IQ level does not matter contrary to popular belief

.....and breathless !

There's a High IQ complex going around the past few years & it's used typically with great arrogance to the contrary perception so yeah....

Someone once said something to me about ten years ago that stuck & always will "You can learn something from anyone & everyone if you want to"

People with higher IQ's do make more money, and have greater academic and professional success.

That isn't everything, but it is something.

Not always. Due to often lacking social skills, many are reclusive and even end up jobless, joyless and even institutionalized.

There is also the matter of the interests of the person with the higher IQ. If they prefer to work in a line of employment where wages are substantially lower than even the average, they clearly won't be making more money than, oh let's say, the average politician.

Exactly!! Deepened my points on many different variables that are potentially realities for people with High IQs, I mean there's so much more to this topic but you covered the basis' adequately & sufficiently.

Also Most people with High IQs are just about all self taught usually focusing on a few different topics the odds of social skills can be low in this not saying everyone with a high IQ has bad social skills just saying IQ doesn't in all actuality matter as much as it's seen to in modern society other than passing knowledge on & teaching people things they otherwise would not have known that's probably more advantageous than anything else of having a high IQ.

Theres about a 15-20% people with above average IQ just for a fundamental ground.... Using the Psychology of relaivity attracts in friendships/relationships then do the numbers for that among say 200k people & with all possible variables there's not many people that person can relate to. I could go even deeper into this too but i didn't even plan on making it more than a few lines.

In my analysis of this I've found a lot of times people appear to have a very high IQ to people who have one slightly lower or about same functioning on the same level because they see the other as something they do not have being a high social intelligence & or emotional intelligence.

But you miss the overall point. Contrary to popular belief, IQ matters a lot. It correlates strongly with job performance, income, social status and even health. Does that mean every person of low IQ will be doomed to failure or every person of high IQ will be fabulous, of course not, but the metric is clearly an indicator of a significant success factor. To say it does not matter is refuted by lots and lots of data.

We would love the world to be a perfect place where everyone has the same opportunities, but the reality is that people are born with advantages. That may be what family you are born into, but it also how tall you are, how well you are put together and what your cognitive potential is. Not every tall person will be a basketball star, but it is definitely hard to be a world class basketball player and be of average height. You can still be a great player, but getting to the very top is going to be a lot harder than if you were six foot six.

To some extents you're absolutely right but at the same time they been lying to you everyone is born the same just most people are degeniused by adults.

We have a temporary agency worker in our office (government dept; legal finance) and he is as dumb as a sack of rocks. We have to check his work and answer his really stupid questions (the same ones repeatedly). His lack of intelligence is holding us up badly. So IQ does matter.

Alfred Binet was a French psychologist who was commissioned by the French Ministry of Education to develop a test which would identify students who were not learning at "normal standards" and who would need remedial education. In 1904, he and and his assistant, Théodore Simon, a medical student, undertook the creation of a test to determine a child's placement on a scale of "normal" learning ability, which they establish by testing 50 students, identified by their teachers as "normal learners," ten in each of five age groups representing the range from six years of age to fifteen years of age, the age range for all children required to attend school by the French government. They revised their test with more rigorous standards in 1908 and 1911 (shortly before the death of Binet). Subsequently, a psychologist at Stanford University named Terman revised the test for use in the United States. Neither Binet nor Terman believed that the test actually measured intelligence. Rather, it measured how well the child fit into the educational environment. The most consistent criticism of IQ testing is that it tests enculturation, That should not be wondered at, given that the ability of a child to fit into the education environment in large measure depends on how well they fit in to the culture and language in which they are learning.

With the outbreak of the Great War, the United States Army began to use the Stanford-Binet test to determine what we might call job placement for recruits. It is not surprising that this tended to rate blacks and Hispanics as fit only for manual labor, and not to be "officer material." In the years after America entered the European war, schools began to administer the test routinely to their students. The alleged success of the test in determining the aptitude of individuals is more a case of confirmation bias than any legitimate claim to be able to measure intelligence. Binet never claimed that it (the test) would measure intelligence, but rather would assign a mental age based on the expectation of performance for children in that age group. Blacks chronically score lower on the test than white children of the same age, and that is very likely a result of their not fully participating in white, European culture. Hispanics chronically score lower because they come from a background in which English is their second language.

