
IQ Matters Less Than You Think - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/your-iq-matters-less-than-you-think
======
cm2187
The title is a bit misleading. The study is basically comparing the path of
the top 1% to the top 2% of the IQ distribution and arguing that it doesn't
matter that much in term of extraordinary achievements (nobel prize, etc).

If you compare the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the distribution I bet there
will be a strong correlation to professional sucess.

~~~
Bartweiss
There's an excellent rant somewhere about the pattern where people at the
extreme margins of a trait proudly declare that the trait doesn't _really_
matter for success.

It's the rocket scientist saying he knows lots of people smarter than him, and
obviously hard work and precision are what really matter in rocketry - never
mind that estimates put the average IQ in the physical sciences around 125. Or
the pro basketball player saying that it's not enough to be the biggest, they
key is to train hard and work as a team - never mind that the person saying it
is the NBA-average height of 6'7". What these people are actually seeing is
that once you have lots of a key trait, other traits gain relevance.

Or to take a less quantifiable example, we can look at something like musical
skill. 10,000 hours of practice will (in)famously make you an expert, but
_Ericsson et al_ actually found that "time to expertise" is fairly constant in
some fields, and massively variable in others. (I seem to remember examples
varying by a factor of four?) Skill at a musical instrument can be learned by
almost anyone, but some people will see vastly better return on their time
investment than others. And if we're looking at professionals, then "just
practice harder" ceases to be an option.

None of which means most people are excluded from most roles, or that success
is tightly correlated with IQ. But there's a distinct pattern of assessing the
importance of some trait _after_ applying a hard filter on that trait, and it
does everyone a disservice to pretend that's comparable to a population-level
result.

~~~
cossatot
I think that the filters you mention are an important mechanism here. These
continuous variables like IQ or test scores get mapped onto binary ones
(filters/gates) as you make it, or don't, into schools or jobs or other
opportunities. It's not necessarily a linear or symmetrical mapping, either.

For example, when I was in graduate school, the chair was discussing how high
GRE scores were not very strong indicators of 'success' in grad school (i.e.
doing good research, publishing it, and getting out in a reasonable time).
However, low GRE scores were much stronger indicators of 'failure' given these
criteria.

IQ probably maps pretty linearly to GRE scores (for most of the small subset
of the population who would ever take such a test), but with regards to
scientific progress there are a series of thresholds that are more important
(grad school, faculty hiring, securing funding, etc. etc.). These thresholds
are really about opportunity and access.

~~~
xfer
> IQ probably maps pretty linearly to GRE scores

For native english speakers, you mean? When i participated, GRE had 2 sections
on english language: 1. about vocabulary(may not be relevant depending on your
discipline) 2: reading comprehension(certainly useful). I don't think it maps
that well to IQ. I certainly had to work on my vocabulary, which i don't have
any use for and don't remember much at all.

------
majidazimi
Well, I like to think persistence matters more but getting into top 1% of
everything requires more than determination.

1\. Going from bad to good requires x amount of effort/persistence.

2\. Going from good to best requires 1000x amount of effort.

When you've put 800x amount of effort, you'll realize this harsh bitter fact.
You have already given up on your hobbies, family, social life, ... and you
are still considered as "good+" not "best-". To bypass being-best-barrier you
need more than persistence.

Things like IQ, family wealth, great coach, ... matter when you are
approaching near top of the hill.

~~~
madeuptempacct
Very much this - average genes, hard work, and sacrifice can generally
guarantee upper middle class (barring accidents). Basically, all you need to
get there is being a good cog in the machine. That is to say - you come in
groomed, you do your job, you study or take night classes, you don't spend
your money on having a life, you don't make mistakes which come with fun.
Eventually, you will get to your $100,000/year and your 1 mil networth.

The sad part is that I have met some really low IQ people who are unable to
even prep for a college exam, or the SAT, ACT, MCAT, whatever. So, their
innate intelligence or upbringing denies them even the shot at an average
comfortable life.

~~~
astura
$100,000/year salary and $1M net worth are incredibly specific numbers, where
are you getting them from?

It's a tautology to claim "average genes, hard work, and sacrifice can
generally guarantee upper middle class" because if someone isn't upper middle
class you can just claim they don't have average genes, they didn't work hard
enough, or they didn't sacrifice enough. None of those things are measurable.

