therefore, those were the people I was addressing, as my post was not meant to be an attack on conservative politics.  Prior to this, your post involved one, maybe two small personal attacks.  I was mildly upset at this, as I was genuinely puzzled by the issue, and, for that reason, I didn't want to be attacked, but I was not addressing you.   Nonetheless, you came out and hit me over the head about my post being essentially nonsense - your post being filled with personal attacks!  I then got defencive, and attacked you in return.  Then, you came out and called me a troll for this!  And that's where we are now.  In any event, do you see what's wrong here?  When I say that I am not anti-IQ or anti-conservative, I mean it.  I am an objective person, looking for objective answers.  If my question is not intelligent to you, or you simply do not understand, then either probe further about what you don't understand or simply do not respond.  I understand why you got so defensive about my attack on the "sancitity" of IQ, but you were not who I was addressing.  And perhaps my question about the validity of IQ was unintelligent, but that does not make me a troll.  All I want is to be able to post the occasional question about IQ without being attacked - even if my questions are controversial or "unintelligent," as I don't see that as wrong.  In any event, I hope that explaining the context and history of the discussion makes clear what I hoped to achieve, why I was upset, and why I should be allowed to participate here without being attacked.  And that's all I have to say about the issue.

[Jason Menzies]

Sorry.  "Defencive" should be "defensive."

[Pontus Granström]

Doesnt this contradict the criticism of speeded tests?

--

[jotaro]

how do you guys know that natalie portman got 1500??

why do you assume this data is correct anyway?

there is nothing that says that the truth about their score or lack of it

have to come to the public ,this data can be false. and probably is.

aas why are you puzzled? well that is because there are other factors
at play as iq predicts 50% percent of something there is

other 50% of something else. causation!=correlation.

[jttoto2]

I don't think anyone blatantly said you were anti-conservative, but a lot of people have answered your question in various ways.  Your question, in a nutshell from your OP, is how can IQ be a reasonable measure of ability when there are some with high IQ who don't seem intelligent?  The simple answer is this, IQ is a meaningful estimation for a lot, if not the majority of people, but there will always be outliers and exceptions to the rule.  Many will say they know a friend's friend's father who is a Mensa member who works at McDonalds, but this doesn't discount the fact that on average, IQ is a reasonable estimation of most peoples abilities, and as one person put it, their probability of success.  This doesn't make IQ invalid, as your title says, but it may make IQ at worst an imperfect but a good estimation of ability and success. 

This will sound nitpicky, but I also wanted to comment on your assertion on the reliance of facts as "uncreative".  First, let me start by saying most of the great discoveries in the last few centuries have started on the knowledge of others.  Can you imagine how slow progress would be if intellectuals were still debating whether the world is flat, if the sun revolved around earth, if the earth were 7000 years old, etc.  Likewise, the correlation between IQ and success is so evident by the data we have available that it is pointless to say otherwise.  We have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we will get nowhere. 

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:43:08 AM UTC-4, Jason Menzies wrote:

I looked back at the history of this thread to understand it in context.  I stated clearly that I am not anti-IQ.  The situation was just a puzzle to me, one to which I desired an answer - regardless of what the answer is.  When I said that, I meant it.  Some people simply did not listen, and came out and bashed me about using Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as examples.  Those two celebrities are not idiots to me, but simply people who don't seem to be any more gifted than anyone else in their profession. 

[Gwern Branwen]

Why would it do that?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesnt this contradict the criticism of speeded tests?
>
> Den 23 apr 2014 01:46 skrev "whoisbambam" <smat...@gmail.com>:
>
>> but there is frequently a relationship; higher IQ can mean more
>> crystallized intelligence per given minute of study, etc etc.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Jason Menzies]

jttoto:

Your answer is consistent with my view that I was selecting from the wrong sample, which caused me to draw the wrong conclusion.  For instance, in your response, you imply that McDonalds workers sometimes have high IQs.  However, you would not expect the best workers at McDonalds to have the highest IQs!  Talk show host is probably like that; compared to most jobs, it involves typically more intelligence, but that doesn't mean that the best talk show hosts have 160+ IQs, anymore than that the best McDonalds workers are typically members of Mensa!  In other words, like you implied, there are exceptions to the rule.  I simply could not understand why Hollywood celebrities would have no discernable pattern to their IQ distribution, but the mean IQ of the profession is probably reasonably high, and there would be plenty of exceptions in either direction (both wrt low and high IQ).  That's the crux of the issue.  And what you said is consistent with that.  Wrt factual information and intellectual achievements, if you look at most fields (especially science), it would seem that they have both a theoretical side and a factual, empirical side.  For instance, in science, these are two essential parts which contribute to the field as a whole.  I suspect scientific achievements could not exist without one or the other, and this would hold throughout most fields (with a few notable exceptions)...

