Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture I.Q.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ShanDog said:
In fact you could probably extend that to cause and effect type issues too - for instance an apprentice plumber who is notably more intelligent that their supervisor is going to do things unaware of the shortcuts and efficiency lessons learned that the experienced supervisor has been through themselves. Almost a corporate knowledge thing.
Click to expand...
This takes me back to knowledbase lectures in Uni. How do you capture experience of that pipe in that section of the gasworks so it can be accessed and actioned?

The experienced guy knows it just needs a whack with a hammer. The newbie asks to get it replaced at great expense.
 
Rotayjay said:
IQ has historically been overrated but nowadays the general public and HR managers are becoming more aware of emotional intelligence. In addition, someone might be a master writer but hopeless at maths, or a magnificent artist who's not confident when speaking, or a master maths whizz who can't process shapes. People are good at different things.

On balance, social skills are the most important of all. A book smart person with no empathy or ability to read everyday social cues is going to have a hard time.
Click to expand...
Alough it has a nice ring to it, the evidence for the concept of EQ being 'real' is equivocal. It is difficult to define precisely what it is and therefore hard to get agreement on how it should be measured. When it does get measured, some research has shown that EQ doesn't predict much more beyond what you can predict if you just measure cognitive ability and personality, which we've been able to do for years.

Some academics think EQ is just a fad and largely BS (HR practitioners are often attracted to fads and other pseudoscientific crap so don't be tricked into thinking that whatever they're into must be valid). Other academics swear by EQ, however, and perhaps we just haven't worked out how to measure it properly.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

An interesting finding

Higher I.Q. at age 11 = lower mortality rate in a paper covering 68 years (N = 65,765)

Conclusions In a whole national population year of birth cohort followed over the life course from age 11 to age 79, higher scores on a well validated childhood intelligence test were associated with lower risk of mortality ascribed to coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers related to smoking (particularly lung and stomach), respiratory diseases, digestive diseases, injury, and dementia.

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2708
 
Snake_Baker said:
An interesting finding

Higher I.Q. at age 11 = lower mortality rate in a paper covering 68 years (N = 65,765)

Conclusions In a whole national population year of birth cohort followed over the life course from age 11 to age 79, higher scores on a well validated childhood intelligence test were associated with lower risk of mortality ascribed to coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers related to smoking (particularly lung and stomach), respiratory diseases, digestive diseases, injury, and dementia.

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2708
Click to expand...
Association between lower intelligence and mortality due to dementia is interesting. I wonder if that is a result of access to quality care or a direct relationship?
 
Good question.

Discussion

The analysis undertaken in this large population-based cohort did not demonstrate any protective effect of years in education on the accumulation of neurodegenerative or vascular pathologies in the brain at death. Education did, however, mitigate the association between pathology burden and cognitive decline so that, for a specific pathological burden, those who had experienced more education early in life were at reduced dementia risk in old age. The average time elapsed between completion of education and death was >70 years in the EClipSE cohort, such that these associations between education, neuropathological burden and clinical dementia are remarkable. The evidence appears strong based on these three population-based cohorts of old European individuals who have been followed for up to 20 years.

The results support the ‘brain reserve hypothesis’ (Stern, 2006; Valenzuela and Sachdev, 2006; Valenzuela et al., 2007; Valenzuela, 2008) where those who remain in education for longer are able to compensate for pathological burden in later life, rather than a hypothesis based on a protective effect of education against the accumulation of pathology arising from life-long environmental factors (Del Ser et al., 1999). The finding that low education is associated with an increased incidence of dementia (Stern et al., 1994; Cobb et al., 1995; Ott et al., 1995) therefore appears to be due not to an increased burden of neuropathology, but rather to an increased vulnerability to cognitive deterioration.

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/133/8/2210/395786

Keep doing pushups for your brain.:thumbsu:
 
Chief said:
This takes me back to knowledbase lectures in Uni. How do you capture experience of that pipe in that section of the gasworks so it can be accessed and actioned?