~~~
madeuptempacct
That's realistic income at 45 with a 4-year degree in some engineering
discipline. You can save a mil at that income in 15-20 years.

~~~
astura
Sure, but what does that have anything to do with the "average person with
average genes who works hard and sacrifices?" Most people aren't engineers and
most people can't become engineers, the market can't sustain a 200%+ increase
in engineers.

You seem to merely be saying engineering is a good career. Everyone already
knows that.

It takes more than hard work to stick out engineering for 20 years, its not a
job for everyone, you're going to burn out if you absolutely hate the work. I
personally know two mechanical engineers who were both straight A students but
hated it once they got to the job. Both didn't even make it to 5 years as
engineers.

------
Alex888
Intelligence doesn't matter much when you have it. It matters quite a lot when
you don't.

Like in basketball - being 2.50m tall doesn't mean you'll beat everyone on the
court. But being 1.50m pretty much guarantees you're out of luck.

~~~
tzs
> But being 1.50m pretty much guarantees you're out of luck

1.60 m, though, is apparently good enough:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues)

~~~
mactrey
Bogues is really the exception that proves the rule. He had to be incredibly
talented and athletic to make up for his lack of height, but even then he was
only a good, not great, NBA player. If you are 1.60m tall and your dream is
making the NBA, well, unless you are literally one of the most athletically
talented people on the planet, you should probably give it up.

------
Shekelberg
Funny how HN is full of people with >120 IQ claiming that IQ doesn't matter.
If that's really true, than why is pretty much everyone here in the top 10-15%
of the population? Where are all the <100 IQ people here claiming to have
successful careers in the tech industry despite their IQ scores? Remember, the
average IQ is 100 by definition, so roughly half the general population is
<100\. What are the odds of this happening by chance if IQ is truly
irrelevant?

~~~
baccheion
Average IQ among intuitor types (xNxx; MBTI) is said to be one standard
deviation above the norm (115+ SD15). They are also very overrepresented
online.

Having an IQ 2 standard deviations above the norm (130+ SD15) tends to attract
problems/difficulty/friction in corporate environments. That is, companies are
biased toward Te users (xxTJs) and extroverts + judgers (ExxJs) with IQs in
the 115-125 range.

Synthesis usually starts at 130+. Companies either don't like it, or want it
cheaper.

115-125 is also most common among students enrolled in big-name universities.
They also get an edge in high school, as they are smart enough to be better,
and yet, not smart enough to get bored or be seen as a threat.

~~~
com2kid
> Average IQ among intuitor types (xNxx; MBTI)

Please stop giving MBTI mind share, it has repeatedly been proven to be non-
scientific. The creators of the test had minimal to no training in psychology,
the underlying basis of the test are not based on sound theory, and test
results for a given person are not stable across multiple retakes over medium
periods of time.

MBTI was sold to corporations as a psuedo-scientific way to make employment
decisions. It explains everything in a nice, simple way, that makes everyone
feel good about their "strengths".

> Synthesis usually starts at 130+. Companies either don't like it, or want it
> cheaper.

MBTI doesn't represent people's actual personality. I am supposed to be INTP,
yet I enjoy managing teams of people, I am capable of standing up and
entertaining a room full of people, and I am able to play long term internal
politics to help ensure the project I am on can stay on track.

I also haven't seen MBTI used, anytime recently, by companies as a management
tool. I have seen other pseudo-science hackery in place, but they almost
always has the same attitude towards results MBTI does, all positives, no
negatives.

Actually a friend's company did recently go through a corporate psych test
that was brutal in its results. People got results back that said things like
"you try to control and manipulate other people around you to get results" and
"you are insecure in your work and that causes you to lash out at others."

It was hilarious to see honest results being given to people in a corporate
setting, not what people are used to. :)

For an actual scientific measurement of personality, Big5 is where to go right
now.

------
closed
It's funny, the article says that none of Terman's Termites became examplars
of genius, but Lee Cronbach is definitely in the top 1% of most influential
psychologists.

To name a few accomplishments..

* If wikipedia is correct, he was the "48th most cited psychologist as of 2002".

* He has an extremely popular metric named after him (Cronbach's alpha)

* President of American Psychological Association.

Maybe what he is missing to the author is the popular media appeal Feynman
has. However, I'm not sure that's a good criterion for genius, since I'm not
sure it's something Cronbach wanted.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Cronbach](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Cronbach)

~~~
Miltnoid
Yeah, the article talked about "only" becoming Stanford professors... maybe
the author doesn't realize how incredibly hard and rare it is to be a
professor at a tier 1 research institution, not to mention being as prolific
as Cronbach. The kids didn't become Nobel laureates but... so? That's an
insane expectation for high achievement.

~~~
iguy
I believe that Shockley just missed the cutoff for this study. Because it had
a fairly high weight on verbal score.

------
k__
I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and
anxiety problems.

So yes, the best CPU doesn't help if the IO is constantly blocked.

