Are Smart People Dumb?

In prior posts I’ve mentioned how much I’d like to see political polls that are limited to the smart, well-informed people. I have to confess, I thought I was stating a universal truth along the lines of “it’s better to have good health than poor health.” It seemed to me that being smart and well-informed was almost the same thing as being wise. Who doesn’t want the benefit of wisdom to inform their choices?

I was surprised at how many of my readers rushed to support the high quality of decisions made by stupid, uninformed people who are guided by superstition.

Some people accused me of being an elitist trying to assign a higher value to my own smarty-pants decisions. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption, and I would have made it myself if I were in your Birkenstocks. But the truth is that I want to know the opinions of people who are both smarter and more informed than me. Why would I limit the quality of my advice to people who don’t know any more than I do?

Imagine choosing a doctor on that criterion. “Well, I’d like a brain surgeon who’s about as smart as I am and knows as much about brains as I do, and NO more.”

Still, I pride myself on being able to consider the merits of all points of view no matter how silly they seem on the surface. I asked myself this: If I were the lawyer representing the superstitious simpleton segment of the country, how would I argue that their opinions should be given the same weight as the people who are smart and well-informed? I took it as a challenge.

First I suppose I would point out how many great decisions have been made by dumb guys (Reagan) and crappy decisions made by smart guys (Carter). I’d hope you accepted my anecdotes as evidence and didn’t ask me for a chart showing the relative number of bad decisions made by morons versus geniuses. I’d tell you to go get your own data. And I’d hope you wouldn’t ask me how the Soviet Union would have lasted much longer regardless of who was President of the United States. That’s “changing the subject.”

I’d also refer to military studies done years ago where researchers compared the performances of small groups that had different compositions of intelligence. They found that the groups with the highest percentage of bright people performed the worst. Apparently all the smart people insisted they had the best ideas and nothing got done. The best performing groups were the ones where there was one smart person and the rest of the group deferred to him. Therefore, I would argue, too much intelligence ruins everything.

I’d hope you didn’t ask me to specify the source of that study because it’s something I heard 20 years ago and I might be remembering the conclusions backwards. I’d also hope to God you didn’t ask me to explain how that military small-group example is a good analogy to political opinion polls.

My best argument is the one that hurts me the most. For that you need some background. After college, I got my first job as a bank teller in the San Francisco financial district. My typical customers were titans of industry. They seemed pretty smart. I wondered how smart I was compared to them. Sure, I earned excellent grades in my tiny high school and small college, but how would I stack up in the real world? Was I smart enough to become a titan of industry?

I decided to take an I.Q. test administered by Mensa, the organization of geniuses. If you score in the top 2% of people who take that same test, you get to call yourself a “genius” and optionally join the group. I squeaked in and immediately joined so I could hang out with the other geniuses and do genius things. I even volunteered to host some meetings at my apartment.

Then, the horror.

It turns out that the people who join Mensa and attend meetings are, on average, not successful titans of industry. They are instead – and I say this with great affection – huge losers. I was making $735 per month and I was like frickin’ Goldfinger in this crowd. We had a guy who was some sort of poet who hoped to one day start “writing some of them down.” We had people who were literally too smart to hold a job. The rest of the group dressed too much like street people to ever get past security for a job interview. And everyone was always available for meetings on weekend nights.

But the members were, as advertised, geniuses. Mensa meetings are the strangest experience. No one ever has to explain anything twice. That’s a bigger deal than you might think. Your typical day is full of moments where you ask for a cup of coffee and someone hands you a bag of nails. You don’t realize how much time you spend re-explaining things until you no longer need to. Mensa is very cool that way.

However, my Mensa experience served as a warning about trusting the judgments of people who might know how to, for example, make a helicopter from objects found lying around the house, but can’t manage their own lives. Is it possible that good ol’ common sense and traditional values are a better foundation for important life decisions, including politics?

We know that I.Q. correlates with income, but is that because smart people make better decisions or because of discrimination against people who have less education? Is voting more like brain surgery, where intelligence and knowledge obviously help, or more about judging character, where I.Q. might not be a significant factor?