The experienced guy knows it just needs a whack with a hammer. The newbie asks to get it replaced at great expense.
Click to expand...
You might find this interesting

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are.html

From the blogpost:

When hunting caribou, Naskapi foragers in Labrador, Canada, had to decide where to go. Common sense might lead one to go where one had success before or to where friends or neighbors recently spotted caribou. However, this situation is like Matching Pennies in chapter 2. The caribou are mismatchers and the hunters are matchers. That is, hunters want to match the locations of caribou while caribou want to mismatch the hunters, to avoid being shot and eaten. If a hunter shows any bias to return to previous spots, where he or others have seen caribou, then the caribou can benefit (survive better) by avoiding those locations (where they have previously seen humans). Thus, the best hunting strategy requires randomizing. Can cultural evolution compensate for our cognitive inadequacies? Traditionally, Naskapi hunters decided where to go to hunt using divination and believed that the shoulder bones of caribou could point the way to success. To start the ritual, the shoulder blade was heated over hot coals in a way that caused patterns of cracks and burnt spots to form. This patterning was then read as a kind of map, which was held in a pre-specified orientation. The cracking patterns were (probably) essentially random from the point of view of hunting locations, since the outcomes depended on myriad details about the bone, fire, ambient temperature, and heating process. Thus, these divination rituals may have provided a crude randomizing device that helped hunters avoid their own decision-making biases. The undergraduates in the Matching Pennies game could have used a randomizing device like divination, though the chimps seem fine without it.​

It is amazing to think of some religious / cultural traditions as a way of randomising behaviours - an evolved strategy to guard against over-rationalising.
 
Intelligence in early adulthood and subsequent hospitalisation and admission rates for the whole range of mental disorders: longitudinal study of 1,049,663 men


Abstract

Background

Lower intelligence is a risk factor for several specific mental disorders, but it is unclear whether it is a risk factor for all mental disorder or whether it is associated with illness severity. We examined the relation between pre-morbid intelligence and risk of hospital admission and total admission rates for the whole range of mental disorders.

Methods

Participants were 1,049,663 Swedish men who took tests of intelligence on conscription into military service and were followed up for hospital admissions for mental disorder for a mean of 22.6 years. International Classification of Diseases diagnoses were recorded at discharge from hospital.


Results

Risk of hospital admission for all categories of disorder rose with each point decrease in the nine-point IQ score. For a standard deviation decrease in IQ, age-adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.60 (1.55, 1.65) for schizophrenia, 1.49 (1.45, 1.53) for other non-affective psychoses, 1.50 (1.47, 1.51) for mood disorders, 1.51 (1.48, 1.54) for neurotic disorders, 1.60 (1.56, 1.64) for adjustment disorders, 1.75 (1.70, 1.80) for personality disorders, 1.75 (1.73, 1.77) for alcohol-related and 1.85 (1.82, 1.88) for other substance use disorders. Lower intelligence was associated with greater comorbidity. Associations changed little on adjustment for potential confounders. Men with lower intelligence had higher total admission rates, a possible marker of clinical severity.

Conclusions

Lower intelligence is a risk factor for the whole range of mental disorders and for illness severity. Understanding the underlying mechanisms is crucial if we are to find ways to reduce the burden of mental illness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170757/
 
Rotayjay said:
IQ has historically been overrated but nowadays the general public and HR managers are becoming more aware of emotional intelligence. In addition, someone might be a master writer but hopeless at maths, or a magnificent artist who's not confident when speaking, or a master maths whizz who can't process shapes. People are good at different things.

On balance, social skills are the most important of all. A book smart person with no empathy or ability to read everyday social cues is going to have a hard time.
Click to expand...

It's not over-rated at all.
It doesn't have to give you commercial success and nor does it make one happy.
It just gives the individual a better processor, but how one uses it, is up to the individual.

It's largely a luck of the draw thing as it is with looks, gender etc.........for now at least.
 
Social skills and social connections are infinitely more important than intelligence in human societies. It can even be argued an excess of intelligence hinders one's ability to connect socially.


HARKER said:
It's not over-rated at all.
It doesn't have to give you commercial success and nor does it make one happy.
It just gives the individual a better processor, but how one uses it, is up to the individual.

It's largely a luck of the draw thing as it is with looks, gender etc.........for now at least.
Click to expand...
Let's not pretend being intelligent isn't without its' downsides. Just as people naturally congregate towards those of similar socio-economic standing, they'll gravitate towards others of similar intelligence, within a given margin of error depending on how wide a field of choices are available.

