Well, I don’t know anyone’s IQ score, but I know SATs and other similar tests, and you’re really ascribing rather more significance to the score variation than I think is reasonable. I have a good friend who scored a perfect 1600 on the SAT, and another who scored 1580 (I probably have more friends in this range than I realize, but these two are from that brief period at the end of high school/beginning of college when one would actually discuss one’s SAT scores…). They were intelligent, sure; but not in such a way as that they towered over others, or even were noticeably different in any way other than apparent in their academic abilities. If it hadn’t been during that brief window of time where people still discussed such things, I’d never have known or guessed that these friends had such higher scores than those friends; it just wasn’t a visible quality.
That isn’t to say that SAT scores are meaningless. But they just don’t have the all-pervasive meaning you seem to take them to… (Mostly, it just meant those people were good at math and well-read, I suppose.)
No, it would not be untoward of you at all, albeit it would be repeating points made previously: high IQ individuals get different jokes than do lower IQ individuals mainly because they share different knowledge bases. The basic process of the twist and the possible slight discomfort is the same for jokes at all IQ levels; what makes the twist or the discomfort just varies depending on your cultural subgroup. Jokes, as per one link I offered up, are a way of bonding a group. “High IQ jokes” capitalize on the fact that high IQ individuals are more likely in possession of certain knowledge sets and that others are out of that group. The unflattering fact to any of us who smile more at the sub-atomic particles waiting at church for the Higgs boson, or the Decartes joke, or a host of others, more than we do other puns or simple word-play, is that we are enjoying it because it plays to our sense of intellectual elitism. (Same as why we subscribe to the Economist. :))
Actually, you’d have the burden of proof here. No one has yet given an example of just how these 150 people would “know” each other to be head and shoulders above the"brighter than average" people. It’s not like professional sports, where there are objective and clear differences between me and Michael Jordan, and it’s not a situation where we just can’t recognize anyone being smarter than ourselves, because we do that all the time. You are claiming they have special abilities; that intelligence is a linear function – the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claim.
If you want anecdotes, regardless, I know Rajan Mahadevan, and he’s not a genius, but he gets perfects in the number manipulation/coding speed sections of IQ tests. I’ve met 2 Nobel laureates, and neither of them blew me away. I’ve talked to some people that are recognized as, and obviously are some of the brightest people in legal academia, and even the smartest didn’t come off as making me feel profoundly retarded in comparison. You might claim that I just can’t tell, which is fine. But you also need to answer the question “Can’t tell what?”
Well, I had trouble with the “my newt” one because I didn’t hear it spoken. I pronounce “my newt” and “minute” slightly differently, and did not immediately figure out that it was a pun-based joke: I looked for something requiring special knowledge.
The Descarte joke fit better, but I agree that anyone of average intelligence should be able to get this, but they must be aware of who Descarte is. I could understand that people with higher IQs would be more likely to have that knowledge. Still, I would consider that knowledge pretty basic.
I’ve never liked that Descartes joke; sure, he argued that we can infer his existence from the fact that he thinks (or, rather, that we can each infer our own existence from our manifest perception of the surrounding phenomenon, as we ponder the question, of ourself thinking), but it hardly follows that his failure to continue thinking would precipitate the end of his existence; that thought entails existence does not mean that lack of thought entails lack of existence.
Perhaps I’m overthinking this. Maybe I should just relax and…
Either that SAT conversion isn’t very good or there are a lot more 150’s around than you’d think - it put me at 151-154 and I know tons and tons and tons of people who did better on the SAT than I did. They’re better at math. I wouldn’t call them geniuses.
Oh, boy, maybe I should have used that smiley after all. I wouldn’t call myself a genius either. My comment wasn’t even based on any SAT-to-IQ-to-genius conversion chart; just pure (tongue-in-cheek) arrogance.
The point posited however was that they could tell the difference between you and another of their same intellect; your anecdote does not bear on the subject. I do not claim a linear relationship and do not know why you believe I do. Each of us have the same burden of proof to bear and the same lack of hard data with which to prove it. I suppose a possible way to answer the question would to poll Mensa members and see if ask them if they notice a difference between conversations they have with each other and with the average person they meet socially … what do you suspect the answer would be?