Okay, that’s my best attempt at showing both sides of the issue. But I still want to know the opinions of people who are smarter than me and know more about the issues than I do. Ballot propositions, for example, have little to do with character. Maybe we could track the opinions of smart, well-informed people for a few election cycles and see how they do. That seems worth knowing.

Alternately, we can keep voting for the guy with the best hair while waiting for the Rapture. That might work too.

Comments

[Cosbert]

oh tommy! again with the juvenile behavior. But I guess that is all you have left. You can't discern a premise from a conclusion, a personal attack from an argument, fact from fiction or reason from rhetoric. Go back to the playground and maybe the other kids will let you play on the swings. All things considered I guess you really aren't Mensa material, you have all the failings but none of the mental acuity that it takes to make a ‘real genius’. Still you did manage to (semi) effectively ‘pretend’ to be one, maybe one day you will have a career in acting. (If you have a good writer)

But at least you have given up on defending your so called 'ideas'.

[John Q. Nobody]

I am a gr. 10 student. Last week, I was sitting with my friend in civics class discussing politics and free will. I used your example of "If humans have free will, how come the tallest candidate with the best hair usually get's in?" To which he replied "So if you were 11 feet tall with an afro, you would get in for sure?" I sat back in stunned silence, because I could detect no sarcasm in his voice. And he has no comprehension of dry humour.

[Jazzie]

So, I've been a member of Mensa for the past 26 years, split between American Mensa and British Mensa (1990-1997) and then back to American Mensa.

I've attended local group meetings, regional gatherings (RGs), and annual gatherings (AGs). I've been a member of several local groups and held officer positions in 2 different groups. I've been on national committees. I currently am editor of a local newsletter that's gotten a certain amount of praise. I've organized a leadership development workshop (LDW) and barbecue/camping weekend.

As Becky Zoole Elkana said, "Mensa is what you make of it" and make of it I have done! From my first meeting, I was hooked. I have met hundreds of wonderful people through Mensa. Yeah, there are always a few oddballs, but you'll find them in any cross-section of society.

One of the things I most enjoy about Mensa is I don't have to explain my jokes -- they *get* it! At countless meetings, RGs, or AGs, you'll hear raucous laughter. We've even had people identify us at restaurant tables, asking "you people belong to Mensa, don't you?"

[gr8hands]

Cosbert, what a stinging comeback (laugh!). I know you were doing you best (snicker), which is what makes it all the more pathetic (ha!).

You know, you just might bring jesters back into fashion!

[Cosbert]

Tommy, It's so nice when you have nothing to say.

[Troy]

OMG!!! This post is SO circulating in Mensa right now. I fell off my chair laughing.

I am the biggest looser known to man. I just found out I have a degenerating disc in my neck at the ripe old age of thirty. Do you know how I found that out? I started break dancing.

I get paid 2/3 of the minimum salary for either one of my two titles. Still, I've held the job for seven years.

I never finished my Bachelor's degree but am still taking classes.

My one bedroom apartment is a stye.

I have NO concept of money.

People often find me very attractive but I'm single and haven't been on a date in years.

I think I'm too afraid to move anywhere or do anything in my life, but I know lots of cool, influential people that do.

I'm a royal mess. I'm in Mensa. In some way I actually love all this the way it is. I can actually laugh at it all.

[gr8hands]

Cosbert, it's so cute when you try to act all grown up.

[Cosbert]

Tommy,
No, not afraid of you or ‘mensa’ or any other garbage you can dream up, just too busy and was enjoying what little time I had to spend blogging on another topic. But then I saw your posts had just had to set out a little cheese and wait for the rat. As predicted, you bit into it and hard.

