
People with unusually high IQ, why are you still unsuccessful? - mgh2
https://www.quora.com/People-with-unusually-high-IQs-why-are-you-still-unsuccessful/answer/Susanna-Viljanen?share=1
======
goatinaboat
Oh, this is an easy one. When people say a child is talented they mean he or
she is a good learner. But a talented adult is a good do-er. High potential
people who fail to make an impact are stuck in child-mode, because that is
what they were always praised for.

~~~
kranner
> High potential people who fail to make an impact are stuck in child-mode,
> because that is what they were always praised for.

Or they realised that praise is meaningless and 'making an impact' is
overrated.

~~~
chadcmulligan
> Or they realised that praise is meaningless and 'making an impact' is
> overrated.

indeed, by success people usually mean make lots of money, is this the
definition of success to a High IQ person? maybe, but perhaps it means why
can't I solve Fermats last theorem or something they think is important.

Or put it this way - smart people will only solve the problems smart people
see as problems.

~~~
goatinaboat
_Or put it this way - smart people will only solve the problems smart people
see as problems._

Agreed, but we all know smart people who are unhappy and can’t quite figure
out why.

I should have included “fulfil their personal goals” along with make an
impact.

------
tomhoward
Leaving aside company founders who hit it big, the people I know who are the
most successful (i.e., as employees), don't seem to be of above-average IQ,
and many of them have poor written communication (i.e., spelling, grammar,
etc).

What makes them successful is that they are good at interacting with other
people, and they can communicate quickly and assertively and see to it that
important things get done.

Such people tend to work in customer-facing roles, such as sales, client-
relations/customer-success, but they could also be in internal roles like
marketing or management (including engineering management).

But contrary to stereotype, the ones I've seen be effective are not insincere
charmers/schmoozers, nor bullies. They are just fast-thinking and fast-acting
and able to work their way through organisational barriers and ensure things
get done in order to satisfy their customer or meet the business's
requirements.

On the other hand, I've observed that a lot of people who may be of above-
average IQ are less comfortable with social interaction, and less able to
engage in the kind of fast, confident communication you need to do well in an
organisational context.

It's not always the case of course - plenty of highly intelligent people are
great communicators, and these people can do the best of all.

But where a person of "high intelligence" does not achieve great success, low
confidence/assertiveness/effectiveness at interpersonal interaction is likely
to be a significant factor.

~~~
username90
An advantage less smart people have over more smart people is that they get
genuinely more impressed over others achievements. This means that they have a
much easier time giving genuine compliments which is one of the most important
parts when forming relationships.

Either that or the ability to tell white lies with a straight face is
negatively correlated with intelligence.

~~~
tomhoward
Or maybe there are just different kinds of “smart”, and that it’s possible to
be effective and successful in admirable ways even if you’re not exceptionally
great at completing IQ-test puzzles.

The kinds of people I described in my first comment have all seemed as smart,
honest and respectable as anyone else I’ve known.

------
andai
The communication range is a great point, one I've never considered before.
It's the reason I enjoy the comments on HN so much: for once, a good deal of
the discussion is in my communication range, and the rest is above it, pushing
me higher, rather than encouraging me to sink below.

I think this is one reason alcoholism is so common among high IQ people,
including several of my relatives who are very social. They socialize but they
always drink beforehand. The drink lowers the effective IQ, bringing them into
a much wider communication range. I had the same experience just the other
day.

~~~
krona
Except presumably everyone else at the party is also drinking alcohol. Are you
saying people with low IQ can drink alcohol and be unaffected, or that people
with high IQ are lightweights?

~~~
jarfil
Assuming that at some point people pass out (equivalent IQ=0), there will
always be a moment when the effective IQ of any two people will match, no
matter the initial IQ.

------
TheOtherHobbes
Intelligence is orthogonal to financial ambition and work ethic.

There's no particular reason why someone with a high IQ would (e.g.) want to
build a startup or any other kind of business, or would necessarily have a
talent for corporate politics.

It's just as likely someone with a high IQ would consider corporate culture
pointless - even stupid.

~~~
K0balt
This.