Our world caters largely towards the average not only in terms of height, weight, appetite, taste, and so on, but also intelligence, and anyone sufficiently above or below that average will find life difficult. Humans intensely dislike having their flaws revealed by virtue of comparison with others, hence those of extremely high intelligence are often shunned and encouraged to mix only with others who occupy a similar IQ strata.

There's little doubt the happiest among us are those who are ruthlessly average. I believe this stems from our primitive instincts training us to distrust those who are different, encouraging us to gravitate towards members of our own tribe. Which seems hideously irrelevant in 2018, but its difficult to overcome what's bread into the bone.
 
Last edited:
A Cut Above said:
There's little doubt the happiest among us are those who are ruthlessly average. I believe this stems from our primitive instincts training us to distrust those who are different, encouraging us to gravitate towards members of our own tribe. Which seems hideously irrelevant in 2018, but its difficult to overcome what's bread into the bone.
Click to expand...

The relationship between happiness and intelligent quotient: the contribution of socio-economic and clinical factors.
Ali A1, Ambler G, Strydom A, Rai D, Cooper C, McManus S, Weich S, Meltzer H, Dein S, Hassiotis A.

Psychol Med. 2013 Jun;43(6):1303-12. doi: 10.1017/S0033291712002139. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Happiness and higher intelligent quotient (IQ) are independently related to positive health outcomes. However, there are inconsistent reports about the relationship between IQ and happiness. The aim was to examine the association between IQ and happiness and whether it is mediated by social and clinical factors. Method The authors analysed data from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey in England. The participants were adults aged 16 years or over, living in private households in 2007. Data from 6870 participants were included in the study. Happiness was measured using a validated question on a three-point scale. Verbal IQ was estimated using the National Adult Reading Test and both categorical and continuous IQ was analysed.

RESULTS:
Happiness is significantly associated with IQ. Those in the lowest IQ range (70-99) reported the lowest levels of happiness compared with the highest IQ group (120-129). Mediation analysis using the continuous IQ variable found dependency in activities of daily living, income, health and neurotic symptoms were strong mediators of the relationship, as they reduced the association between happiness and IQ by 50%.

CONCLUSIONS:
Those with lower IQ are less happy than those with higher IQ. Interventions that target modifiable variables such as income (e.g. through enhancing education and employment opportunities) and neurotic symptoms (e.g. through better detection of mental health problems) may improve levels of happiness in the lower IQ groups.
 
The Social Origins of Inventors

Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Ari Hyytinen, Otto Toivanen

NBER Working Paper No. 24110
Issued in December 2017
NBER Program(s):Economic Fluctuations and Growth Program, Labor Studies Program, Productivity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Program

In this paper we merge three datasets - individual income data, patenting data, and IQ data - to analyze the determinants of an individual's probability of inventing. We find that: (i) parental income matters even after controlling for other background variables and for IQ, yet the estimated impact of parental income is greatly diminished once parental education and the individual's IQ are controlled for; (ii) IQ has both a direct effect on the probability of inventing an indirect impact through education. The effect of IQ is larger for inventors than for medical doctors or lawyers. The impact of IQ is robust to controlling for unobserved family characteristics by focusing on potential inventors with brothers close in age. We also provide evidence on the importance of social family interactions, by looking at biological versus non-biological parents. Finally, we find a positive and significant interaction effect between IQ and father income, which suggests a misallocation of talents to innovation.

www.nber.org

The Social Origins of Inventors

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.
www.nber.org www.nber.org
 

Remove this Banner Ad

A Cut Above said:
Its not what you know, its who you know in life. Humanity collectively values charisma far above intelligence, to its ultimate detriment.
Click to expand...
My Mother told me that my IQ tested quite high and I, if I may blow my own trumpet, can be charismatic... unfortunately, laziness trumps all.
 
Snake_Baker said:
The Social Origins of Inventors

Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Ari Hyytinen, Otto Toivanen

NBER Working Paper No. 24110
Issued in December 2017
NBER Program(s):Economic Fluctuations and Growth Program, Labor Studies Program, Productivity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Program

In this paper we merge three datasets - individual income data, patenting data, and IQ data - to analyze the determinants of an individual's probability of inventing. We find that: (i) parental income matters even after controlling for other background variables and for IQ, yet the estimated impact of parental income is greatly diminished once parental education and the individual's IQ are controlled for; (ii) IQ has both a direct effect on the probability of inventing an indirect impact through education. The effect of IQ is larger for inventors than for medical doctors or lawyers. The impact of IQ is robust to controlling for unobserved family characteristics by focusing on potential inventors with brothers close in age. We also provide evidence on the importance of social family interactions, by looking at biological versus non-biological parents. Finally, we find a positive and significant interaction effect between IQ and father income, which suggests a misallocation of talents to innovation.

www.nber.org

The Social Origins of Inventors

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.
www.nber.org www.nber.org
Click to expand...

