Note that I did not say “academics”, I said “those in the field of the study of intelligence”. It is quite correct to say that many academics in other fields trash the work. I will leave determining whether those academics base their opinions on science or on Liberal agenda to the reader.
Indeed, which is why I’m disappointed to see such a quotidien display of defensive scorn.
I was hoping to hear from TNS members, to give me an idea of whether it would be worth my while to join. My test scores would qualify me, but I don’t want to sign up and pay the fee (money’s tight in my household) just to be able to show off a badge or certificate or whateveritis they send you (I agree that this is obnoxious). If there is a lively message board or forum restricted only to members, I think that would be valuable as a place to exchange ideas, and debate, with others who have all proven their intellectual mettle.
The membership numbers I see are from 350 to 1225 worldwide with one source saying 600 U.S. members. As great as The Straight Dope message boards are, how likely is it that there are more than 0, 1, or 2 members here considering that Triple Nine members have their own message boards.
And the fee is a big consideration because “money is tight”? Membership is $10 USD a year for electronic membership; $30 if you want a printed copy of their journal.
And of course those who study intelligence who see it as trash are not true students of intelligence but liberal-leaners …
Reading what I wrote clearly I am not smart enough to express myself clearly. I meant “smart enough” - not smart enough to qualify, just generically smart enough. Smart enough to have difficulty finding the rooms in which contain several smarter than you? Probably not too many people here despite the number who are sure their IQs are a gajillion and three - “I’ve been tested.” We all are smart enough to get by, smart enough to have done well academically and professionally (some, maybe most of us), and intellectually curious or we would not hang out here. But real outliers? I don’t think so.
Yes, “we” tend to react derisively to those who claim absurd IQs on the internet, especially since such claims usually come from posters whose past posts are inconsistent with such abilities (unless the IQ test is a very poor predictor of intellectual prowess). This puts those who might be able to honestly respond to a question about the difficulties inherent in being a multiple sigma outlier on whatever IQ measures, what difficulties not having a true peer group presents, in a difficult position.
Not fitting in is hard, whatever the cause. Here is one treatment of how extremely gifted children experience social isolation not because of any social deficit but because of the lack of appropriate peers. The one truly gifted child in my eldest school (a school in which everyone was sure their chid was gifted, this kid really was) was like that. He was interested in things and talking about things at a level other kids his age could not comprehend and he did not understand how to dumb it down to fit in. By High School he was able to find peers and a place, both in classes and by getting involved in theater and the school paper. What would it be like for someone so out there that they still cannot find peers as they get older?
As I said earlier, it has been my pleasure to know quite a few extra-extra smart people. Folks who are known worldwide for being at the top of Computer Science (and some from other fields like John Conway). Not sure what their IQs are, but in terms of practical demonstration of intelligence, they’re golden.
The majority of these people are nice, pleasant people that I enjoy being around. Completely functional socially and often quite a bit more. Some are jerks, but that’s true of any group of people. I never saw how their intelligence related to that.
The kind of people the OP is reading about seem to be a select subset of people who were pushed early, e.g., starting college at a very young age, etc. Focus on “select”. Not at all a representative group of the very smartest. So no extrapolation on future success should be deduced.
I question the motive of people who make such biased selections and try to over extrapolate something.
This is an English-language board. Quotidian will do just fine. (srsly, you’re gonna mix up an ‘e’ and an ‘a’ in this thread?)
I did not make that statement. It seems clear to me that you are implying that that is a reasonable extension of my statements. It is not.
To my knowledge, his work is well regarded by people in the field.
In conjunction with your attempt to twist my meaning in your earlier post … 
Do they have active boards? That does sound enticing then. But I rate the intellectual heft here pretty highly (not everyone, obv.) so your “0, 1, or 2” seems a bit low. Still, even 1 or 2 would be enough to provide some feedback.
I had not realised their membership fees had dropped so low. I feel nearly certain that they used to be higher. There is also the matter of ordering the official SAT score report.
And yes, money is very tight in my household, in what I would consider the true sense of “tight” (that is, we are not actually short of money). We have a strict budget for everything (using envelopes and creating our own form of “budget billing” for utilities that vary seasonally); and there is exactly thirty dollars a month left over, which my wife and I split so we each have spending money for the month.
Ha, bad thread for a spelling mistake–but I do plead special circumstances as I am fluent in French.
