"IQ measures how good you are at taking IQ tests"

Great Debates
121

So, both DSeid and Mijin appear to be asserting that there is no relationship between boredom proness, and that the high intelligence group would be more likely to be bored.

These two assertions are mutually exclusive. Secondly, the empirical literature supports assertion one. Finally, boring tasks are just boring. Does it make sense that some people are just gonna love them some filing because they’re a Banner and not a Beacon?

As for my tone, you’ll get it whenever you want to force your unsupported opinion on me while deriding the scientific approach to a problem. Because I say so is a bullshit justification for anything.

122

No.

Say that I partition everyone in the world into two groups. Group A has everyone of an IQ of 99 and below. Group B has everyone of IQ 100 and above. Now, I take everyone in group B and start sticking forks and needles into them wantonly until they’re crying out in pain and bleeding all over the place. Group A, meanwhile, gets to swim in the pool and drink Margaritas.

In this scenario, regardless of whether I have determined beforehand that there’s no link between IQ and pain tolerance, everyone in group B will certainly be in more pain than everyone in group A, because I’ve specifically targeted them as the recipients of pain.

Mijin’s point is that, tolerance aside, there are more tasks in the world that will be found tedious to people of higher intelligence. He’s wrong for not attempting to prove that, but it is unrelated to tolerance. Two people can have the same tolerance for boredom, but if one of them is given a far more boring task, he’s still going to get bored before the other guy.

123

Here’s another quote from your link:
“Point C on the graph represents the group with the very highest level of creative achievement in intellectually demanding fields. Although this level of accomplishment is found well below the very highest IQ level, it is still very much higher than the 120 IQ threshold.”

Later on, they estimate that the most creative people have IQs around 166.
So I think your point is flat out wrong, at least if we’re using that link as a source of authority.

What an odd statement. In other words, you think that IQ is TERRIBLY important in overall performance in various jobs, so much so that you would use it as an exclusive veto over everything else… and yet you also seem to be strongly objecting to the OP, even though, based on the above quote, you seem to strongly agree with the underlying issue I was trying to feel out in the first place.

124

A few comments:
(1) I swear I had no hidden agenda with this thought experiment. This isn’t some trick where I expect people to agree that Jane’s company will do better, and then I’ll be like “well, Bell Curve this and black-student-SAT-scores-that, lol you liburul hypocrites” or something like that, which some people seem to be anticipating
(2) Of course this though experiment informs naught on any of various other things. Nor does it pretend to. It was purely, as it claimed to be, a response to what I thought were hyperbolic claims along the lines of “IQ means nothing”. Obviously IQ doesn’t mean EVERYTHING… but who said it did?
(3) I find your use of the word “Western” in there very interesting. Do you think IQ is less of an indicator of professional and educational success in, say, Japan, China or India?

125

Probably chose the western world because that’s what we have the most data on. And excluding Japan, the western world has the largest percentage of jobs that require somewhat high IQs… and the highest social mobility rates.

A largely agrarian culture, or a stagnant culture doesn’t really offer all that much information to analyze. Like…if your work consists of walking behind a water-buffalo 12 hours a day… it’s pretty hard to measure the correlation between IQ and success. Especially if everyone does the same job… and their fathers… and their fathers’ fathers… know what I mean?

shrug

You might be reading too much into “western”, just saying.

126

Yep, which is not to make the claim that a higher proportion will be bored, since they, like everyone else, can find tasks that suit their level of ability.

In the OP, people with very high IQs are hired to do every job in a company including some that, IMO, they would find mentally unstimulating.

To use my analogy again, it’s like if you gave a batch of 32-inch trousers to a group of people with a 38-inch waist. I would expect that they would find the trousers too tight.
This does not make the claim that people with 38-inch waists generally wear trousers that are too tight.

The OP makes the claim that Jane’s group would do better, without cite, then asks if there are any opinions to the contrary.
Apparently though, such opinions must come with cites. :dubious:

127

I agree with what you’ve said here. I thought we were talking about two equal sets of tasks here, between Bob and Jane’s equivalent companies, not the universe of possible tasks.