High intelligence people often seek other goals, such as the relatively
complete freedom of time while having their needs met.

You only get so many years... How many of them are you going to spend doing
something that you care about rather than some "means to an end" task?

To many smart people, real agency is the only currency worth persuing... And
you only need a trivially achievable amount of money well spent to achieve
relative freedom.

So many zero marginal cost things can provide 10-100k a year, and if you are
willing to travel, 10k is more than enough to free up 100 percent of your
time.

Projects you may wish to work on might require additional funding, but for
anything worth doing, it is usually easy to find people willing to throw money
at it IME. There's more money looking for good ideas than ideas looking for
money, especially as interest rates begin to go negative.

------
kranner
This post seems based on some questionable assumptions. IQ is not the ultimate
metric of intelligence and may at best measure only one facet of intelligence.

On a related note, I recommend David Robson’s book The Intelligence Trap.

~~~
rahidz
Questionable indeed; apparently "smart" people don't enjoy sports or fashion.

~~~
nottorp
Sports as in watching and talking about sports, or practicing sports?

------
rexgallorum2
I tend to be a critic of IQ and (non-applied) psychology in general, but there
must be something of value here.

I've experienced something similar to what is described here, and I know many
others who experience it too. The highly intelligent people I've known who are
also high achievers tend to have an exceptional work ethic, and yes many (but
not all!) come from relatively privileged backgrounds.

Communication problems may in some cases be linked to autism spectrum
disorders, but in other cases highly intelligent people are actually
exceptional communicators.

However, I would agree with those who point out that intelligence is manifold
and encompasses far more than the narrow logical puzzles found in IQ tests.
Some people who are not even remotely 'book smart' seem to possess acute
intelligence of another kind.

Disclosure: Yes, I read Nassim Nicholas Taleb (who is pretty popular here I
think).

------
chiefalchemist
> The trick is to find your own tribe. It took me forty years to find mine.
> The group of people where you really can feel yourself belonging, where you
> can be one of all. Only then will you succeed.

That was a spot on answer. But this last bit was the best, mainly because it
universal. We all - high IQ on down - need others to be more successful.

------
lostmsu
This is because the premise of the question is bogus. People with high IQ are
very successful on average.

[https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/2Meth...](https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/2Methods-
Zagorsky00-RelationshipbetweenIQandIncome.png)

If the question is about why some of them are not, then the answer would be
the same as for everyone else: coincidence of other factors. And even with
them in mind high IQ means higher averages, e.g. bottom 95% income at the
higher IQ on average is higher than bottom 95% income at the average IQ.

------
scandox
> Once the difference between two human beings’ intelligence becomes too
> great, all communication becomes impossible.

Would an intelligent person use such meaningless, imprecise exaggeration?
Maybe we shouldn't conflate IQ with general intelligence?

~~~
jarfil
Anyone can learn to communicate in a simpler way, otherwise nobody would be
able to train a dog. However doing so in most communications is not only
tiring, but also has some pernicious psychological effects.

~~~
fxtentacle
What would be the bad effects of using simple words to talk, despite being
capable of procuring needlessly complex terminological constructs?

~~~
Viliam1234
It's not just having to use simple words, but also simple concepts, simple
topics, etc.

The real problem is that talking this way is exhausting. As if someone told
you that e.g. you are not allowed to use words containing the letter "m". It
is certainly possible, but it requires constant attention to something other
than the idea you are trying to convey.

Talking this way feels quite different from talking to someone who uses the
same style as you.

~~~
galfarragem
I would say that it all boils to "topic relevance". What is relevant enough to
foment communication is too divergent in different IQ levels. That brings
miscomunication and specially boredom.

------
ungerik
You can't be that smart, if you don't figure out how to bridge the
"communication range". Showing that IQ is a much too narrow measurement of
puzzle solving ability, not related to being smart in real world situations.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
You are conflating definitions, specifically making the mistake that IQ=smart.
Tabooing "IQ" and "smart" [1], we can say:

Her hypothesis is that people who have some quantified ability to solve
math/logic/verbal problems, find it universally easy to communicate with
people with similar ability for solving such problems, assuming you control
for other factors like quantified communication ability or quantified
emotional intelligence etc.