[Jason Menzies]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:20:02 PM UTC-4, Jason Menzies wrote:

jttoto:

>Your answer is consistent with my view that I was selecting from the wrong sample, which caused me to draw the wrong conclusion.  For instance, in your response, you imply that McDonalds workers >sometimes have high IQs.  However, you would not expect the best workers at McDonalds to have the highest IQs!  Talk show host is probably like that; compared to most jobs, it involves typically more >intelligence, but that doesn't mean that the best talk show hosts have 160+ IQs, anymore than that the best McDonalds workers are typically members of Mensa!  

 

Or further, that you could pick out ultra-high IQ members from a profession that is not based on high-level intellectual achievements...

[Pontus Granström]

Because you argue that intelligent people don't solve IQ-tests faster
than less intelligent people. But obviously they learn more per unit
time??

On 4/24/14, Jason Menzies <jasonmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:20:02 PM UTC-4, Jason Menzies wrote:
>>
>> jttoto:
>>
>> >Your answer is consistent with my view that I was selecting from the
>> wrong sample, which caused me to draw the wrong conclusion. For instance,
>>
>> in your response, you imply that McDonalds workers >sometimes have high
>> IQs. However, you would not expect the best workers at McDonalds to have
>>
>> the highest IQs! Talk show host is probably like that; compared to most
>> jobs, it involves typically more >intelligence, but that doesn't mean that
>>
>> the best talk show hosts have 160+ IQs, anymore than that the best
>> McDonalds workers are typically members of Mensa!
>>
>
>

>> *Or further, that you could pick out ultra-high IQ members from a
>> profession that is not based on high-level intellectual achievements...*

[jttoto2]

I won't take up too much more time, considering this is a mailing list for brain training, but I will simply answer your question with we probably don't know at the moment. As this long series of posts has proven, what is or isn't a discernible pattern of intelligence is clearly up for debate. To answer the question that I really think you are wondering, which is can two people of similar intelligence be so drastically different in achievement, I suspect that personality comes into play, conscientiousness being the big one. Some people are simply status driven, and some people do the bare minimum to survive. Agreeable people may be more likely to downplay their intelligence. Considering its relation to people pleasing, this would be a logical assumption. Nevertheless, iq correlates strongly with what society deems as intelligent, how fast and how accurate you solve problems, how fast you learn, etc. achievement may have other factors outside of cognition. Discernible intelligence may have other factors outside of cognition. I think it is safe to say we are not going to figure it out here, since it would require data we don't currently possess. This is my last email on the topic.

[Payman Saghafi]

There are some interesting facts about celebrity Bill Cosby:

 

Bill Cosby received an extremely low SAT score.  This is confirmed by numerous sources, including Bill Cosby himself.   

 

At the same time, Bill Cosby scored extremely high on an IQ test that allowed him into Central High school, which was a school for gifted children.  It is ironic that Cosby got into the gifted school with a high IQ test score and then bombed the SAT, which was often regarded as a proxy for IQ. 

 

Bill Cosby admitted that he didn't understand the questions on the SAT.  Bill also admitted that he was extremely lazy in school.  Obviously, the IQ test he took didn't have nearly as much raw academic material in it as the SAT did.

 

We must remember that the SAT correlates highly with professional IQ tests  for people who study vocab lists, have decent preparation, and who take school seriously.  An honest high score on the SAT indicates good intelligence.  An honest low score does not always indicate low intelligence. 

 

I have tutored many students for the SAT and ACT tests.  I have personally seen several students who have full scale WISC IQ scores of 115 or much higher who have abysmal scores on the SAT or ACT due to learning disabilities or laziness.  So far I have never seen someone with a low IQ score receive a high score on the SAT or ACT.