In the previous thread in which we exchanged comments you took the time to jump all over another blogger, borg warrior (BW), because you mistook separate conclusion for a premise, under the belief that if you indicted that premise that a seperate argument would fall. (Yes I know, you are jumping up and down in a spastic manner claiming “it was a premise”, and as usual your understanding of logic is flawed) BW’s separate conclusion and opinion on the progress (or lack there off) in the field of AI was irrelevant to his point, that AI was a field full of failed scientific promise (the topic of that particular blog). This is why your assault on that separate opinion (zero progress), was, irrelevant, a position I’m sure you are familiar with as you spend most of your time being irrelevant. But you defended your position as gospel and were full of false self importance (something else you are good at). In the present case, your statements were factually wrong, not some nuanced position based on the meaning of the word ‘is’, you were and are WRONG. Even your attempt to cover up your errors are lame, being introduced to the record does not constitute ‘testifying’ ‘during’ the Iran Contra hearings. The appearance was not ‘concurrent with’, therefore it was not ‘during’, and Reagan was not under oath so had no compulsion to either appear or tell the truth. It is not like he was summoned before a grand jury or subpoenaed to appear before Congress where the Clinton’s, both under oath in their time, LIED in their own ways.* And you threw out the absurd number of 300, you have made ‘the extraordinary claim, the burden is on you’, and now can’t even list what 10, 15, tell you what, you start by naming 50 and I’ll do some research, until then, “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire”. As the reigning ‘purist’ when you attempt to sit in judgment over others, you are not now being ‘more accurate’ you are attempting to cover at best a mistake at worst a LIE by issuing a correction and attempting to wiggle your way into something resembling the facts. {Johnny Cochran is dead; there is an opening for someone with your ability to dissemble the facts}

Now, applying “tommy-logic” and the standards you have attempted to impose on BW, Jimbot, myself and others, your ‘factual nitpicky mistake’ makes you utterly and totally wrong about everything you have ever said, written or dreamed and renders your totally unable to respond in any way. You were wrong, now bow down before me and admit to my greatness or you can go to your corner and stay there you hypocritical impotent little poster boy for retroactive abortion. I’m sorry your daddy couldn’t stand you so he ran off on you leaving your otherwise incompetent mother to be a whore in Las Vegas in order to raise you. Leaving you so socially isolated and inept that you just have to treat people you don’t agree with condescension and you have to run to little old ladies for affirmation of your manners. [Note to all other readers, according to the definitions and standards of conduct with which tommy boy (aka gr8hands) treats others, what I just said was “civil” so you shouldn’t be offended by how I have treated him. Quite obviously, I don’t ‘know’ tommy, I don’t know the circumstances of his life or family so for me to impugn or besmirch him in such a personal manner would have to be a ‘LIE’. Similarly, when tommy makes claims as fact regarding another person’s faith, family or person he is asserting a position he knows he is unqualified to know the truth of, and is therefore ‘A LIAR’ Of course, those of us who have received this treatment are comforted by the fact that this behavior come after he has expired logic, reason or evidence in support of his (usually irrelevant) non-sense and can resort to nothing more than name calling and grading grammer**.]

This brings us to the present question, “Are Smart People Dumb?”. It surprised me not at all that you claimed the mantel of genius for yourself. Not that you have exhibited any real signs of extraordinary intelligence, only that you have exhibited all of the social dysfunction that even you identified (ah, to give you a mirror) as common to geniuses. Even if you are not a true ‘genius’ you do serve as a good example of what I call the “The Fallacy of ‘Genius’”. One of things that the IQ exams provide that is not always present in real life is ‘all of the information needed to answer the question’. In life ‘geniuses’ tend to exhibit three fatal flaws:
1. The assumption that they already ‘know’ everything they need to reach a conclusion. Being wrong about this, they will often ‘leap’ to incorrect conclusions based on missing evidence or unsubstantiated information, treated as fact.
2. Once that conclusion is reached, geniuses, being geniuses after all, assume that they are ‘correct’ and so all challenges are summarily dismissed without serious consideration.
3. New facts tending to disprove a conclusion already jumped to are discarded or impugned rather than refactoring.
Now tommy you might even agree that this accurately describes Scott’s opinion on Free Will. What you can’t do however is see through your own ego and arrogance that this accurately describes your attitude on most things you chose to comment on. For those wishing to see evidence of gr8hands weak mind, please return to the thread named “Holy Cop Killer” in which tommy makes all three mistakes.

For my part, I scored in the 92nd percentile (top 8%), for which I am grateful. Because of this I have always known I had to work a little harder and not take for granted that which others can. I still make mistakes, I wrongly jumped to a conclusion regarding a position that Adrian D posted the other day. When my error was shown to me, I apologized, and carried on as I still disagreed with Miss Adrian on a number of other issues. To her credit Adrian didn’t try to say that my single mistake made me some kind of pond scum and she managed to carry out a spirited and respectful discourse. If only tommy, and other geniuses would grow up and learn to do the same.