~~~
bjoli
One of the few things we actually know for sure about iq is that it has a
protective function when it comes to mental illness.

~~~
danans
Do you have a citation for that?

On the surface it seems like an absurd statement, since IQ isn't a "thing",
like for example, sickle shaped blood cells, which are protective against
malaria.

It's a human devised statistical metric, which says nothing about what
actually causes a particular score.

Even if there is a population wide correlation of higher IQ to better mental
health, it would be heavily confounded by other huge factors affecting mental
health, like income, education, health care access, family conditions during
childhood. To prove this you'd have to control for at least those factors, and
possibly many others.

~~~
bjoli
The studies of high iq and correlation to mental illness all seem to be pretty
bad (like, "let's survey a bunch of mensa members"), whereas the studies of
correlation of childhood IQ and later mental illness are generally better
studies. One of the better examples is
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-
child...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-
associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/)

The better studies of high IQ and mental illness seems to only show a slightly
higher occurrence of bipolar disorders.

------
sureaboutthis
I started to write a much longer response but don't have time. My IQ was
tested at 142 some decades ago and, from what I've read, would be higher cause
the tests have changed.

I was always very successful in my jobs but, when it came to starting my own
business, I needed a lot of active encouragement or I would give up too
quickly. However, in two cases, a business clicked with me, for some reason,
which made me excited and driven. While others commented on my innovative
approach to those businesses that made them successful, it was the enthusiasm
that kept me going, followed by the excitement of success. You might say it's
the difference between being a good player on a bad sports team versus a good
player on a first place team. My IQ, perhaps, helped me see things most did
not but it's the enthusiasm that keeps me going and, especially helpful,
encouragement and support from others, not my IQ.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
> and, from what I've read, would be higher cause the tests have changed.

That doesn't sound right - the Flynn effect causes IQ tests to get _harder_
over time.

Also, I believe IQ reliably deteriorates with age.

~~~
nickysielicki
The Flynn effect is misunderstood to be some sort of general humanist truth
(because psychology classes generally present it as such), but the existence
of a _reversal_ in the Flynn effect in recent years may indicate that it was
just a circumstance of the 20th century and not something that we can assume
will continue forever.

 _Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused_ (2018)

[https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/0...](https://sci-
hub.tw/https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/05/1718793115)

~~~
bachbach
People are definitely reluctant to retract that bit of gospel and it's not a
good look. IIRC Flynn himself was circumspect and the memory is uncertain but
I thought he pointed to the recent reversal too.

This sort of collective amnesia happens often if you look out for it and this
makes me suspicious of other conventional wisdom I see peddled here and on
Reddit. Is it probably true because a lot of people think so or is it true
because it chimed with a story. The mind warping powers of politics are well
known but maybe the conceit every person shares is that we feel there ought to
be a nice coherent story like a box to put things into - meanwhile
Reality/Nature/God gives zero fucks about all that.

------
codingdave
The smartest people I know discover what is important to them in life and set
up their life to pursue those interests. They may or may not be interests that
make them famous in their fields, but if you define success as living a happy,
satisfying life, they are succeeding at their top capacity.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
I appreciate this little nugget of wisdom

------
harry8
There's an unspoken assumption in this discussion that ability, however it is
defined, leads inevitably to success, whatever that means. Then you're looking
at whether IQ is a good measurement of ability in the first instance (is it
often wrong in what it is trying to measure it not?) And whether it is trying
to measure the right thing or is ability elsewhere unmeasured?

Nowhere in all of it is dumb luck considered a factor. Lottery winners are
successful. What can you infer about their personality attributes? It's
obviously risible.