As Cosby aged his natural intelligence evolved and he started to take an interest in reading and learning.

[Mercel]

Fluid intelligence functions as a potential force, crystallized intelligence as evidence for the existence of this force if applied?

[Payman Saghafi]

That is one theory, Mercel.  On the other hand, some experts believe that fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence are actually indicative of different intellectual skill sets, both of which add weight to the positive manifold and subsequent "G factor."  This is especially true since so many measures of fluid intelligence involve perceptual skills rather than verbal skills. 

Bill Cosby is an extreme case.  He simply didn't require the knowledge needed to do well on the SAT even though he probably had enough general knowledge to handle professional IQ test questions such as, "what is the similarity between hard work and laziness?"

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Mercel <st.gj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fluid intelligence functions as a potential force, crystallized intelligence as evidence for the existence of this force if applied?

--

[Payman Saghafi]

That is one theory, Mercel.  On the other hand, some experts believe that fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence are actually indicative of different intellectual skill sets, both of which add weight to the positive manifold and subsequent "G factor."  This is especially true since so many measures of fluid intelligence involve perceptual skills rather than verbal skills. 

Bill Cosby is an extreme case.  He simply didn't acquire the knowledge needed to do well on the SAT even though he probably had enough general knowledge to handle professional IQ test questions such as, "what is the similarity between hard work and laziness?"

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Mercel <st.gj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fluid intelligence functions as a potential force, crystallized intelligence as evidence for the existence of this force if applied?

--

[Mercel]

Yes, different neural networks seem to be involved depending on the expression of the problem - the nature of and approach to the problem, however, are seemingly much similar.

[Brain Train]

Jason, 

Thank you for bringing a relevant and stimulating topic to this forum. 

Though it may not be directly related to DNB but it should be of interest to the people who want to improve their brain power. 

Here is my perspective:

if BRAIN is like a CAR, high IQ would correspond to a more capable car (higher power, higher top speed, etc.).

but this doesn't mean if you have a better car you would necessarily visit better places or more beautiful places or more desirable places!!!

it allows you to reach places which are difficult to reach for other people (with less capable cars) or simply out of reach of other people, but it doesn't force you to go those places! (you have to make that choice)

Same way, having higher IQ might be an indication of better equipped people who, if try, may perform/achieve better than lower IQ people.

but it doesn't guarantee that they will try their best!

1. ATTITUDE is one key variable and the kind of CHOICES we make moment to moment, as well as at major events in life, make a big difference in long term.

2. PASSION is also, i guess, not covered by IQ tests, and significantly changes the outcome (success of an individual, his highest achievements).

3. Seeking challenges, Risk taking, as part of attitude, creates big-big difference.

4. being AMBITIOUS

Culture/values of a family seems to play big role in these domains. For example:

# being ambitious

# keep fighting/striving and not giving up.

# being brave/ not accepting defeat easily (in the face of adversity).

# believing that there are always possibilities.. alternate solutions (when one solution/approach fails).

to summarise (with limited accuracy):

having a good IQ alone is similar to having a good car (as compared to a mediocre car) but not knowing where to go, why to go, how to go!

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Mercel <st.gj...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, different neural networks seem to be involved depending on the expression of the problem - the nature and approach to the problem, however, are much similar.

[Heinstar]

I’m also becoming skeptical about IQ representing a person’s intelligence. I have some anecdotal evidence..

My worst score on IQtest.dk was 107 and my best score was 110. Both times I was wired on caffeine and I was between 20 - 23 years old. 

My younger brother who was 16 at the time initially scored 106. He then took the test again and scored 110. Both times he didn’t drink coffee and he was 16 years old.

Even though my IQ isn’t significantly different from my younger brother’s IQ(unless if his IQ score went up after 16 years old), there's many differences between me and my younger brother.

I just turned 24 and:

• I can't even drive. I have anxiety and low-confidence about my ability to learn to drive. And I can’t juggle multiple responsibilities so most of my mental efforts are going to just working as a waiter.
  
• I still live with my mom.
  