The question is not so much smart or not smart. That is a little different than what I am asking. I posted a reply upthread which links to an article I read which prompted the question. The point of the article is that having a very high IQ is maladaptive, so success in any field is, if anything, more indicative of an optimal level of IQ. Triple 9 would generally have members with higher IQ scores that would be in the suboptimal range.
It is the need that gifted ed should be addressing (rather than calling the top 5% or even 1% on national norms “gifted”): the true outliers are a true special needs category and at risk of significantly adverse outcomes including social isolation.
The most accomplished, those with the highest “practical demonstration of intelligence” often are not those with the highest IQs and certainly not those who only have high IQs. My sense is that it requires some threshold of raw smarts (however measured), a set of cognitive habits, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to “play well with others” - that is to work as part of the larger intellectual organism of society, a meta-organism whose ability drawfs the capacity of even the most gifted individual human.
I would posit that an extremly high IQ (whatever it measures, it measure something related to problem solving and learning ability) runs the risk of being maladaptive unless it is also matched with above average social skills or the good fortune to have been able to find a reasonable peer group. I suspect that it is easier to find that peer group for teens and above now than previously given the use of the internet to develop and form peer groups across the world. I am not sure that Triple 9 type groups though represent the best sort of peer group for that need. I would guess that it specifically attracts those who do not have the other ingredients, hence are still looking to meet those needs. IOW members of that group are likely the result of a selection bias for those who have not succeeded otherwise.
There’s a saying (from Stephen Jay Gould IIRC) that intelligence tests are to the 20th (and 21st) centuries what phrenology was to the 19th. They measure the thing that they measure, whatever that is, but whatever that is means nothing. It’s what you do with your life that matters, not having a higher number than somebody else.
Harrumph. I would expect somebody with the suborbital ridge indentations of a brigand …er, maladaptive IQ/intelligence g-factor to say such things.
Thank you for the input, but I am not sure I understand the relevance of this statement to the discussion. I am not attempting to make normative argument about IQ tests or intelligence.
Mr. Nylock,
From your linked article:
(in reference to a scale with a 15 point S.D.)
Let us accept that at face value. Many who would qualify for Triple 9, at 146, are in that range. 155? That is not the top 0.1%; it’s closer to the top 0.012%, almost an order of magnitude rarer.
1 out of a 1000 are Triple 9 by definition; only 1 out 8,137 are 155 or greater. Most who qualify for Triple 9 should be fine.
The article also posits
Let us also accept that at face value.
Someone just at Triple 9 has everyone 116 and above, about 14% of the normal distribution, in that range. It is pretty easy to find groups like that just in AP classes or by going to a decent college. 155? Now that potential group of peers and those who you can lead (accepting the claim at face value) is cut down by two thirds. Many of the “smart enough” crowd (yes, many of us) are now out of that range.
Still if the claim is correct that would mean that 5% of the population is in that range. And some fair number of us smart enoughs would be in that group. 30 points spread still means that there should be little need for a special society; if you can’t find places where that 5% aggregate then you probably don’t really have that much smarts.
That really does seem to be the point of the article which your op seems to not be recognzing: there is no inherent problem with a high IQ (working on an assumption that IQ measures something real, even if imperfectly). The article divides the super high IQ into three groups: those who find intellectual peers, achieve, and are well adjusted; those without a peer group who compartmentalize their public life as, say a parking lot attendent, from their private intellectual world, and who may feel themselves to be an outsider; and the “drop out” who was pushed to perform like a circus animal and who then burns out.
So “the condition” is not intrinsically “very isolating” - some … many, perhaps even the vast majority … who have the condition manage to find peer groups within an acceptable range. (Again, there are a lot of people within that range based on the numbers quoted in that article even for those 155 and over, let alone for those at 146.) But those in that range who do not have the social capacity or opportunity to find that 5 to 15% of others are at risk for feeling themselves to be outsiders of society and possibly bitter about that … and over-represent the membership of Triple 9 type groups.
That’s understandable, coming from a mere *triple *niner. 
Very interesting thoughts–a lot of food for thought there. Personally, I know on the one hand that I would not be happy in (or able to stick with) any job that required a lot of work hours and responsibility. Nor do I have the stick-to-it-iveness to get a Ph.D. like my parents did. But I do also feel frustrated that without an “important” position in society, or an academic credential, I am marginalised.
I do have two friends who are college professors and take me and my opinions and insights seriously; however, one of them mostly socialises through his church (while I am an atheist) and the other has invited me to social gatherings, but his colleagues just can’t seem to get past the fact that I’m not a credentialled academic. So I engage with those two guys individually (they are not friends with each other), but I sure would love to have a broader “salon” type group to chew the intellectual fat with.