Something harder to observe and measure is qualitatively less significant? By definition? Really? Why in the world would you think that?
Well, yes, if it’s harder to observe and measure, it has less of an observable/measurable impact on anything, which is reasonably paraphrased as “qualitatively less significant”.
At any rate, what makes you so sure “they” (nebulously assumed to be people other than us, I suppose) could tell the difference? Quizzing Mensa members won’t quite do; they self-select for interest in a club with IQ-based membership criteria. (Still, I imagine quite a few would admit they couldn’t really notice any great difference). Quizzing those with high measured IQ would be better, but there’s still the possibility that they don’t really know what they’re talking about. What would do best would be measuring people’s IQ, then having them have conversation, then asking them to guess what each other’s IQ is, and seeing if anyone (low or high IQ) is very good at this guessing.
Things that are harder to observe and measure do not necessarily have “less of an observable/measurable impact on anything”; they are just harder to observe and measure. Nothing more and nothing less. Germs were hard to observe and measure for many many years. Were they less significant because of that? It’s a strange statement to me.
I also find the “If they are harder to observe and measure, that sort of makes them qualitatively less significant. By definition.” statement strange.
Let’s try this: Suppose you are given the task to hire someone to fill a position in a high-level think tank to work on solutions to some very difficult problems – doesn’t matter what, maybe cosmology or particle physics, maybe traffic patterns in a big city.
You have two applicants, both recent graduates from the same university with the same advanced degree applicable to the field and both with the same grade point average, both are equally personable and presentable, but one has a tested IQ of 130 and the other tested at 160.
Who you gonna hire? Be honest,now. Keep in mind that you are looking for someone who will be able to solve very difficult problems, not just to do mundane grunt work. You’re not really going to say it doesn’t matter and flip a coin, are you? Why not?
I spent quite a few years on the board of the GATE parents advocacy group for my district, and every year the GATE administrator gave a talk for new GATE parents including the characteristics of GATE kids, and how they differ from others. We also had some talks by psychologists specializing in gifted children. There were tests given, and GATE was the top 10% or so, but the IQ they were looking for was 140. They also mentioned the characteristics of extremely gifted students (IQ > 150).
My experience matches what they said pretty well.
If the difference in IQ results in a noticeable difference in their ability to solve difficult problems, then it’s not so hard to observe, is it?
(On another note, if what I really care about is ability to solve difficult problems of some particular sort, and I had access to information that tracked this directly (e.g., their track record of work solving difficult problems of the relevant sort), then I would no longer have any use for information which was merely hypothesized to correlate to this indirectly.)
I figured out “minute” when I was getting up this morning. Maybe sleeping on it really does help you with these things. I usually do get jokes; this one is just hard when you don’t read it out loud.
I’m still in college.
I have understanding teachers and roommates and friends, and I send out a note to my teachers at the beginning of the semester explaining my issues and politely requesting certain accommodations.
I haven’t taken any math classes yet, and I’m not looking forward. I don’t see why I have to know calculus or trigonometry to be a wildlife researcher, but bio major rules are bio major rules.
Yeah, having math problems sucks, and I don’t understand why nobody noticed what seems so obvious throughout ten years of intensive special ed.
People of average intelligence are just average. People of low intelligence can be categorized by their ability to perform certain intellectual tasks, but people of above average intelligence are all the same … they are just smart, but somebody with an IQ of 160 isn’t really smarter than someone with an IQ of 130 and isn’t capable of doing anything the one with the lower score can’t also do.
In other words, there are several quantifiable levels of low intellectual ability, there is average intellectual ability, and there is smart, but there are no gradations of smart. Average people are smarter than retarded people, mildly retarded people are smarter than severely retarded people, but all smart people are the same, no smart person is smarter than another smart person. Got it. It all makes sense now.
What are you reading that from? Although I will say that it’s highly dubious to me that there’s some universally applicable linearly ordered quantity governing all intellectual activity, such that one would expect that if person A was markedly better than person B at, say, solving mathematical riddles, then person A would also be markedly better than person B at, say, writing essays, or vice versa, or what have you.
Luckily, I’m good at all these things, so I don’t have to worry about it.
(Although I’m apparently not that great at thinking of kinds of intellectual activity which aren’t just correlated with one of the two sections of the SAT…)