• I've developed IBS-C, Gastritis, GERD/Acid Reflux, Impacted Colon, Unusually long and floppy/thin Redundant Colon, Slow Colonic Transit and Rectal Prolapse when I turned 21. I think the culprit was my genetic susceptibility to weak bowels. But I also attribute getting it to my lack of intelligence since I was reckless with my health when I was younger due to not being able to cope with stress. I still have IBS, Slow transit colon and elongated colon which will most likely stick with me for the rest of my life.
  
• I still get cystic acne and I've been taking Antibiotics for the past 6 years on and off. I think my irreversible intestinal conditions worsened my acne even further...
  
• I can't function without caffeine and I frequently become depressed and absent/slow-minded without it. It’s scary how much worse I become without caffeine, it’s almost as if I have ADD but I don’t think I have it. Perhaps I have serotonin/dopamine/GABA/acetylcholine deficiency caused by my past.
  
• I'm only working as a waiter since I couldn't handle community college/TAFE.
  

 And my younger brother(younger by 4 years):

• He’s taller, stronger and more handsome than me.
  
• He doesn’t get any acne and has clear skin.
  
• He doesn’t have any health issues.
  
• He already has he’s driver's license and drives to work.
  
• He went straight to college/university after high school and he’s about to start his second year. And his also working as a waiter where I work.
  
• He never drinks caffeine and he functions at work or school fine without it.
  
• He has already moved out of the house at 19. 

Both me and my younger brother got hooked up with a job as a waiter thanks to our mom after high school.

I'm aware the fact that I have a below average intelligence. But I don't understand how I became this way since I never considered myself below average intelligence when I compared myself to other peers in high school. In fact, I would’ve considered myself slightly above average or at the very least, average intelligence back in high school. 

 

I've accepted the fact that I'm less intelligent and a less attractive sibling. But I wish I was born second so that I wouldn't get constantly compared to him at work and at home. 

 

Just to clarify, so my past had no effect on my final brain development, right? So I guess all of my cognitive shortcomings are hereditary. Here’s the detailed events that happened in my past that I can remember: http://goo.gl/8lMlOv

My father only scored 84 when I tested him on IQtest.dk. Even though he’s IQ is much lower than mine, by the time he was my age, he had travelled overseas, learned a second language, had jobs, lived on his own and even got married to my mother. Whereas with me, I’m struggling just to become independent even though my IQ is 24 points higher than him.

My mother scored 110 on IQtest.dk which makes sense since she’s Japanese and that’s the average IQ of east asians. Also, study shows that son’s inherit their intelligence from their mother which explains why me and my younger brother’s IQ is closer to our mother than our father.

So if IQ really determines intelligence, how come I’m underachieving so much compared to my father who has 24 points lower IQ than me?  There must be more to intelligence than IQ.

[jotaro]

lol i got 125 on that test i didnt do it a second time but, some will say this test sucks as iq "representive" also, i suffer from depression and lack of independence as well , bbut i dont have your health problems.

what you miss out is that intellegence might be a very small factor of being independent. it should determine ceiling not whether your would choose to be independent or not, you have stress anxiety and health issues that mess your up, you cant really expect to be like your family because of that difference.

i dont have your health problems, and i am still not so independent like your self.

also note that there are retards with guns in middle east who fight for dark organizations, you see you dont have to be intellegent to get your shit toghether its just a booster of your potential. also it doesnt disprove iq.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Heinstar <yuki.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’m also becoming skeptical about IQ representing a person’s intelligence. I have some anecdotal evidence:

My worst score on IQtest.dk was 107 and my best score was 110. Both times I was wired on caffeine.

My younger brother who was 16 at the time initially scored 106. He then took the test again and scored 110. He didn’t drink coffee.

Even though my IQ isn’t significantly different from my younger brother’s IQ, there's many differences between me and my younger brother.

Me:

• I haven’t been practicing driving because I have low self-esteem and I get anxiety even thinking about it. I never feel like I’m mentally to learn it.
• I went to Community College because I got bad marks in high school even though I tried really hard. I eventually dropped out once I reached Diploma because it became too difficult for me.
• I’m almost 24 y/o but I still get cystic acne so bad that I had to go on Accutane. 
• I can’t function at work or school without caffeine. My mind becomes absent and just works very slowly without the help of caffeine.
• I have a history of depression and I feel sad easily especially if I don’t drink coffee daily..
• I developed IBS-C, Gastritis, Impacted Colon, Foppy, thin colon and Rectal Prolapse when I turned 21. I think the culprit was my genetic susceptibility to weak bowels. But I also attribute developing it to my lack of intelligence since I was reckless with my health when I was younger.