YES SCOTT, SMART PEOPLE CAN BE QUITE DUMB! (and because I have now said so, we can all move on to other topics.)

* Yes, I have read most of the testimony of Ms. Clinton, and yes, some of her allies did ask her stupid question like the ones you suggested. This is a common practice in such hearings to give pawns like you cover. There were also questions to which “I don’t recall” was an obvious lie.
** Yes tommy, that ‘e’ is all for you.

[Bruce Harrison]

I understand your point, but I think you're overlooking a bigger one. When people are responsible for their actions, be they smart or dumb, rich or poor, they tend to make better decisions. If they see the results of their votes, and don't like what's happening, then they need to change their votes. This last part, the feedback loop that is what should keep our society functioning, is what seems to be lacking.

Remember what the requirements were to be able to vote when the country was founded. Non-slave males over 21 who owned at least 25 acres of land. But the founders envisioned that someday every citizen would be able to vote -- but first they needed to be educated, both generally and specifically in how our form of government works.

The problem is, that isn't taught very much in our schools any more. Civics, history and government are pretty much not taught at all, or when they are, they are taught in a negative way to reinforce an agenda meant to show what an evil country America is. The result is that people don't understand how the system works, and don't take the time to educate themselves on the issues. Consequently, they don't make the best decisions.

If you want people to do better, then start with the schools. Tell your local boards that you want civics and government to be once again taught in our schools. If they aren't taught, then how will they know? We'll be back to where people will only vote the way they're told to vote by those who are already in power -- and then what?

As Alexander Tytler said, in the 19th Century, writing about the failure of democracy in ancient Greece:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess [money] from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back into bondage."

I'm not saying Tytler is absolutely correct, but his words bear thinking about, especially considering that the US is 230 years old. We need to take the time to educate ourselves; after all, it is our government, deriving its power from our will. We owe our country, its history and our fellow citizens at least that much.

And as to Mensa: I, too, am a member. I haven't been to a meeting in many years, but when I did, my experience was far better than yours (also met a lot of pretty nice women there). I understand exactly what you mean by not having to explain yourself twice; similarly, I found that I could make jokes and allusions that people actually understood without me having to explain them. I'm sure you understand what I mean by that last part.

I'd posit (and this is just a guess, but it seems to make sense) that those who are devoted to rising up the corporate ladder and making big bucks may be smart enough to be Mensa members, but they just don't have the time to participate in something that won't lead to meeting their goals. Time, or desire. Being a big corporate fish in a small corporate pond, I'm pretty busy, which probably accounts for why I haven't been to meetings in years. In any case, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[gr8hands]

Scott,

I'm reminded of the joke about two men talking about success. One said to the other "I have a product that costs $1 to make, and I sell it for $4. There's a lot of profit in that 3 percent."

[gr8hands]

Now Dave, calm down. I didn't say that Reagan wasn't accomplished -- or that his governorship/presidency/etc. didn't get plenty of good things done. His wife and handlers surrounded him with a lot of really talented people, and the media gave him an incredible amount of slack (much like bush).

I met Reagan personally when he was between governor and president (at a republican fundraiser). It was very cordial, and I was impressed with his charisma. There are many good things to say about him. I was terribly saddened when he passed (and even before, when he was suffering).

Those who would pontificate only about the good (ignoring or denying the bad) need a dose of reality. Part of that reality is that he was not an intellectual giant (or "exceptionally smart" in your words) or a savvy politician. Like Henry Ford, he surrounded himself with people who were. He didn't take credit, because he couldn't take credit -- it usually wasn't his work.

You really shouldn't put bush 43 up as an example of smarts -- everything he has was given to him or paid for by his father, including his "educationalism". That isn't being "liberal," it's being factual.

Comparing bush's intellect with Kerry or Gore is insulting to them both. One of his advisors summed it up best when he said bush in meetings was "like a deer in the headlights."

Stick with Reagan's actual accomplishments, which are many, but don't try and paint him as an intellectual -- he wasn't.

[Helm2Lee]

The wise Monty Python once said, a universal affirmative can only be partially converted. All of Richard Nixon is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Richard Nixon.

