> If you assume that intelligence is evenly distributed across some demographic
Why on earth would you assume this? It's well known that IQ scores do differ across demographic groups. Maybe you are assuming that all groups have equal underlying genetic potential, but there's no actual evidence for this, it's just the politically correct belief that everyone is scared to question.
>Maybe you are assuming that all groups have equal underlying genetic potential, but there's no actual evidence for this, it's just the politically correct belief that everyone is scared to question.
Well, for good reason. The eugenics programs of the 20th century didn't noticeably improve the average persons life but did ruin (or end) the lives of millions. I'm not surprised people are scared after an outcome like that. Not to mention the supremacist arguments which relied on disparities in ethnic intelligence being the scientific consensus.
19th century social justice activists were able to simultaneously believe that consensus and advocate on behalf of folks. A lot of the problem with the new school is its withering fragility. I'm to understand the jury is still out on whether variance in IQ scores represents underlying genetic variance in g, but which outcome should we hope for? I think I'd prefer to live in the world where it's genetic, that's generously solvable outright with a few decades of well funded research into genetic engineering. By contrast, bigotry and social disparities are intractable logistical nightmares that might take a century to solve.
Criticizing creationists and racists in the same sentence... you clearly haven't thought this through. Only a creationist could believe that there are no differences between human populations that have been separated for tens of thousands of years living in vastly different environments.
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?
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.
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.
Do you have citations for the things you have said here? I am not being accusative. You seem to know what your talking about and I want to read further.
a) Most people here probably don't actually know their IQ scores, and claiming that most of the people here are >120 iq is silly. No one has any way of knowing that.
b) Most people here also probably know people who are every bit as intelligent as they are who have repeatedly had really shitty luck and zero success. Similarly, most people know someone who is successful, but at the end of the day is pretty stupid. Regardless of IQ, I think most people here recognize intellect as really helpful, but also as neither necessary nor sufficient for success, wealth, happiness, etc.
a. Most people here are programmer or programmer-types. Assuming there's a strong correlation between "could attend college" and "could be a programmer," that likely implies an IQ of 115 or more.
b. Those instances tend to stand out (especially the people smarter than you with miserable outcomes), but also tend to not be statistically relevant.
> 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
Everyone here probably isn't.
People who have a near-average (on either side) IQ are less likely to have it tested, and those with an average or below IQ less likely than those above the average to talk about their score.
Consequently, people who talk about their IQ score tend to have a higher than average score.
Moreover, our industry has a questionable habit of describing all kinds of human accomplishments as "brilliant" "innovations" done by "geniuses".
Being a competent professional engineer requires some raw intelligence, true, but also determination, interpersonal communication skills, organizational skills, time, training, resources, access to the infrastructure you want to work with, and no small amount of luck. Those all interact in complicated ways, and most can be used to buttress the others depending on where one's personal talents lie.
There's probably some minimum necessary raw intelligence necessary to become a hacker, but I suspect that bar is much lower than HN would like to admit. And I am very sure that there's no maximum past which the rest of the list ceases to matter.
My IQ is quite low, maybe 85 or less. I'm not smart enough to understand why a bunch of smart people would argue about how unimportant it is to be smart.
Why on earth would you assume this? It's well known that IQ scores do differ across demographic groups. Maybe you are assuming that all groups have equal underlying genetic potential, but there's no actual evidence for this, it's just the politically correct belief that everyone is scared to question.