My younger brother:

• He’s taller, stronger and more handsome than me.
• He doesn’t get any acne and has clear skin.

• He already has he’s driver's license.
• He went straight to college after high school and he’s about to start his third year.
• He doesn't need to drink caffeine to function at work or school.
• He has already moved out of the house at 19. I still live with my mother even though I’m four years older.

It’s quite hard to believe that I happened to be less attractive, less healthy and less intelligent than my younger brother. I’m actually inferior to my younger brother in every single way. There’s literally not a single thing that I’m better than him at. The only positive trait I have is I don’t need glasses whereas my younger brother does.

I guess either my father or my mother didn’t eat well or looked after their own health before they conceived me or it was just pure bad luck.

My father only scored 84 when I tested his IQ at IQtest.dk. Even though he’s IQ is lower than mine, by the time he was my age, he travelled overseas, learned a second language, had jobs and lived on his own and even got married. Whereas with me, I’m struggling just to become independent even though my IQ is 24 points higher than him.

My mother scored 110 on IQtest.dk which makes sense since she’s Japanese and that’s the average IQ of east asians. Also, study shows that son’s inherit their intelligence from their mother which explains why me and my younger brother’s IQ is closer to our mother than our father.

So if IQ really determines intelligence, how come I’m underachieving so much compared to my father who has 24 points lower IQ than me?  There must be more to intelligence than IQ.

On Monday, December 29, 2014 at 12:12:48 AM UTC+10, ADDer wrote:

[jotaro]

your ancedotal evidence doesnt disprove iq. that is. just shows that even a guy with 170 iq if theortically suffers from alot of stress might end up sitting home all day.

[Heinstar]

So since I'm less successful and have trouble becoming independent compared to my father who has 84 IQ according to IQtest.dk, this either means that:

1. IQtest.dk is unreliable.
   
2. I might have other cognitive impairments unrelated to IQ.
   

Which is it?

If it's no.2, does anyone know which cognitive impairment causes a person to have trouble becoming independent and responsible?

I'm aware about the gut-brain connection and it's possible that my Intestinal conditions might be affecting my cognition. But that doesn't stop people with IBS and worse coditions than mine like Chron's function in society.

[whoisbambam]

success?

i dont have much to say on that.......economic, environmental and historical opportunities, who you know, have known, resources, decisions, personality traits, chance......can all contribute to opportunities at success

there are all kinds of ppl with iq 120 and above who are not yet 'successful'/independent

have you looked into bimuno? some have taken that every day (1 sachet) with good results on assisting in the restoration of the human microbiome.

there is also some evidence that 2 organic green granny apples a day may assist.

not that i would, but u could also find a thin, healthy, successful individual whose family seems to have the same attributes......and get a fecal transplant from him/her.....seems to have some evidence to support.

as u are probably aware, those 100trillion microbes are able to influence our genetic expression via epigenetic modifications.....who knows for certain how extensive this may be

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:04:44 AM UTC-6, Heinstar wrote:

So since I'm less successful and have trouble becoming independent compared to my father who has 84 IQ according to IQtest.dk, this either means that:

1. IQtest.dk is unreliable.
   
2. I might have other cognitive impairments unrelated to IQ.
   

Which is it?

If it's no.2, does anyone know which cognitive impairment causes a person to have trouble becoming independent and responsible?

I'm aware about the gut-brain connection and it's possible that my Intestinal conditions might be affecting my cognition. But that doesn't stop people with IBS and worse coditions than mine like Chron's function in society.
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 12:33:31 AM UTC+10, JokyBoy wrote:

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Heinstar <yuki.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So since I'm less successful and have trouble becoming independent compared
> to my father who has 84 IQ according to IQtest.dk, this either means that:
>
> IQtest.dk is unreliable.

It is. The author has admitted he renormed it to be harder and so it's
now an underestimate by an unknown amount somewhere around 10-20
points. See my earlier email on the topic.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Brain Train]

Hi Heinstar,

IQ may be like horse power of the car engine. If you have higher horse power car, it doesn't necessarily mean you will see more places or travel longer distances than someone with lower horse power car.