So the patriarchy and privilege have been a huge benefit for mankind?
 
sorted said:
So the patriarchy and privilege have been a huge benefit for mankind?
Click to expand...


The "patriarchy" are responsible for a thing called "civilisation".

The strong build it, the weak seek to seize it via politics.
 
EasternTiger said:
Bill Gates 160
Warren Buffet 155
Elon Musk 160+??

George W Bush 80.

You can be a dumbo and still succeed. It will take meticulous planning, and a father who used to be the President and before that ran the CIA.

Stay in school kids. Be a thinker not a stinker.
Click to expand...

I think one of Dubya's lines on the speaking circuit was something like, "to all the C and D students out there, I say,... see you too can be President".

(False self-deprecation without mentioning the enormous material advantages handed to him)
 
Magruder said:
I think one of Dubya's lines on the speaking circuit was something like, "to all the C and D students out there, I say,... see you too can be President".

(False self-deprecation without mentioning the enormous material advantages handed to him)
Click to expand...

George W. Bush was never an idiot though (I’m not saying you said he was, just continuing on with the general topic). I recall reading a paper from probably 10 years ago in which the IQ scores of U.S. presidents were estimated on the basis of various behavioural records (e.g., use of low-frequency words in off-the-cuff speech as an indicator of vocabulary size). From memory, his was estimated at around 130; certainly lower than some other presidents, but still well above average.

(Here, I found the paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00524.x. My memory of the source of the estimates was a bit off, but the number I remembered was fairly accurate.)
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

A Cut Above said:
Its not what you know, its who you know in life. Humanity collectively values charisma far above intelligence, to its ultimate detriment.
Click to expand...

Maybe on a conscious level. However, humanity indirectly values intelligence from the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg etc. by consuming their creations. Intelligent people work in the background, living successful, wealthy and fulfilling lives out of the limelight. Many prefer it that way, although the very few narcissists among them probably do feel a bit frustrated at not having their ego stroked.
 
Arkangel said:
George W. Bush was never an idiot though (I’m not saying you said he was, just continuing on with the general topic). I recall reading a paper from probably 10 years ago in which the IQ scores of U.S. presidents were estimated on the basis of various behavioural records (e.g., use of low-frequency words in off-the-cuff speech as an indicator of vocabulary size). From memory, his was estimated at around 130; certainly lower than some other presidents, but still well above average.

(Here, I found the paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00524.x. My memory of the source of the estimates was a bit off, but the number I remembered was fairly accurate.)
Click to expand...

absolutely agree.

It was the self-deprecatory way he played up to notions that he wasn't bright that I remembered clearly.

GWB had/has the level of intelligence that one would associate with highly functioning professionals. The level of stress and sheer volume of material that POTUS needs to be across, (together with a natural verbal proclivity to mixed metaphors); is the element that caused him to stumble and look a bit dense at times.

He is anything but thick.
 
There's educated, which is what life does to you. Then there is trained, which is what uni does to you.

Anyone trained, is dumb.
 
Grin said:
Click to expand...
Nuggs Bunny said:
I AINT BOOK SMART BUT I STREET SMART
Click to expand...
There's a point between the two though. I know a lot of stupid people with university degrees, and a lot of people well smarter than average who studied a trade or went straight into employment. 'Intellectualism' is often a very prescribed set of behaviours and received learning. Eg, from the above link:

The bogan will tell you it likes to think. However, prone to the unquestioning acceptance of prescribed religion and nationalism.​

This is received: bogans are nationalist and religious? They certainly aren't religious in Australia, no more than non-bogans. Their nationalism (or more accurately parochialism) is preferable to picaresque displays of open-mindedness common to the liberal minded white non-bogan - the friend who lets everyone know the best place for the insipid beef stock and basil soup called pho, and make sure to pronounce it with the schwa, or where to get good laksa, or where they had an amazing century egg, or ...

Also, things bogans like is lame and gay.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture I.Q.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top