Put this way, there is no obvious internal contradiction in her hypothesis,
whatever the empirical support for it might be.

[1]
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalist_taboo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalist_taboo)

~~~
yesenadam
>You are conflating definitions, specifically making the mistake that IQ=smart

On the contrary, I had a strong feeling that the person who asked the
question, and the woman who answered it, were doing this.

------
git-pull
I can't imagine how boasting about superiority working out in well in the end.
There has to be an Aesop's Fable short story for this.

Bragging about being smarter is a standing invitation to receive passive
aggressive behavior from others. People will unfairly try to find flaws, and
who can blame them? They're acting innately better than their peers - while at
the same time not being wise enough to be humble / modest.

I also worry it ends up having a person with potential ending up hiding behind
a cryptic / abstract facade, afraid of failing when not being an instant
prodigy at a new skill. Don't we will have to work our way up and build a
track record of some sort?

What does being intelligent mean anyway?

Ultimately, if someone wanted to be recognized as smart, wouldn't at least
some "normal IQ people?" have to understand and appreciate the value of
something they synthesized/made?

~~~
gordaco
This isn't about boasting, nor it's about "wanted to be recognized as smart".
You can be as humble as you honestly can, up to the point of avoiding showing
achievements to other people for fear of their reactions (and believe me, I
know this very well. You learn to behave like that quite fast), and yet the
communication problems will persist. It's difficult not to become a misfit, to
feel like you are fundamentally different to the people around you. The
article mentions that your arguments won't convince "average" people, and
neither do theirs convince us; this is also something I also feel deeply.

I guess I can't complain much; at least I got a good job. For a very modest
definition of success I could even consider myself "successful".

~~~
vcavallo
it’s just a bit funny that you included the parenthetical about your own
experience, which mostly just serves to make sure you are also labeled as
“very smart”. your whole point could be made in general without signaling this
to the reader. :)

~~~
gordaco
I know :). I actually hesitated, because of that. To be honest I ended
writting and sending it just because this is Hacker News and such things are
much better received here. In Reddit, for example, I wouldn't have bothered.

Also, I'm not "very smart". I have a high IQ, which might be correlated but
it's a different thing. EDIT: I strongly believe that a high IQ means, above
all, a fundamentally different way of thinking. Which _might_ make you smart,
and which is the main cause of the communication problems.

------
dekervin
Axioms:

-The most important quality to _succeeds_ is the ability to perform in high stakes, inter-personal, coopetitive, status-seeking, small world games (politics).

-One of the most powerful tools to achieve _results_ for an individual (and for a group ) is through the mastering of abstractions.

Puzzle:

-There seems to be a negative correlation between the willingness to engage in political games and the willingness to engage with abstractions despite the advantages both procure. _(see the "Nerds" essay by Paul Graham [0])_.

Funny hypothesis:

-Politics is the most dynamic, reflexive games there is. Abstraction handling requires (whether consciously or not ) to substract oneself from the world. Those two activities tend to exclude each other, or to consume a lot of energy when both running at full speed. ( they are polar opposite in 2x2 quadrant of [static,dynamic]x[contemplative,reflexive] )

-The silver linings is so much value can be created from mastering abstractions, that a small change in the conditions of the political field (by improving one's attention to it, or by limiting artificially the field like in a elite school) is enough to tip the balance.

\----

[0][http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

------
zeristor
There seems to be a certain amount of “Autistic Spectrum Disorder” mixed in
with this. I imagine there are a few papers published with this comparison in
mind.

~~~
probablybroken
This was my feeling too.. I suspect there's enough overlap between those
people who are interested in completing IQ tests, and those on the spectrum to
create the same effect mentioned by the author. I found their comment about
small talk particularly reflects this; My experience is that I can't engage in
it with strangers as it feels like forced dumb chat, with the end result that
a lot of people I casually interact with end up treating me like I'm mentally
retarded.

------
vemv
Not applying intelligence on real-world aspects that will make you successful
is very much non-intelligent.

Likewise, not being able to effectively communicate with a variety of people
shows a lack of analysis, learning, etc.

IOW, people feeling in the situation that their "IQ" is unfairly treated
should level up, by broadening their conception of intelligence and also
applying it in more contexts.

