Why Are Some People With Very High IQ Just Plain Stupid?

[Ruddigar]

I once had 2 hair cuts together and got a bottle of shampoo for free. I thought that was pretty clever.

Not really mate. After two haircuts in a row you'd have nothing left to use your shampoo on.

It's like getting 100 litres of free unleaded with every LPG conversion.

[silentC]

Mensa

But they're less than 3% of the population.

[silentC]

But they're less than 3% of the population.

Sorry, that's less than 2%

[echnidna]

Why am I having a discussion about intelligence with an ape?

Maybe you think the Ape's smarter than the Woof-Woof

[Grunt]

Maybe you think the Ape's smarter than the Woof-Woof

Certainly not that Ape.

[Rossluck]

Sorry, that's less than 2%

That's a positive, at any rate. The only one I am really aware of is the comic store guy on the Simpsons. He, with his fellow members doubtlessly have meetings where they perpetually discuss who has the biggest....

If you do some research into IQ testing, or the politics of IQ testing, you'll discover that a range of ethnic groups don't do as well as others (for instance, African-Americans, Hispanics, the Aboriginal people here in Australia). http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html

Why? Are you going to tell me that they are less intelligent?

It stands to reason that the groups who do do well in these tests have formulated tests in which they do relatively well. This is the power of knowledge held by those who develop and foster that knowledge in order that they might hold reign over others.

I think it best to see IQ tests as most sensible psychologists and psychiatrists do: as a works in progress at this stage.

[Master Splinter]

Homer said it best...

"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?"

[joe greiner]

Isaac Asimov's first paragraph: My experience to the letter, except for the two hours of big fuss. However, at least once a week during basic training I was hectored for not applying to Officers Candidate School. I reasoned that being a 2nd lieutenant in 1966 was not an enviable vocation, considering their life expectancy in SE Asia.

So, does that make me smart as well as intelligent? Although I've been accused of being smart, conflicting evidence suggests I won't be convicted.

I once attended an open Mensa meeting as a guest. I don't think I've ever seen such a dense massing of self-assured stuffed shirts, and I passed on further involvement.

Joe

[joe greiner]

Homer said it best...

"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?"

Spoken in jest perhaps, but not so far-fetched. Quite a few years ago, there was an article in Scientific American magazine with the title "The Interference Theory of Forgetting." Or something like that.

Joe

[Driver]

My old boss had a gift for hitting the nail fair on the head. We were talking about a bloke who was doing some consulting work for us (and making one helluva meal of it). My boss said:

"Be patient. He'll get there soon. He's the most intelligent, highly qualified farkwit I've ever met."

[echnidna]

I once attended an open Mensa meeting as a guest. I don't think I've ever seen such a dense massing of self-assured stuffed shirts, and I passed on further involvement.

Joe

I recall reading that the man with the highest IQ in the world lives in Northern England.

He's the village postman.

From that I conclude that he uses his intelligence wisely

[Peter57]

It's easy to be critical people who are different, whatever the difference may be. Sure a lot of very smart people are not particularly manually adept, or even particularly good at life skills. I've worked with researchers who range from "normal" to almost socially inert. The rule of thumb seems that the higher the specialised skill, the more difficult the social interaction. My theory on this is that they are often so tied up in what they are doing that they are almost oblivious to the world around them.

The other characteristic I notice is that the really smart ones don't actually flaunt it, they just spend their lives doing whatever they are interested in. I've met a lot of highly acccomplished people in their fields and generally speaking they are pretty humble, if a little distracted.

So be kind to the socially challenged, but as for the tossers who want to make people feel small because they don't meet a certain number on a meaningless test.........Ask them to change a tyre or fix a tap

[sea dragon]

There is a lot of interesting material in this thread, even some very good repartee and quips, but Echninda's original question remains an interesting one, doesn't it?

We are seeing more approachs these days, even the types of "intelligence" being measured,as in the alternatives of Mensa and emotional intelligence. Perhaps testing of "problem appreciation" may disclose a lateral thinking ability, but not necessarily.

What are we really saying when we end up expressing observations to the effect that someone has an old head on their young shoulders?

I had always wanted to be something of a Renaissance person. It is with a certain reluctance that I accept there are some areas that have no appeal for me and that to devote time to understanding them better is not sufficiently attractive. The areas of aptitude and intelligence can be similar but different. There is a separate need to consider original thought, something incapable of being measured.