At the other end of the scale is there ability so profound that considering
the role of luck is uninteresting? Or are there N others with comparable
ability who weren't so fortunate and did not succeed? How big is that N? Is it
possible to answer such questions with anything more than prejudice? Do you
have to get lucky with your research to get a Nobel? Eg would Feynmann have
got one for something else if QED was published by someone else a couple of
years before he got there? Don Bradman was lucky to achieve what he did in
sports, really?

My own prejudice is that IQ is total bullshit. I believe in my ability and was
once told as a child that my IQ was impressive (whatever that meant - I don't
know). I know I mirror my parents reaction to that news: "We think you're
clever and always did, just not because of this nonsense."

Maybe I'm not super remarkable too and who cares? Life is too short. All of us
should rise early, work hard and strike oil.

------
melling
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not;
nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not;
unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full
of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The
slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human
race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

~~~
yhoneycomb
Depends in what field.

Being persistent will never give you the facial features to become a male
model.

~~~
hokua3
you could be the before picture

~~~
brightball
I laughed way too hard at this

------
candiodari
I love the opening statement:

"People too often forget that IQ tests haven’t been around that long. Indeed,
such psychological measures are only about a century old."

Yeah, because other metrics of human mental performance, or any kind of
psychological property of humans for that matter are so much older than a
century, right ? A century in psychometrics, is 13.5 billion years in physics,
to make the "dog-years" analogy.

Reality: IQ is the oldest, best, and most solidly established predictive
metric of success. In fact it's pretty much the oldest metric anyone bothered
keeping at all (presumably exactly because it works, it seems very unlikely to
me that it just happened to be the first one they tried. I remember studies
that tried to quantify "nobleness" and "noble blood" in people and correlate
that to intelligence for example).

Back to the article. The source for all this wisdom ?

[https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Checklist-Paradoxical-
Become-C...](https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Checklist-Paradoxical-Become-
Creative-ebook/dp/B07H8WFY9S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-
text&ie=UTF8&qid=1538619915&sr=1-1&keywords=the+genius+checklist)

(This book essentially makes the point that there is a lot or variability at
the extreme outliers of genius. Even then, it is forced to conclude that while
those extreme outliers weren't the very top geniuses at a young age, they were
_very_ smart. The just weren't top of the top early in life, even though they
did become the top of the top later in life. It points out the corollary:
genius increases the odds of success, which is very different from
guaranteeing it)

------
account2
I wonder how many IQ test misclassify intelligence? Feynman had a score of 125
and many people here have a high score than that. I bet no one here with a
higher score of 125 are actually smarter than Feynman though. I think this is
just one of many possible such examples where IQ test miss the purported
people they were suppose to capture. Feynman’s score wouldn’t even qualify him
for MENSA.

I wonder how many IQ exams misclassify the intelligence of smart people with
disabilities of some sort or high functioning autism. Not saying any of this
applies to Feynman, he is just an example of where the test didn’t accurately
capture his intellect.

~~~
teilo
I'm around 150, and I don't consider myself smarter than Feynman. And I'm no
savant, am socially well adjusted, and not on the autism scale. This, among
many other data points, has led me to question the entire concept of IQ.

The measurement of IQ borders on pseudo-science. It measures something, but
what exactly? Everyone has a different answer. Ok, sure, intelligence. Now try
to define "intelligence" empirically. What isn't a particular IQ test
measuring that is relevant to intelligence? Different IQ tests often yield
different results. And I'm not talking about online tests, but proctored tests
administered by professionals.

How do you account for that amorphous quality known as "intuition"? You can't
measure it or quantify it. You can barely define it. It is a finicky,
inconsistent beast. Yet it has a profound effect on one's problem solving
ability.

If the factors that determine IQ are individually difficult to define,
differentiate, and measure, what does that say about the score itself?