~~~
Retric
Successful is a rather loaded term. Maximizing income and prestige is not
inherently a great use of our limited time on earth.

I am not saying becoming an ascetic monk is a better or worse choice, just
that people will try to maximize different things.

~~~
vemv
Generally, we are rewarded with income and prestige when we did something
valuable for society - so pursuing success isn't inherently shallow either.

~~~
lazylizard
So human rights lawyers are well paid and famous, unlike, say rap musicians?

------
codingdave
I suspect this answer is missing an underlying point - high IQ is correlated
with high ego. I find that there are wicked smart people in this world, who
have also managed to overcome their own egos, and who get along well with
anybody. They don't feel that there are topics that are beneath them, or that
people are lesser beings because they like TV shows. They might not like the
same things, but they accept people's differences.

The way I explain it to my kids is that your intelligence is just like the
color of your hair. You are born with it. You can take actions to change it,
to some extent. But there is zero reason to judge anybody for it. People are
who they are.

~~~
fxtentacle
Fully agree. I've met many high-IQ people who treat normal humans with a sort
of "I'm better than you" disdain. And, obviously, being too arrogant will make
communication difficult.

------
CyberFonic
IQ tests measure specific abilities but not _all_ abilities.

As for the definition of success, that depends on the individual.

For example, to be successful in academia correlates reasonably well with IQ.
However, success in sales far less so. Many successful artists also have high
IQ due to their spatial and creativity traits, however that doesn't mean that
they'll attain high levels of profit from their art. Programmers often have
high IQ, but that doesn't guarantee executive suite jobs with their high
salaries and lots of perks.

------
andai
> People with over 152 are effectively 'The Excluded', routinely finding their
> thoughts to be unconvincing in the public discourse and in productive
> environments. If placed in a leadership position, they will not succeed.

> The trick is to find your own tribe. It took me forty years to find mine.
> The group of people where you really can feel yourself belonging, where you
> can be one of all. Only then will you succeed.

------
thisispete
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Intelligent enough to realize being productive is pointless?

------
hackeraccount
Even if IQ tests measure something useful - and I'm skeptical of that -
intelligence itself is far down on the list of traits needed for success.

Ambition. Confidence. Charisma.

There are probably others but the successful people I've known have those -
and it's hard to tell (certainly harder then the IQ test implies) but I don't
think those people were particularly smart.

~~~
DecayingOrganic
I believe we focus too much on the individuals, successful people are
successful because of the products they helped create.

Instead of analyzing the traits of successful people, we can devise and create
frameworks which would help direct our efforts in an efficient manner to
produce real value.

------
jlangenauer
A common weakness (and one I sometimes share) is looking for exciting, new,
and intellectually stimulating things to do, when seemingly boring, repetitive
and hard work is actually called for.

A common example: startup founders who'd prefer to build new features (or
worse, explore new tech stacks!) instead of the boring work of sales and
marketing.

~~~
rexgallorum2
Absolutely. High intelligence and the thirst for novelty and stimulation that
often comes with it can make it hard to focus on anything for very long. It
also makes people lazy. You learn as a kid that you can achieve a lot with
minimal or no effort, so you develop terrible work habits (or none at all).
Bright kids who are brought up with a very strong work ethic are far more
likely to be high achievers or at least successful at their chosen vocation.
This work ethic is often a cultural thing...

------
rexgallorum2
Here's another question for you: without reference to IQ or academic
achievement, what qualities would you associate with intelligence, or perceive
as indicators of intelligence? Have you ever had a hard time figuring out if
someone is really bright or not?

~~~
kidintech
> Have you ever had a hard time figuring out if someone is really bright or
> not?

How do you define bright? Assuming bright to mean able to achieve post-grad
honors:

I feel like you could easily distinguish if someone is bright or not within a
few minutes of chatting.

I think that regardless of the subject of discussion, there are a number of
strong indicators in the way a person speaks. One example is confidence: very
rarely have I met a person I'd call intelligent that is also absurdly
confident in their beliefs.