I am castigated too often for showing a lack of thought. Isn't that what we often see when an intelligent person does something silly? How often do we make a mistake because we did not devote enough time to properly appreciate what was called for?
The "stupidity" is NOT to learn. Challenges to learning are when there is a limitation on the capacity of the person to comprehend and apply.
In that sense, a University Degree may at least be proof of a person to apply themselves to a course of study, ie a track record. The person who tops the course has clearly been diligent, even if they may not necessarily been the most intelligent person in the course.
Also, there is the "While I live I grow" factor. Some people peak early, others continue to grow. Winston Churchill, of whom I am not always a fan, certainly did grow. I saw a reference in the last week to a person in their 90's having graduated at a Uni. Maybe that rebutts Bertrand Russell's perception that a person does not have further original thoughts after 90.
Okay, that is my stream of consciousness to the thread.

[kiwigeo]

My old boss had a gift for hitting the nail fair on the head. We were talking about a bloke who was doing some consulting work for us (and making one helluva meal of it). My boss said:

"Be patient. He'll get there soon. He's the most intelligent, highly qualified farkwit I've ever met."

Also says something about the bright sparks who hire consultants or specialists and think theyre saving money.

Out on the oil rigs we're seeing and endless stream of "specialists" coming out to the rig to sit around for a week, spend a few hours doing their alloted task and then sitting around for a few more days waiting for a chopper home. I have a growing list of specialists I'd like to be. The best one so far is a guy who comes out to the rig to do up the bolts that hold on the clamp-on drill pipe protectors we sometimes use in angled long reach wells.

[echnidna]

There is a lot of interesting material in this thread, even some very good repartee and quips, but Echninda's original question remains an interesting one, doesn't it?

I considered posing this type of question very carefully as I didn't want it to become an exercize in elitist egoism. Which is precisely why I didn't include a poll asking what is your IQ

I had always wanted to be something of a Renaissance person. It is with a certain reluctance that I accept there are some areas that have no appeal for me and that to devote time to understanding them better is not sufficiently attractive.

That applies to everyone regardless of their IQ,
Why bother learning something you find dull and uninteresting

The areas of aptitude and intelligence can be similar but different. There is a separate need to consider original thought, something incapable of being measured.

Maybe the only ones who find a need to consider original thought are the elitist intelligensia rather than the true geniuses who learn merely for the sake of learning

I am castigated too often for showing a lack of thought. Isn't that what we often see when an intelligent person does something silly? How often do we make a mistake because we did not devote enough time to properly appreciate what was called for?

The castigators demonstrate their intellectual absurdity by the mere act of castigation, when they should really apply themselves to demonstrating where errors have been made and the methods that can be used to prevent future errors

The "stupidity" is NOT to learn. Challenges to learning are when there is a limitation on the capacity of the person to comprehend and apply.
In that sense, a University Degree may at least be proof of a person to apply themselves to a course of study, ie a track record. The person who tops the course has clearly been diligent, even if they may not necessarily been the most intelligent person in the course.

I'm aware of people at the upper echelons who don't have to study intensively, if at all, because they find the subject matters dull and boring while realising the necessity of the specific course.

Also, there is the "While I live I grow" factor. Some people peak early, others continue to grow. Winston Churchill, of whom I am not always a fan, certainly did grow. I saw a reference in the last week to a person in their 90's having graduated at a Uni. Maybe that rebutts Bertrand Russell's perception that a person does not have further original thoughts after 90.
Okay, that is my stream of consciousness to the thread.

I'll comment on this after I have my 90th birthday party.

Also says something about the bright sparks who hire consultants or specialists and think theyre saving money.

The bright sparks have obvuiously reached their specific level of incompetence so they have to use experts.

Out on the oil rigs we're seeing and endless stream of "specialists" coming out to the rig to sit around for a week, spend a few hours doing their alloted task and then sitting around for a few more days waiting for a chopper home. I have a growing list of specialists I'd like to be. The best one so far is a guy who comes out to the rig to do up the bolts that hold on the clamp-on drill pipe protectors we sometimes use in angled long reach wells.

I wonder if theres any vacancies for a specialist to train the woirkers how to put a bit of whitebait on a hook