In the broadest terms, IQ matters, but not in a way that makes one's score
relevant for any practical purpose. You don't need an IQ test to measure
competency in a specific task or occupation.

~~~
jlawson
You don't need to "define" it in some philosophical sense to use it.

Compare "mass". What is mass? Can you really define it? You can say what it
does, but what "is" it? Well, nobody can define it, except in terms of the
things that it _does_. Because those are all we see of it. We can measure it,
we see those measurements let us predict other outcomes. So we can use our
knowledge of mass in practical, predictive ways to build things and accomplish
things. Physicists still don't know what it "is" and they don't have to.

Now intelligence. You can measure it. The measurements stay stable on a given
person over time and between tests. The measurements predict a wide variety of
outcomes - both of a large life scale (income, longevity, criminality, etc)
and on an individual task scale (this person can learn X in Y time). It's the
most solid, repeatable, predictive result in all of psychometrics - more than
personality traits or anything else we can measure about the mind. but what
"is" it? It's _the thing that predicts all those outcomes_. No practical use
for it requires that it be anything else.

The whole "what is intelligence anyway" thing is a giant red herring; it's a
specific case of a general-purpose counterargument that can be used to attack
literally any statement about anything by demanding endlessly more rigorous
definitions of the terms involved.

~~~
teilo
I never claimed that intelligence is nothing. I said that the IQ measurement
is itself not worth much except as a general guide in fairly broad ranges.

Intelligence is certainly something. It is relevant. But it is not precise,
and is useful, as I said, only in the broadest strokes. And like all
psychometrics, the manner in which it is measured is itself not stable.

But comparing intelligence to mass or any other physical measurement is a non
sequitur. Mass is precisely measurable with perfectly repeatable results, and
has perfectly repeatable interactions.

~~~
jlawson
I think it's worth separating out different tasks in terms of how g-loaded
they are (that is to say how much they require intelligence).

General life success is g-loaded but not to an extreme degree. As many have
noted, it's certainly possible to have success without great intelligence by
working around one's limitations and finding other strengths.

But consider other tasks like "invent a new theorem in particle physics and
get it published in a top journal" or "improve a mature database/load-
balancing system to save a million dollars a year for a large computing
company". These are extremely g-loaded tasks. Intelligence, as measured by IQ,
is an absolute requirement to be able to do these things at all in my opinion.
My sense is I don't think anyone could ever do such things without scoring
120+ IQ at absolute minimum and probably much more, though I'd be happy to
hear counterexamples.

That's an example I'd say where intelligence as a concept and measure is
useful in narrow strokes: When you need such a task to be done and done well,
you can use intelligence measures to filter who does it (the same way you'd
use stature to filter who you put on your basketball team).

In any case, however useful intelligence is, it's the most useful of all
psychometric measures. Everything else is worse. That makes it not a great
tool necessarily, but the most generally important among the tools we have.

~~~
teilo
I can agree with that.

------
empath75
I always tested in the 99th percentile, went to gifted and talented classes,
was a merit scholarship semi finalist, etc. I think by any measure I had a
high IQ. I also barely graduated high school, flunked out of junior college
and spent most of my 20s going to raves instead of accomplishing anything
worth while.

Meanwhile my sister, who had an utterly average iq by any measure has a
masters degree and is a hospital executive.

The answer is she just worked harder than me. I gave up as soon as anything
was difficult for me because I was so used to learning everything easily. She
assumed that learning was supposed to be hard and put the work into it.

~~~
jlawson
Talent without effort will get you nowhere.

Effort without talent will get you somewhere.

Effort with talent will get you anywhere.

~~~
rocgf
Sounds a bit cliché, but screw it, that's going on my desktop background.

------
hokua3
IQ measures intellectual ability. Intelligence is a necessary, not a
sufficient condition for success.

~~~
jlawson
Absolutely. It's not that complicated.

Usain Bolt obviously has incredible sprinting talent. But if he sat around at
home playing video games and eating potato chips all day, nobody would expect
him to be an amazing sprinter. Everyone knows this.

Yet for some reason there's this weird idea that intelligence without effort
can yield results, where the same obviously doesn't apply to any other kind of
natural talent. It's strange.

~~~
mgkimsal
> weird idea that intelligence without effort can yield results

In my experience, that 'weird idea' comes from early schooling. Highly
intelligent (gifted?) kids generally don't have to exhibit any effort on
school work, at least up to a certain time. I can tell you that, in my case, I
coasted up until around 11th grade, then I hit a bit of a mental wall. I'm
sure other physiological changes impacted, but at core, I didn't know how to
study or exert effort in 'learning' \- everything had just fallen in to place
for so long that I didn't have the skill or experience to learn how to get
better. This was a confounding factor in college as well.

I've shared this with other folks, and had more than a few people share
similar experiences.