I realise my above statement is highly interpretable. What I mean is
intelligent people seem to allow for their assumptions to be flawed, and be
open to being proven wrong, about stuff that they can be proven wrong on (i.e.
belief about a mathematical postulate versus belief in an objective truth such
as global warming is real).

~~~
Viliam1234
It is probably easier to describe the opposite.

If someone is not bright, then when you start discussing a topic that is
outside their everyday experience (i.e. not their job, not their hobby), they
only have three options: (1) ignorance and indifference "huh?" "I don't know,
this seems stupid/boring", (2) repeating a statement they heard from TV or
radio, but unable to e.g. explain what that really means, what would be the
consequences thereof, and (3) just saying something completely random.

A bright person would be able to admit their lack of knowledge in the topic,
but then do some independent thinking, or ask additional questions, or...
something.

~~~
kidintech
That makes a lot of sense, and is probably a version that's much easier to
quantify.

------
bluecalm
My life was in shambles mainly because of ADHD. Once I found drugs that helped
a bit I managed to start programming and it turned out I am very good at it.
Even though it's still daily struggle to put even 2-3 hours of work it's
enough to make mid 6 figures after taxes. I am very lucky to be that talented.
I often feel I don't really deserve it as others work harder and will never
find that much success.

If anyone of you is always told how intelligent you are but struggle in school
and work I encourage you to get tested for various conditions. Diagnosis and
meds can change your life even if it doesn't cure you.

~~~
rexgallorum2
Hey I'd be interested doing the same thing, similar problem here. Where should
I start? If I started tutorials in one language now, what should it be?

~~~
ashildr
Just pick one that does not need much research to get properly installed. It’s
about learning the concepts, especially in the beginning. At uni they made us
learn two programming languages that have no use in real wold jobs to teach us
concepts, one was even a functional one.

Python seems to be easy enough to begin with and useful enough with its
libraries and frameworks to be the language for data scientists. That’s a good
point to start at. As are ruby or java or JavaScript.

------
siempreb
> The price of unusually high IQ is terrible loneliness. We truly are the
> outsiders.

This is so true unfortunately. But success has almost nothing to do with being
more intelligent as success depends mainly on luck.

~~~
ashildr
This is self selecting nonsense with a pile of no true Scotsman and a good
dose of mawkishness, very transparently downplaying the work of successful
people.

I wouldn’t want to know you, whatever IQ you have.

------
Blackstone4
I feel like this is a complicated topic. Two common reasons spring to mind....

1) Intelligent but interested in things which are not necessarily eat paths to
becoming successful according to society i.e. R&D

2) Low emotional intelligence and therein poor social skills. Humans rely
heavily on social connections and collaboration to drive value. I’ve often see
clever people who think they are better than others but do not have the
ability to get on. Some intelligent people think they are extremely logical
but their decision making is often emotionally charged.

------
flatfilefan
If at first you don’t succeed, maybe failure your is your style? (C)

------
lkjhdcba
Nassim Taleb wrote a thorough rebuttal of IQ as a concept, if you can trudge
through the math:

[https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-
pseudoscientific-...](https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-
pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39)

It's also worth noting that no one in the field of neuroscience (or genetics,
for that matter) takes IQ seriously. It's solely an abstract toy for some
psychologists to play with.

~~~
badestrand
Real thorough math right there (quotations from your article):

> "[IQ] ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs
> (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”."

> "It is at the bottom an immoral measure"

> "If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking,
> tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t
> need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged
> psychologists"

> "Only suckers don’t have that instinct."