All Mensa members are really smart people.
Not all really smart people are Mensa members.

In fact, I would suspect that most geniuses would be disinclined to join a society whose main (sole?) purpose is to celebrate their intelligence. Geniuses tend to have other interests, usually many of them, often all-consuming, all competing for their time. Also, geniuses are either humble enough to realize that there that there are many even smarter than they are, or arrogant enough to resent having it proved to them.

Finally, geniuses are a cross section of the larger society, and have interests as varied. You want a good game of chess? Join a chess club. You like engineering, join IEEE or ACM.

So (overgeneralizing a bit), you have a social club dominated by members with no lives, who need regular reassurance that they are three standard deviations more intelligent than the norm. I.E., the losers -- people with raw brain power but little to show for it. Johns Hopkins was full of them.

Unless it's a clever cover -- they really are the Illumiati, but put on an innocuous face to the general public.

Helm

[Dave]

To gr8hands:

So, Reagan was dumb yet accomplished so much.

Huh. He downplayed his intelligence. Funny how liberals grab onto some modesty or self effacing and say "see, told you he was dumb!". It seems they would prefer faux intellectuals like Kerry and Gore, both of whom got worse grades than Bush 43 (and Kerry's IQ is lower too). (No argument from me on the intelligence of Carter and Clinton).

I read his autobiography, "in his own hand", and Dinesh D'Souza's biography. He was exceptionaly smart. You just should have paid more attention to one of his greatest adages "so much can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit."

Perhaps if you think about that, a lot more will fall into place when considering Reagan. But, in your case, i doubt it.

[bodicea]

355 comments before mine. I have no idea if someone else said something similar before. Do bear with my 2 cents.

Imho, IQ doesn't seem to be a proper judge of general intelligence. Because not everyone in the world (even the "civilized" one) has the means to prove their intelligence through IQ tests and whatnot.

EQ is a good indicator of common sense, as it acknowledges the human emotion which is essential for the human well being. And humans need IQ to manage their EQ. Vice versa.

I like your example of certain Mensa members not having fulfilling lives and that of a group of "intelligent" people not getting things done. I don't think that their well of knowledge concerning things which people look up to is the problem here. I think the problem lies within the things they don't know yet they like to think they know, or the things they actually know but refuse/are reluctant to actualize:

The ignorance of ego. People who know what they're capable of tend to develop a healthy amount of ego. Sometimes more than necessary.

My friend was right. This is a good post. Keep up the good work.

[gr8hands]

Ah, cosbert, I was thinking you were afraid to post on a topic related to Mensa, seeing what a dolt you've shown yourself to be. I would have thought you'd be intimidated by so many people who totally outclass you in every way.

To be more correct, President Reagan testified before the Tower Commission, claiming 158 times he "did not recall" (or words to that effect). The Commission's report caused the Iran Contra hearings to occur, where they read portions of his testimony, so that became part of the official record of the Iran Contra hearings.

And as most people put those two things (Tower Commission and Iran Contra hearings) together into the general term "Iran Contra hearings" I merely used a commonly used phrase, rather than the more precise form. Factual mistake? Certainly, from a purist point of view, which is hardly what I'd expect from you, cosbert, seeing that you have demonstrated no ability to recognize truth from crap (from the evidence of your posts).

However, I could just as easily argue that it was treated like a deposition and entered into the record, so in essence Reagan did testify at the hearings. But that would be needlessly nitpicky.

Try reading the Whitewater transcripts and see if the questions were ones that you could have answered yourself had you been in Mrs. Clinton's position. Consider how busy her schedule was (compared to your own), the timetables involved, how many totally new people she met daily.

You also seem incapable of reading (or understanding) my whole post. It is clear I am asking YOU (the reader) to do the research. I know you're lazy and not very bright, but I'm not going to do the work for you. Trying to taunt me just shows you're not willing to do the work, and I'm not going to reward laziness.

After you do the research and see that I'm right, please donate your cash to the Secular Humanist organization of your choice.

[bodicea]

355 comments before mine. I have no idea if someone else said something similar before. Do bear with my 2 cents.

Imho, IQ doesn't seem to be a proper judge of general intelligence. Because not everyone in the world (even the "civilized" one) has the means to prove their intelligence through IQ tests and whatnot.