Your points are very well thought out. I think I should sort of add a couple things. I am not trying to make arguments or present a solid stance on the validity of IQ testing. My post just asked a couple questions. I think perhaps IQ is more of a glimpse into the life of the mind. I am reminded of a person one of my family members knew very well in high school. They were in the same calculus class in high school and they both got A’s I believe.
The difference was, however, that he could derive the formulas from a few bits of information; he barely had to study, it made intuitive sense to him. For him it was effortless and natural, for her however, she could get an A in the class through memorization.
They both got A’s in the class, but that A does not describe the difference in perception in regards to the subject of the two of them. So, then I wonder, what else does a person with that type of mind perceive? Are they able to draw inferences, analogies and conclusions based on having a more efficient and capable mind? Ultimately would this ability shape perceptions to the point that they have fundamental beliefs and values that are quite outside the norm but more “correct” in a certain way? Example: When Africans were brought to America 200 years ago would they be the ones to perceive them as the same as other human beings when the general population thought them to be less than human, mere “savages”. they would have been more correct in their assumption of their equivalent humanity, however, society as a whole would have spurned those ideas at the time and anyone with those views would have been marginalized.
So, someone could hide what they really feel and get along just fine. But the idea that you can measure people with such abilities by the standards of mainstream society could really mean that you are trying to bring them down and judge them by the lowest common denominator; or, so to speak, trying to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Also, it may be a situation where the “well adjusted” in this group are really just the best at being closeted, sort of like the “well adjusted” gay man with a wife and kids. So, their interactions with others may involve much more effort because of the need to have a much more extensive social filter for what they say, Following from this, when we make judgements of such folks, we are not really understanding the particular challenges they face; what is easy for others may be difficult for them and vice versa.
I titled the post triple 9 so as to not attract too much attention(I thought the term was obscure enough to weed out people who were hostile to IQ testing); I was interested in wading through post after post about opinions on IQ testing, how it really matters what you do with your life and on and on; unfortunately it did not quite work - just goes to show how smart I am:(
Part of the difficulty in the discussion originates in what assumptions are made about that which gets labelled as intelligence.
Your post seems predicated upon accepting “g” - a general intelligence that applies equally to all sorts of problem solving. Many instead believe that intelligence is very domain specific. A mathematical genius, such as the person in your vingette might have been, could be average or even dimwitted in many other intelligence domains.
Moreover matters of culture and morality are not often matters of intelligence. Newton, for example, is well recognized to have been a petty vindictive man who believed in alchemy, in hidden Biblical messages, and in a coming apocolapse (his calculated date is coming up in a few decades). Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had an IQ measured at 167. I have little doubt that there were geniuses who owned slaves, who were Nazis, who were Inquistors, etc. And that there have been geniuses who have worked against each of those things.
Your initial basic premise may have some validity, IMHO. Some level of above average intelligence (however one wants to define or measure it) is adaptive for success within our society, but once above a certain threshold higher intelligence adds little additional adaptive value and, at certain high levels, presents potential additional risks. (Mainly connected to a possible difficulty of finding an appropriate peer group.)
The article you cited however argues strongly against your interpretation that the well adjusted genius is best at “closeting” their IQ. That is in fact exactly not what the writer was stating. The writer would describe the closeted as taking the marginal strategy and being the psychologically walking wounded. The writer argues that the well adjusted of the genius crowd are those who have coupled their high intelligence with a work ethic, a set of goals they are committed to, and who have had an opportunity to have a peer group of similar intellectual capacity. Which to me seems like a no-duh thing true for us all: we tend to do our best when we couple whatever abilities we have with a strong work ethic, a set of goals we are committed to, and a set of peers about our same level, able to challenge us to keep up but with whom we more or less can keep up.
Interesting thoughts. I am assuming you meant “I was not interested…”?
I have a lot of trouble taking all the scoffing at IQ as anything but sour grapes. There is such a high degree of consistency for any given individual from one test to another, despite the questions being different. And it’s not as though they are being judged on something subjective like the artistic quality of their poetry or the aesthetic appeal of their architectural sketches. These are questions with objective right and wrong answers, and those with mediocre or low IQs consistently get many of them wrong. So yes: it is an overreach to present IQ as an all-encompassing measure of every facet of human intelligence. But those individuals who cannot manage to score well clearly have some major intellectual deficits, at least in a relative sense.