This is just a trash article by a bitter science denier. IQ-deniers are for me
not much different from anti-vaxxers. Yes, you are free to criticize aspects
of the test but there is no denying that people have different thinking
speeds, as "immoral" as that fact might be.

~~~
fxtentacle
I think the article is quite correct with its statement that pure IQ is
meaningless.

If you use your intelligence to learn something useful, that is, well, useful.

But if you just have intelligence and don't utilize it towards a purpose, it
is useless, like an unused full battery.

------
galfarragem
Extremely mature and hard to swallow answer.

------
marvin
It's also worth checking out the linked article from The Polymath:
[http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-
inappropria...](http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-
inappropriately-excluded.html)

------
marvin
There is a point that is missed here, even if some points seem familiar. Maybe
I'm an outlier, but: I turn out to have top half-percentile IQ (as I'm sure
many on HN do), which is not the disconnected genius level that the author
describes, but still about two standard deviations above the average. I'm only
moderately successful career-wise -- a "follower" in the author's words.
Excellent grades from education. In professional life, not destitute and
getting a decent amount of professional respect, but nothing outside of what
you'll expect to find in a decent-sized company. Salary is likewise. No
ambitions of being a boss. I can take technical leadership roles temporarily,
if it feels like a good fit, and that's great fun. I'll get bored after a
while, and it takes a lot of energy & focus to do well.

The biggest reason I can identify for this moderate and not spectacular level
of success, is that I just don't care so much about being super successful in
my career. I also crucially lack the _energy_ and _drive_ that some of super-
successul people the author describes obviously has. Even if I was born in a
millionaire family with excellent connections to power and prestige, I doubt I
would have been an entrepeneur or a successful academic.

The vast majority of things you'll do in those professions just seem so boring
and tedious. Elon Musk's 100 hour workweeks, all year every year, seems like
hell. Ditto for most successful entrepeneurs I'm aware of. Even if they lead
fascinating, cutting-edge technology development. I'd much rather spend most
of my time learning new things, satisfying my curiosity, playing computer
games or learning new skills. As well as spending time with the people I love,
which means I deliberately choose to not work 50 hours per week in a high-
demand software-related job far from home. I'm certain in a different life I
could move to California and do much better, but there's so much in my life
today I don't want to sacrifice to do that.

I've just never found a subject that interests me enough (money-earning _or_
otherwise) to dedicate my full effort to it. There's certainly something to
the author's points of being surrounded by like-minded people, but there's
three or four of them near my hometown that I've met through university. We
have fun and get along well, but we won't change the world. Maybe that's a
waste. My goal in life is to be happy, not earn power and prestige. Sometimes
I wish I had the drive and interest to do cutting-edge research and
development in a new field, but when I visualize that, it seems like a
lifestyle that will require cutting out so much of what I currently love.

It's probably not possible in the human condition to be truly happy, but I'm
certain I'd be more unhappy if I spent all my time doing ambitious things that
I don't have an innate drive for.

Maybe I could work super hard five years and then retire, but I'll most likely
be able to retire early anyway. Anything can happen in those five years. It's
not worth the risk.

~~~
gordaco
This resonates with me a lot. All over my life, even when I was still just a
student, I've had people telling me that I could do much better and that I
could aspire to much more. I invariably looked at their proposal, saw a huge
amount of work that I was definitely not willing to put, and I continued my
path of having the minimization of stress as one of my main priorities.

I've mentioned this a couple of times here in HN: the real trick is to keep
learning outside of your job. Don't count on your job as a source of
intellectual satisfaction; if you learn something while on the clock, that's
great, but that will come and go. Having a steady source of brain food outside
your job gives you much more control and ends up being much more satisfying.

Also, never ever trade sleep hours for work hours. Sleep as much as your body
wants, work as much as you are stipulated (i.e. 40h a week and no more), and
squeeze as many satisfying activities (learning, in my case) out of the rest
of the time. And yes, diversify if you want: this is why I dropped out of a
PhD and started new degrees instead.