When black soldiers arrived in France in 1917, many of them were assigned as stevedores. This infuriated blacks, especially those in the 24th and 25th Infantry regiments, who were long-service professional soldiers. The French had just suffered a wide-spread mutiny, and they needed troops in the trenches, right now. They accepted the black American infantry and were very, very pleased with their performance, especially their pertinacity and their display of initiative.

I guess stevedores make good infantry. IQ matters to the extent that it fulfills the expectations of employers and military recruiters. But it does not tell us anything about intelligence, it only tells us how well individuals fit into the dominant culture. Great black and Hispanic men and women in American history are those who have overcome the categorization. People who are "failures" in life fail because they don't fit in, or they don't understand the culture of which they perforce must be a part. But IQ does matter, more's the pity.

The problem is the absolutism of the Title.

You will find no people with low IQ among engineers, doctors, physicists, etc. So for their field of endeavour, IQ matters, a lot.

Among other fields, it doesn't. Socially it doesn't. In many areas of life in doesn't. In some areas, it does.

People are not born the same. Some people start out smarter than others. What they do with that intelligence is another matter.

I also don't see what intelligence has to do with social skills. People isolate themselves for all kinds of reasons.

I have known more than one person who on one hand is pretty much a genius, but makes the most bone headed decisions with their lives one can imagine.

I don't think common sense or emotional issues are included in IQ scores.

There is no such thing as "common sense"... well, what is commonly called "common sense" is the same thing that is called "prejudice".

IQ relates to one's ability to reach the correct logical conclusion given a set of axioms. It means that when there are a set of things you know are true, you can quickly see what the consequences are. Someone with a high IQ will be able to solve mathematical problems, make strategic decisions and to distinguish facts from feelings more easily than someone with a lower IQ.

IQ does not relate to one's ability to get along in society. Society is not rational. Society, and human interactions in general are based on emotion, and prejudice and assumptions and cultural norms. People treat these as "facts"... but they are not real facts.

This is why people with high IQs who can make rational decisions based on real facts often have trouble in social situations where this ability is not very useful. Maybe "common sense" is the right word for this... things that normal people accept as "fact" even though there is no rational basis for them are likely to confuse many people with high IQs.

I have seen this is the chess world (I was a tournament player in my younger life). People who were geniuses in the logical world of a chess board had trouble navigating basic social environments. I see this in parts of the engineering world as well.

This isn't the case at all. An argument could be made for conjunctions / similarities in specific instances...but the words relate to two very different concepts.

Although your first sentence is true, the following sentences go on to excuse (rather than explain) the fact that many people with High IQ's are socially inept. What this ignores is the realm of inference (which can be read with a fair degree of accuracy if one pays attention). Watching how another person:
- behaves (body language) together with;
- talks (tone, pace, volume, pitch, curves of the previous)
And being able to correctly infer (otherwise known as understand) what they person feels and means

The fact is, many with high IQ don't pay enough attention to how other people are saying things. It seems to me they usually pay too much attention to their inner dialogue, and miss many of those cues. They also seem to pay less attention to their emotions, which, if you understand how the sympathetic system works, also results in less information reaching them about what the other person feels.

Anyone that does that is, generally, going to struggle socially.

I have yet to see anyone show any objective difference between "common sense" and prejudice. They are both things that you just instinctively "know" without any articulable process of reason. The only difference is that one represents a conclusion you agree with, and the other you disagree with.

What you are describing is related empathy. It is the ability to understand, or even share, the emotions of other people. I agree with that this is important.

The other issue is that of understanding social conventions. Many very intelligent people have trouble mastering the social rituals that many people find natural. These include small talk, flirting, expressing opinions in an appropriate way and knowing when opinions shouldn't be expressed.

People who have trouble following the social norms that come naturally (and subconsciously) to most people, have difficulty in social circles.

The understanding of these flow from the above. It's not really a separate issue. It's a natural extension of the first.

We've all agreed on this, as a general statement.

I think then, perhaps you would find it more useful looking at the:

- places/times each is used; plus
- the traits of each; and
- the outcomes of each,

rather than a definition.

They are quite different beasts.

As an example, common sense says that if you suffer vertigo, you shouldn't look over the edge of a cliff (that has no safety barriers).