128

Hentor why is this so difficult for you to grasp that within each company are a variety of tasks that are not all equal? To use Mijin’s pants size analogy:

Each company has an equal variety of pants sizes from waist 29 to 42. One company hires all thin people, one company hires all fat people. One company will have the problem of not having enough people fat enough to fit into the bigger sizes well and whose performance will be uncomfortable by having their pants falling down - sorry no belts or braces allowed. One company will have a bunch of people uncomfortable because they are too big to fit into the smaller pants comfortably even though they will be great at the larger pants sizes. Nothing about that supposition involves thin or fat people being more prone to uncomfortableness.

The belief that some of us have, and that you do not accept without a cite, as is your right, is that that their are jobs that will fit the lower IQ individuals well, that they will be comfortable in and enjoy “wearing”, and therefore perform well in, that would be poor fits for higher IQ individuals, because they are too large for those jobs. So sure, you can say that you do not think that higher IQ individuals would get bored doing jobs that do not engage their brains, that you believe they can keep their minds otherwise engaged such that they’d do those jobs at least as well as those for whom those jobs are the bowl of porridge that’s just right, or just believe that there’s no evidence, no cite to prove, that people are more likely to be bored doing things that are not intellectually engaging at whatever is their level and less likely to be bored if given tasks that are intellectually engaging at whatever their level is, or that their boredom won’t affect their job performance on the simpler tasks, but your constant rephrasing it as “more prone to boredom” is tiresome.

Max, yes, GHO is correct, I am speaking in as precise a way as possible. The IQ test was designed in a Western cultural environment and the data we have on it comes out of that environment almost exclusively. We can state that the data shows a clear correlation between performance on an IQ test and future success in a Western educational setting and in Western professional settings. Whatever it does measure correlates with whatever sort of problem solving skill sets are needed to succeed there. We cannot say, at least with much data to back us up, whether or not it tells us more about what is required to succeed in other cultures (success in other cultures may or may not require the same sort of skills that this test ends up measuring, whatever they are) or if it is valid testing those raised in other cultures (whether or not the test is culturally biased). That is often the point of those making the excessively hyperbolic statement you object to: the test measures something; that something is how well you do on the test which was designed to test people in the Western world as a predictor of academic and professional success in that Western world; the test may not correlate well with a supposed “general” intelligence, if such a thing can be said to exist, and is not valid to compare across cultural groups. It measures what it measures, which how well you do on the test, and that result correlates with what it was designed to correlate with, educational and professional success in a Western cultural environment when used to test those who were reared in that environment - and claims that it means more than that go beyond the data we have.

129

The problem that you continue to fail to grasp, DSeid, is that the waist size:pant size analogy assumes a relationship between intelligence and boredom, tedium or whatever term you want to use.

Think this through. If I have a large waist, there are some pants that are so small I will physically be unable to wear. Are you arguing that if I have a large IQ, there are some tasks that are so cognitively unchallenging that I will be unable to do them?

Or, do you have to introduce another variable, and assume an associated relationship between that variable and intelligence to explain why unchallenging tasks would be more difficult if my IQ is higher?

I agree that some people are likely to struggle if they perceive a task as unchallenging. I contend that others are not likely to struggle with a task even if they find it unchallenging. I contend that this is independent of the differential between intelligence and task challengingness. I contend that whether or not people will struggle is explained by a separate factor, independent of intelligence. This factor is the ability to tolerate downward differential in challengingness of task relative to intelligence. As shorthand, I’ve been calling it boredom, and proness to boredom is an existing construct within the literature.

As evidence of this, I point both to the empirical literature and also to the fact that most gifted students do not actually end up failing the typical school curriculum.

I also think it’s kind of offensive to suggest that people who are less smart will naturally have a more positive experience with more menial tasks. Do you think the janitors in your building are necessarily stupid?

In fact, this whole line of reasoning is anathema to the effort to minimize the meaning of IQ as overly reductionistic and devaluing of the complexities of individual people. You see the irony, right?

As for the whole “Western” nonsense, of course a particular measure and stardard score has value only within the culture it was normed for. It wouldn’t make sense to judge the relative IQ of people based on their knowledge of the meaning of “lachrymose” (not actual test content to my knowledge) if they don’t speak English. However, intelligence and the process of measuring IQ are the same across cultures. It would be silly to think otherwise.

130

You understand what an analogy is, right?
It’s a metaphor, used to help make a concept easier to understand.

Obviously the pants size to cognitive difficulty metaphor is not going to work in all scenarios. It’s there to illustrate one, simple concept.