EQ is a good indicator of common sense, as it acknowledges the human emotion which is essential for the human well being. And humans need IQ to manage their EQ. Vice versa.

I like your example of certain Mensa members not having fulfilling lives and that of a group of "intelligent" people not getting things done. I don't think that their well of knowledge concerning things which people look up to is the problem here. I think the problem lies within the things they don't know yet they like to think they know, or the things they actually know but refuse/are reluctant to actualize:

The ignorance of ego. People who know what they're capable of tend to develop a healthy amount of ego. Sometimes more than necessary.

My friend was right. This is a good post. Keep up the good work.

[Patti]

Patti says:

My 37 yr old son was a member of Mensa and Intertel.
He went to quite a few mensa meetings for about a year.
He noted that most of the people were much older and although he enjoyed himself a little bit, he stopped going.
I never really asked him why.
I will ask him about it though, since you have all made statements about the people affiliated with it.

I think very bright people have numerous interests and
enjoy learning new things.
Like you, Scott, he plays tennis and he even enters some local tournaments (near san diego). He also was a certified teaching-pro. He just always HAS to do his very best.
Of course that does NOT always mean that he "wins".

His sense of humor is very much like yours, too. He has had that sense of humor since he was about 1 1/2 years old.
He was a child that always enjoyed new challenges and saw humor in everything. He always smiled. I am not kidding. Jason always smiled. Every challenge was approached with a smile and a great deal of determination.
I don't think he has ever done anything really "stupid" (that I know about)or anything you could ever label "dumb".
Although, he would disagree and would definitely say some humorous things about his small failures and daily office routine.
He is the one who first introduced me to your comic strip (years ago) and had commented on your posts quite a while back.
Maybe someday he will meet you. He reads a lot, aside from working his tail off as a computer software architect.
He taught himself guitar (acoustical) and used to play trumpet.
He loves word games and jokes and certain cartoons and comics. He's very very well rounded. He enjoys people, but not whiners!
He always says, "whiners, need to get with life and move their butts"

On the other hand, I have met many intelligent people who have absolutely NO sense of humor and NO common sense.
Many are narrow minded and refuse to hear the other side of an issue. Many are so introverted that they cannot function, as normal, in a social situation.
To be sure, non-intelligent people can also have those problems.
However, you would think that a genius would understand the importance of being open-minded, having social interests and sports knowledge etc to balance their personalities.

I believe that being truly intelligent has to do with the application of gained knowledge and the determination to experience many new things in life.
To acknowledge and perhaps understand conflicting ideas and socialize so that whatever is learned can be transferred to others and exchanged for new ideas.

If all the intelligence is stifled by taking very narrow journeys and the whole brain is not exercised for growth in many fields ( physical, mental and spiritual) then a person will not reach his full potential.
To not try to reach one's potential, I believe, is an example of...a dumb genius!
or (as I prefer to say)...a half-assed genius.

However, I WILL say, sometimes my so very genius son... knows when to play his "dumb" trump-card.
He has learned how to appear selectively "dumb" when he needs to do so.
He has learned quickly that intelligent people can be used by old, rich, dumb-executives.
So? On occasion, he might appear as "dumb" on his lunch-hour or when approached to help another while he is aggressively finishing his own "smart" project.. on his own time.

MOST recently, my genius son has learned MAGIC!
And? He has, in fact, actually learned to pull out his bag of magical tricks ….at work!
He can pull the rabbit out of the hat.. when he needs to and is monetarily motivated.
He can levitate to higher levels of thought if he is monetarily motivated.

If NOT compensated for extra work?
Jason has learned the use of smoke-screens and visual trickery.
AND…he has learned and perfected the.... trick of.. "disappearing"
What a SMARTY!

[Becky Zoole Elkana]

I have found that the most active people in Mensa tend to be the people who don't get much intelligent socializing in their working day. Maybe they work alone in a cubicle staring at computer code. Maybe they spend their days staring at a sheet of paper, waiting for the Muse to send them the perfect poem. Maybe they're criminal defense attorneys who spend a lot of time staring at clients.

I've noticed that veterinarians are often active in Mensa, too. They need Mensa, because you really can't have a smart conversation about politics with a Golden Retriever.