I guess that this applies to me because I have zero ambitions outside the
purely intellectual ones. YMMV. I strongly feel like I would be much more
miserable if I were more ambitious, especially taking into account that I've
been, for a long time, acutely aware that time is much much more valuable than
money.

~~~
fxtentacle
I'd wager that it would be easy to argue that the majority of people who work
super extra hard to become rich and successful have some sort of childhood
trauma that they never recovered from.

So maybe the answer is simply that intelligent people can figure out why they
feel a yearning for success, and then solve the root issues instead of joining
the rat race like everyone else.

As a practical example, some guys work super hard to buy expensive cars to
impress the ladies. But if you're a great conversationalist with a witty
humor, you can probably skip the car, so you don't have the need for working
hard.

------
rexgallorum2
There are people who seem to affect the qualities, habits, and quirks of
'highly intelligent' people, yet are probably not particularly brilliant (or
even above average) themselves, except perhaps in some social sense. Any
thoughts on that? Can you differentiate between the two without reference to
IQ? If so, how? Do these people pay the same price for their quirks, and if
so, are they better able to compensate? Are they likely to be more successful
at whatever they do by appropriating the trappings of intelligence? Think of
it as a thought experiment.

------
navaati
> The only really Meritocratic system is the military.

Wait what ? Anybody has experience/comment on that ?

(I'm not trying to dismiss anything, genuinely curious !)

~~~
bladegash
I can only speak to the Marine Corps, but there is a pretty
structured/meritocratic method for being promoted.

At least for the enlisted ranks, your promotion potential is dependent on a
couple of factors: how many people of a particular rank for any given job
field are needed, your personal fitness scores, rifle range proficiency,
professional military education completion, etc.

There is a certain degree of subjectivity, as you are given what are called
"proficiency and conduct" ratings in the earlier ranks. In the mid-later
ranks, you are given performance evaluations. Those evaluations are at least
partly based off the factors I described above, though.

Interestingly, when you put in for promotion at the mid-later ranks, the
people who make the selection are not in your chain of command. You put
together a package and the decision is made by a board consisting of third
parties.

In the earlier ranks, your performance/ratings is compiled into a score, then
each month the Marine Corps issues a total scoring that must be met in order
to be promoted.

It is by no means a perfect system, but it seemed mostly fair. It is also
incredibly complicated, so I apologize if I did not do the explanation
justice.

~~~
navaati
Ok, interesting, thank you for your answer !

------
BuckRogers
Simple answer for a simple question. Because Fortune favors the “brave”, not
the intelligent.

------
JoeAltmaier
Mensa demographic: Highly intelligent upper-class non-achievers

------
fxtentacle
Lazyness.

As someone who did coaching for lonely high-IQ guys, I know firsthand that
there are lots of self-absorbed lazy pricks that feel like they deserve to be
successful and loved just because they're intelligent. And the advice I hand
out is always the same:

This world is run by normal people. Learn the ways that normal people use to
express their emotions.

That regularly incites complaints, like the usual platitudes that they just
want to be loved for who they are or that true love should just happen by
itself. But the simple fact is that many of these intelligent guys feel like
it's either too much work to learn about how normal people talk, or they are
too arrogant to do it.

Especially when you use a lot of brainpower in one area of your life, it is
very tempting to slide into intellectual laziness in other areas of your life.
Lowest common denominator slapstick comedy is quite popular with my high-IQ
friends. Nobody is super clever all of the time.

Also, I find it fascinating that the article presupposes that high IQ should
lead to success, as pure intelligence is mostly just useless. Being rich is
obviously helpful to your friends. Having good genes or being athletic is also
obviously helpful for many tasks. But for intelligence, the skills that you
derive from it are the important part, not the intelligence itself. And if you
use your intelligence and your superior learning abilities to learn a useful
trade and become a good communicator, you will most likely end up being
successful. So this article is similar to asking: "People with strong biceps,
why are you still unsuccessful?"

And lastly, I don't buy the concept of a communication range. Most deep
connections are made by sharing emotions. There's no reason why your talking
partner would need to understand the specifics of your mathematics problem, in
order for him/her to be able to relate to you feeling frustrated about it.

------
forgingahead
Because IQ is a scam measurement for success in life

/end

~~~
forgingahead
PS (to the downvoters): Neither IQ nor HN upvotes correlate with real-world
success =)

------
jswizzy
It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. -
Albert Einstein

Smart people usually never learn to work hard.

------
foolrush
Life is dice.

------
jeffbopp
made an account just to ask you define unsuccessful. PLease?

------
vcavallo
because IQ has no bearing on discipline and you get nowhere without putting in
work (no matter how astronomical one’s IQ is)

------
zerm778
yeah