…that you still don’t get.
I mean, you’re now assuring us you understand the point, but your counter-arguments suggest otherwise.

I’m not sure what to suggest at this point. You seem to be caught in some kind of loop.

No-one has said unchallenging tasks should be more difficult with a higher IQ.

Right, so think through what you’re saying.
You’re saying people may perceive a task as unchallenging. And whether they “struggle” at unchallenging tasks is due to some other factor unrelated to intelligence (let’s call it “X”). Fine.
What I’m saying is, whether a given task is perceived as unchallenging will differ from person to person based on factors such as intelligence. I’m categorically not saying intelligent people have a different “X”.

Who suggested that?

Let me put it this way:

Imagine you left 20 people in 20 separate rooms with nothing to do, except play an electronic game of tic tac toe against a computer. They can play as much or as little as they like.
Now, anyone that solves the game, and realises the rules for which games are winnable and which aren’t, is likely to not want to play the game any more. And that understanding will happen at different times in the different rooms.
I would think that someone with a very high IQ will probably be among those quick to solve the game, and therefore quick to get bored of it.
Do you agree?

131

I can assure you that it is not me. I’ll use your own words to demonstrate:

Are you with you so far?

Again, are you conceptually hanging with yourself, here?

But you yourself said that it was X that would dictate how someone “struggled” with a task, and that X was independent of IQ. The latter you said nothing about where people stand in terms of their measurement of X. So, to answer your hypothetical I would disagree with the latter you that intelligent people would be necessarily more likely to get bored, but I would agree with the former you that said it was X that would dictate level of boredom, and would ask the latter you to inquire of the former you as to what those levels were in order that we might answer the latter you satisfactorily.

I would agree with the implications of the former you in that people of all intelligence levels would likely find it boring to be forced to play tic-tac-toe, and that those people who are higher (or lower, depending on the nature of the scale) in X would mind less continuing to play than people who are at the other end of the scale.

Please try to understand the contradictions you are raising for yourself before trying to engage in snark.

132

Hentor, what are you on (about)?

I’ll just use the quotes you so kindly provided to examine this…

<emphasis added>

Please try to Englishbefore trying to engage in snark. :smiley:

133

Correct.
So bearing in mind what I’ve said, do you think my hypothetical was intended to illustrate the differences in whether a task is perceived as unchallenging, or the difference in X (the response to an unchallenging task)?

The answer is the former. To help you out let’s say in the hypothetical that all the people have precisely the same X – the same tolerance to an unchallenging task. I’m saying how challenging the task is differs from person to person.

There are four people now that are telling you the problem is with you, Hentor. You’re either not getting it or playing some juvenile game.
If you’re playing a game, just finish it already. It’s gone way past the point where it would have been funny.

134

See that place that says “Fine.”

That means to me that he’s accepting the assertion preceded by
“You’re”. So the pronouns are irrelevant; we both accept the assertions followed by either pronoun.

135

So we both agree that people will differ in how challenging they find a task, right?

We also agree that this will be influenced by their level of intelligence, right?

As long as we agree on these points, I’ll let you take it from there. In regards to the OP, so what? What do you conclude from these agreed upon positions in terms of performance?

136

:confused: :smack: …

I’m literally speechless. *Please *tell me English isn’t your first language… or any other language with a Germanic base.

Just in case you’re not being deliberately obtuse, which I sincerely hope you are. The “fine” is an utterance, it does not signify agreement. It simply means he’s acknowledging your viewpoint; it might as well say “or so you say” instead of “fine”

Seriously… you’re a non-English speaker, right?

137

I am an English speaker. Why don’t you do me the favor of explaining what you think is the important difference in those statements apart from the pronouns. I get the sense that you don’t really understand.

138

Excellent, we’re getting somewhere now.

The next assertion is “People may find a (mentally) unchallenging task boring”.

And note the word may here. I’m not saying in all cases.

Do you agree with this assertion?

139

Yes.

140

Cool, so there’s only one more assertion I need to make my argument, and it’s one that you’ve made yourself.

For the sake of completeness, let me check that you still agree that there is no correlation (positive or negative) between IQ and “X”.
That is, there is no reason to suppose people with high IQ are any more, or any less, tolerant to doing a tedious task.
Agree?