If Usain just ran really fast, and people said "wow, you're fast", but he
wasn't trained at how to get better, he probably wouldn't have become a world
champ. But with 'raw intelligence', that often doesn't receive the same sort
of coaching and support as specific sports or other identifiable talents.

~~~
swift532
It's all because schools generally focus on the common denominator and more
talented children are lost to boredom and lack of challenges. This doesn't
apply everywhere, but it certainly applied to my pre-university education.

~~~
mgkimsal
I skipped a grade, but even that wasn't enough. Parents indicated later that
there was thought of skipping 2 grades, but the social/age difference might
have been too great, so it was nixed at the time, then never revisited.

------
avryhof
Anyone who knows that their D&D Character with a 20 INT isn't invincible. You
have to have a combination of scores in all of the attributes to succeed.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't apply this to real life.

That being said, I often find that I over-think tasks, and end up never
completing them because I try to make them perfect, and find out at some point
that I can't.

What's more important than "perfect" is "good enough", and sometimes a high IQ
won't allow you to accept that.

It's one of the things I hate about myself at times.

~~~
zimbatm
It's possible to play a 20 INT character if the rest of the cast is adjusted
accordingly.

I have a theory that a lot of highly successful people have either a partner
or a team that is willing to do the grunt work. They basically have/created a
surrounding that allows them to focus on what they do best. The media will
picture how that person is so smart and great, but without the proper
environment they wouldn't be able to thrive.

Smart people have a tendency to think they can do everything on their own
because they are so smart, which is quite stupid actually.

~~~
titanomachy
The brilliant mathematician Erdos was famously incompetent at the basic
requirements of life. There are many exasperated stories from the colleagues
who hosted him throughout the years, but it was worth it for the insights he
could provide on their work.

------
throw2016
IQ tests have been plagued with controversy including cultural markers and yet
many continue to be obsessed with attaching more meaning to them that they can
deliver.

How can we design tests and make definitive judgements about the best way to
test intelligence when we do not fully understand it or even define it? What
about things like curiosity, passion, emotional intelligence and team work?

Are we testing abstract thinking, visual thinking, language skills? What do
they measure and how exactly do the scores translate into the real world?
Without any comprehensive studies, data or evidence this quickly becomes a
pseudo science.

Is there any guarantee and precision that a person with IQ of 140 is more
'intelligent' than a person with an IQ of 120? In what? In the IQ tests yes,
but beyond that in what? The real world is much more than a single test in a
controlled environment.

This is like claiming a student scoring higher than classmates in an english
test will write a better novel or compose better prose. Does not follow, in
the same way ascribing value in the real world to an IQ test does not follow.

------
clubm8
I think maybe a better way to think of "smarts" leading to success is to not
look only at IQ, but also attention

An oversimplified example from electrical engineering:

Watts are units of power. Amperage * Voltage = wattage.

Amperage refers to how much current (width of the pipe) and voltage refers to
the speed of the current (how fast the water flows).

I think that we focus so much on _intelligence_ testing, but neglect to focus
on _attention_. I think that making use of your smarts, intelligence, or
whatever term you want to give it needs a combination of intelligence and
attention.

If you are very smart (180 IQ) but can't focus for long, you will be outdone
by the woman or man who "only" has 130 IQ but has persistence.

IIRC studies of Nobel winners (a good measure of "smarts" and achievement)
confirm my theory - finding that after a certain cutoff, there are diminishing
returns for IQ alone in terms of obtaining a nobel.

------
throwanem
Of course IQ isn’t a measure of success. _Success_ is a measure of success.

~~~
bad_user
This remark is either really smart, or really dumb, depending on how you
interpret it.

~~~
noname120
I think that this comment refers to Goodhart's Law[1], so I would place my
money on smart.

[1]
[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EbFABnst8LsidYs5Y/goodhart-t...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EbFABnst8LsidYs5Y/goodhart-
taxonomy)