IQ gives you capability, but you have to use that ability on day to day basis to make progress in any field you have chosen. If you are not applying your intelligence, it is like keeping you car in the garage and then saying 'i couldn't visit as many places as other guys because the horsepower of my the car is less'.

Your father might have got better opportunities around him, due to time, place, connections, etc. Also, he may have compulsions to be independent which you may not be having!

Regarding poor performance in school.. it may be related to poor attention/focus which can be easily treated with health supplements and medications. For which, I would recommend you to read following book on brain:

'Making a good brain great' by Daniel G. Amen

you can also visit amenclinics.com to understand/evaluate your brain health.

Even if you have lower IQ than you wish to have, you can compensate for it by spending extra time and effort when you handle a challenge. like, you leave a little early from home if you know your car is slower than others (due to lower bhp).  

So, don't dishearten at fate..your deficiencies, if any, can both be compensated as well as improved upon.

another book for you- very inspiring. it's written by someone who struggled with her study tremendously but finally succeeded..!

'A brain that changes itself'. She later became a brain scientist herself.

She figured out that her struggles were related to deficiency in some specific parts of the brain (as opposed to the entire brain) and once she removed those deficiencies (by doing exercises which stresses those specific parts of the brain), she became normal!!!

-BT

[jotaro]

iq to horse power is bullshit, because higher iq means higher ability

it is applied automatically whatever u do.

doesnt matter what it is, you always process iformation

and so it applies automatically where ever you put your attention on.

however u might put attention on htings that u can be succeful at them even without this additional ability.

basically there is no such thing as higher horse power or additional brain power that u have and cant use, if you cant use you dont have it.

the car can always use its higher horse power regardless where it travels. its always accessible and so does intelligence.

[Rustam Yumash]

The book by barbara Arrowsmith is called The woman who change her brain. Norman Doigde book on Neuroplasticity is called The brain that changes itself . 

Rustam Yumash

Solstice-Mind Matters

[Mercel]

Without considering the truth of what you wrote, the dichotomy in his comment is also of course false.  

[Brain Train]

Thanks Rustam for exact details.

BTW, the second book also covered the case of this woman (i guess a complete chapter).

@jotaro

didn't you see guys who are smart but are lazy?

and in contrast, people whose ability to understand is much lesser but who outperform these 'smarter' guys.

I am talking in the context of college students. particularly, engineering college.

it's very well possible that somebody has high IQ and still remains less successful, just on account of not putting enough effort. 

the point is : We may not be able to change our IQ, but we can always decide to put more effort to achieve our highest priority goals.

Regarding accessibility of car.. that doesn't guarantee its usage. if the owner is lazy or unwilling, it is quite possible it remains in garage most of the time. and all it does, is to go to a nearby grocery store. powerful car ownership doesn't guarantee that you will get to see the nicest places around the world!

there are so many other variables that decide success and achievements:

passion, guidance from elders/mentors/well wishers, support from family/community

would you want to say, the passion is also proportional to IQ?

[jotaro]

i talked about intelligence and only that , i dont care about other factors in this case.

anyway of course your understanding doesnt only depends on int and agree with that, but intelligence gives you higher ceiling and its always auto applied what ever u do, its not a turn on and turn off ability.

as long as you awake its inside your brain.

its like saying well i have additional muscle mass but i can only apply the mass without the addition.

bullshit. if you try resisting its auto applied. and regular things are easier as well.

[Jason Menzies]

Years later, I cannot believe some of my own ideas; "brainwashed" by socionics and the Forer Effect; thinking that IQ must be "visible" in some way;  I've learned to accept my level of giftedness; I am decent at computers, philosophy and economics, yet I am terrible at physics and higher math.  Nonetheless, I simply cannot believe the thoughts I had about the human intellect; just dreadful... 

[Jason Menzies]

Again, maybe getting into "Murky Waters", but perhaps, in Jungian terms, if the function is "extraverted", then it is more "visible", because it is exposed more to the outer world.  Nonetheless, even if the function is extraverted, you might only see the end product of the reasoning without knowing "how the gears are turning" on the inside.  Perhaps then this is just an example of the Forer Effect...