The person in my vignette was not dimwitted in any way I could tell. Math was not even his favorite subject; he was much more interested in writing. He excelled easily at every academic subject at an award winning high school filled with a fairly ambitious and competitive student body. Yes, I imagine there are many one trick pony intellectuals out there; but to clarify, the highly gifted people I am describing are not that. Again, to clarify, it is difficult to describe the intellectual differences or the inner life of the mind of the highly gifted. Many tangents to this issue could be discussed at length of course. I started this thread to discuss the highly gifted defined as those with superior natural capabilities in many intellectual disciplines and the effect this has on social interaction. I also wanted to explore the chasm in perceptions and interaction with the world experienced by the highly gifted.
The article I linked addresses this to some extent buy using the terminology “highly gifted” as opposed to just “high IQ scorers.” I interpret the article as being one that tries to explain how those born with different mental abilities are different. The article is not exactly trying to propose that IQ testing is the definitive measurement of those with intellectual capabilities far outside the norm. High IQ is one way the article uses to describe the both the nature and capabilities of the highly gifted. IQ score,in this article, is one piece of the puzzle, albeit a large one.
The main thrust of the article is that there is a big difference between the very highly gifted and gifted individuals. There is also a difference between Highly gifted individuals born into the right circumstances and those not. Gifted individuals, in this article, do not have capabilities and do not process information in such a way as to be so far outside the norms of their that they would have social adjustment issues attributable to to intellectual differences alone; although they may claim to. In the instances of the merely gifted having difficulties it is attributable to the same psychological defects that would cause social maladjustment in the non-gifted as well.
On the other hand, as, Hollingworth points out that the exceptionally gifted do not deliberately choose isolation, but are forced into it against their wills.
“These superior children are not unfriendly or ungregarious by nature. Typically they strive to play with others but their efforts are defeated by the difficulties of the case… Other children do not share their interests, their vocabulary, or their desire to organize activities. They try to reform their contemporaries but finally give up the struggle and play alone, since older children regard them as “babies,” and adults seldom play during hours when children are awake. As a result, forms of solitary play develop, and these, becoming fixed as habits, may explain the fact that many highly intellectual adults are shy, ungregarious, and unmindful of human relationships, or even misanthropic and uncomfortable in ordinary social intercourse [3, p. 262].”
In the case of the very highly gifted, they are very different and the intellectual chasm between them and others that they would normally be around is vast to the point of causing social isolation. In this regard, they are not unlike feral children etc.
“The true answer is that they are both. General intelligence, for example, is undoubtedly quantitative in the sense that it consists of varying amounts of the same basic stuff (e.g., mental energy) which can be expressed by continuous numerical measures like intelligence Quotients or Mental-Age scores, and these are as real as any physical measurements are. But it is equally certain that our description of the difference between a genius and an average person by a statement to the effect that he has an IQ greater by this or that amount, does not describe the difference between them as completely or in the same way as when we say that a mile is much longer than an inch. The genius (as regards intellectual ability) not only has an IQ of say 50 points more than the average person, but in virtue of this difference acquires seemingly new aspects (potentialities) or characteristics. These seemingly new aspects or characteristics, in their totality, are what go to make up the “qualitative” difference between them [9, p. 134].”
“Wechsler is saying quite plainly that those with IQs above 150 are different in kind from those below that level. He is saying that they are a different kind of mind, a different kind of human being.”
Indeed, the article is making a case for the socially difficulties experienced by some highly gifted individuals is not due to having a high IQ itself. The difference between your interpretation and mine hinges on some of the emphasis you use in your paraphrasing. Your paraphrasing mentions the outcomes but does not include the main reason for those outcomes, mainly the emphasis on early childhood environment. What I am seeing portrayed is a situation in which those born highly gifted are vulnerable and follow different strategies based upon the circumstances of their birth. Only one category, those born into a certain type of highly educated, high achieving upper middle class family have any real chance of optimal social adjustment. To put it briefly, the highly gifted are born with a socially isolating condition in which optimal social adaptation is only likely when one is born and raised under a fairly specific set of circumstances.
Ultimately, I feel the article is saying that high IQ societies can be helpful for certain individuals - those born into circumstances in which in which their inability to interact with an appropriate peer group hindered their social and psychological development. If their problems are approached from that perspective it may diminish some of the harm caused by extensive social isolation, and that is something the High IQ societies should consider in order to have a more beneficial outcome for their members.