------
sidcool
I want to believe that my perhaps above average IQ won't matter and I could be
in a league of PhDs. But practically it seems very difficult and there is a
glass ceiling which seems too difficult to break. A feeling that there is
something which my mind cannot probably grasp.

~~~
dagw
If you're smart enough to get a bachelors or masters in a subject, you're
smart enough to get a PhD in the subject. What will make or break you is your
tenacity and willpower and not giving up when it becomes a dull hard slog.

And realistically the difference in quality/difficulty level of work people do
to get their PhD is massive. Some people revolutionize their field for decades
to come and some do a slightly more drawn out bachelors level thesis. Yet they
both end up with the same degree.

------
ChicagoDave
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that birth geography, parental
income/wealth, health, luck, and temperament all contribute to success.

------
gweinberg
Given how often we've been told that IQ tests don't measure anything but the
ability to take tests, the title is obvious bullshit. I think it is fair,
though, to say IQ tests tend to become less accurate as the test takers
approach the intelligence of the test designers. An they're when the test
takers are much smarter than the test designers, the tests are really no good
at all at determining how much smarter.

------
zachruss92
I have an interesting take on this article. I had an IQ > 150 when I was
originally tested when I was a teenager. Later in my teenage years, I
experienced trauma that resulted in my IQ dropping by 20+ points, permanently.
This means that my IQ is currently in the higher end of the normal range. Here
is what I noticed:

1\. I feel less "sharp". By this I mean I feel slower to react to things and
it takes longer for me to formulate thoughts. Words "caught on the tip of my
tongue" happen more often.

2\. It takes longer for me to learn. This applies to things like reading
comprehension all the way up to learning new technologies. I need to read more
slowly and practice more often before I can master a topic.

3\. My concentration has decreased. I have ADHD, even as an adult, but
following the trauma, it became worse.

What it didn't affect:

1\. My motivation. I've always considered myself an entrepreneur. If anything,
I am more motivated to be successful - even if I have to work harder.

2\. My dedication to lifelong learning. I am a strong proponent of learning
new things is important to being successful.

TLDR; IQ has its advantages, but it isn't the only factor.

------
tomglynch
Very interesting piece. Really shows standardised testing is not beneficial,
especially as it usually narrows the scope of teaching anyway.

------
tyingq
There's supposedly some correlation between high IQ and mood/social disorders.
One example article: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-
the-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-
intelligent/)

Perhaps that accounts for some of this.

~~~
nomel
Related, I have (had?) an above average IQ, am on the spectrum, and have many
symptoms of ADHD...then I had a transient ischemic stroke.

Everything calmed down after.

~~~
tyingq
It sounds like you're saying your quality of life is better on the whole post
stroke. Is that right? Pretty interesting if so.

------
oblib
I'll offer that many of those with a high IQ are not all that interested in
becoming "highly successful" or obtaining "professional or graduate degrees".

Those are really only importance to those who are inclined to hold value in
those and they're not necessarily something everyone with a high IQ values.

So, the results they're measuring don't account for what the subject group
(high IQs) deems important to them. For example, if your family is struggling
to make ends meet one might work hard to solve that problem by doing what's
necessary, including digging ditches if that's all they can find to make ends
meet. If you follow them you might find they come up with a way to make
digging ditches much easier, faster, and better. And you'll most likely find
that they didn't get any credit at all for that, and that they didn't care.

------
jacquesm
I know plenty of people for whom their high IQ is actually a hindrance rather
than a help. So even for them it matters (greatly) but not in a positive way.

The best determinants for being successful, in spite of a high IQ or lack
thereof are the ability to focus and to have stamina.

~~~
HiroshiSan
Is there any way to train focus and stamina?

~~~
debacle
The general advice is: know when take breaks. Small + often.

------
ummonk
It is well earablished that iq tests don’t work that well until adulthood.
E.g. identical twins raised seperately have very different iq test scores
during childhood but the scores converge in early adulthood.

------
nothingtodo
The discussion here is interesting, and I think it might be worth it to
consider that despite any real differences in IQ, everyone is suffering from
the same miserable dysfunctions that are rooted in systems that affect your
life. For example, there's another post on the HN front page today about a
Nobel laureate who sold his medal to pay his medical bills. At the end of it,
there's seems to be an ingrained futility to anything. It seems luck is a more
important factor than genetics.

------
IkmoIkmo
The key is not to confuse IQ as an isolated effect, but rather study it as an
interactive effect, e.g. taken together with grit / perseverance, IQ likely
becomes one of the best explanatory variables for success.

IQ is not a definitive 100% accurate predictor for intelligence, people expect
that, and it doesn't work like that. But it doesn't mean it's not a predictor.

i.e. a lot of people say 'Feynman had an IQ of 125, I had an IQ of 140, but
I'm not smarter than Feynman, thus I question IQ as a predictor for
intelligence'. But that's a bit like saying 'Tyson was a small heavyweight
boxer, but he's a more successful boxer than I am while I'm twice his size,
thus I doubt size as a predictor for boxing success'.

Same with things like getting a college degree, and comparing your degreed
success with that of Bill Gates who dropped out. It doesn't rule out education
as a predictor.

Similarly, you can look at BMI and say that it is a predictor for being
overweight (e.g. as a proxy for health, having too much fat, dietetc). But
bodybuilders have high BMIs, the proxy doesn't work for them.

The key to all these edge-cases are interactive effects. Education works, but
not when interacted with forgoing a billion dollar entrepreneurial opportunity
like Gates or Zuckerberg. BMI works, but not interacted with a low-fat, high-
muscle training goal. Size as a predictor works in combat sports, but can be
overcome when low size is interacted with talent factors. Similarly, IQ works,
but not in isolation, and not in every single case, but it is one of the more
useful predictors with a lot of explanatory powers.

Lastly, estimating any predictor for a small subset of geniuses (the focus of
this article), is hardly an effective metric when it's based on an IQ test
that is designed for the general population.

Lastly, some bayesian perspectives... the article's premise is based on: how
many high-IQ people go on to become a genius. Well, very few. Perhaps that's
not because IQ doesn't matter, but rather that there's just very few geniuses.
Instead if you look at geniuses and look at what their IQ is, it's virtually
all substantially above average.

Insomuch as he's speaking to a rare strawman individual who holds the belief
that IQ is the end-all metric of being a genius then yes, IQ doesn't matter as
much as he thinks. Most other people however are much more nuanced about IQ
and understand you can be unsuccessful with a high IQ and successful with a
low IQ, but that it's a very strong predictor for success nonetheless.

------
quadcore
Do they make the assumption that everybody want to be eminent? I mean, the way
I interpret the article is that IQ is not the only thing you need to achieve
success. Of course, you have to want success in the first place isn't. So I
guess I would be more interested in a study done on determined people (for
example YC founders). I bet suddenly IQ will play some big role but who knows.

------
rbrbr
Headlines like this are tedious. The obvious question without even reading the
article is "for what". Obviously IQ does only matter in some contexts. If you
don't see that you might lack some of it.

------
MrEfficiency
Can someone do a test for willpower/hardwork?

I think that would be a useful indicator. I was a B student, but I've
accomplished more than A students now that I'm approaching my 30s.

~~~
ben_w
Willpower has a standard test, at least in kids: put a sweet in front of them,
tell them to not eat it, leave them alone with it, and see how long it takes
them to eat it anyway.

For adults, I propose giving them a mobile phone and a Twitter account, and
seeing how long it takes for them to “just check it one more time”.

~~~
sjg007
I've never liked the marshmallow test. I think it is fundamentally flawed as
others have found.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/01/famed-
impu...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/01/famed-impulse-
control-marshmallow-test-fails-in-new-research)

------
programminggeek
The real fallacy is thinking that it is ONLY one factor and hoping that by
isolating that one fact that you can prove and predict all things.

That is foolish in my experience.

------
amelius
I'm starting to suspect that society is set up to make IQ matter less than we
think.

------
lonelyscarf
I agree that it matters less. One thing is to have a high IQ, the other is to
apply that IQ to your every day life. However, it is not sufficient to base
your success on IQ alone, effort matters too and those who have a high IQ tend
to put less effort into things

------
ratsimihah
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

------
RickJWagner
"If you think your IQ is 160 but it's 150, you're a disaster. It's much better
to have a 130 IQ and think it's 120."

\- Charlie Munger

~~~
dEnigma
Could you please explain the meaning of that quote to me?

~~~
hackinthebochs
It's about expected necessary effort vs actual necessary effort. It's better
to wrong that you needed more effort than be wrong that you needed less
effort.

~~~
dEnigma
Thank you! I misread the quote and thought it talked about having a lower IQ
than one thinks in both cases. This cleared everything up.

------
sdinsn
AKA diminishing returns. Unsurprising.

~~~
debacle
There's a cutoff around 135. After that point, most people will squander any
additional intelligence.

------
francasso
The author should have a chat with Jordan Peterson

------
ryanjmills
damn

------
ShlomoGrinberg
It's purely socioeconomic factors.