But people who DO get intelligent socializing don't really need Mensa. They have their fellow college students, or their fellow titans of industry, or their fellow successful cartoonists to hang out with.

I enjoy Mensa. It gives me the opportunity to spend time with smart, funny, interesting people. But then, I work in IT at a very large telecommunications company. You wouldn't know anything about what that sort of work environment is like...

[Joan Johnson]

Mensa is what you make it--a place to find a few great friends who enjoy the same outlook/interests/jokes/activities with the same degree of expertise. After years and years, I've not found a better definition than that heard at the first lunch group: It's a support group for the severely gifted. I'd rather support these 'losers' with my organizational efforts than some motley crew hanging around a church charity.

[Tan]

There are some fairly successful business people who are members of MENSA. They just don't go to the meetings.

I dreamt of being a member of MENSA throughout my teen years. The thought of applying and being rejected made me brake out into a nervous sweat. So, I put off applying/testing until I finished my PhD in Chemical Engineering thinking by then I was definitely somewhat smart. I went through the paperwork and was accepted and thrilled!

At my first MENSA meeting I felt like I was on an episode of the twilight zone. The old lady who was hosting the meeting served candied bread (don't ask) and moldy cheese and could easily have been mistaken for a bag-lady.

There were only two other people at the meeting in their twenties, a guy who started a small software company and a law student. I stuck to them like glue. Everyone else at the meeting was on their way to the nursing home.

The kindly invited me to their new year's eve party to which an elderly member asked "can we actually go out this year for new year's?"... poor guy.

To top it off there were people there who did NOT get in to MENSA. Yes they were rejected and still go to the meetings joking that they are members of DENSA.

I still enjoy their little magazines and occasionally e-mail some of the ridulously wealthy but I look like I live on the street people for investment advice.

Overall, they are warm nice people, many are eccentric, and some are secretly crazy wealthy but don't let on.
I'm hoping to be the latter one day too.

BTW - their annual get togethers can be really fun and wild.

[Miaow]

alternately = by turns

alternatively = in place of

If we did this alternately we would end up with an intelligent government half the time...

Suggestion: Read "the superior persons book of words" by Peter Bowler

Comment: I'm not intelligent enough to join Mensa so I'm not really qualified to comment on anything more than your diction.

[Peter Ring]

IQ does not make you happy or rich or a better person.

We should all try to be the best we can with what we have.

Some people are at happy, productive and at ease with simple tasks.

Some of us have higher IQ and we are more happy, productive and at ease with more complex tasks.

It is how life is. I am sure nature has found a balance that optimizes our survival potential as a race. Had a high IQ been only good, we would all be superbright.

I like beeing blessed with a high IQ, a member of Mensa, and i feel lucky to have put a possitive stamp on the world, making it a better place.

But just remember: I had not made much of a difference without all the brilliant and funny people that worked along me, that just happened to have a lower IQ score. They were just as important in creating energy saving new solutions.

Work together - be responsable - think global - have fun.

[Oli]

I personally believe that the corrolation between high IQ's and good jobs is purely down to High IQ's people making sure no low IQ people get in good positions.

The good old its not what you know its who you know.

My opinion on the IQ matter, intelligence verses experience is quite simply that people who goto boarding schools and universities miss out on a huge amount of experience from the real world. This in turn can make them consider som very poor decisions such as "if we get rid of our airconditioning we will save thousands, and the staff wont mind because those lowlifes sleep in cardboard boxes mwoahahahahaaaa"

OK

Slight exageration

But you get my point!

http://www.thedesktopshop.co.uk

[Declan]

Geniuses are merely sharp tools to be used by the rest of us.

[Lucas]

Geez, quit complaining. Why do you think the smart guy in the grade gets the better marks? Because his brain is capable of more. The same thing goes for why we don't randomly pick bums and make them presidents.
Did you know most politician are lawyers? did you know getting into law requires very good grades? What grades do smart people get? Good ones.
Why does NASA need top scientists around the world? Cause dumb people can't get the job done.
Political analysis is one of the things, like working for NASA, that would be better done by smart people. Not being elitist here, but who would be better at analysising and summarizing political agendas? A CNN corrospondent or the dum down the street?

[wsriley]

Smart people are often wired abnormally when it comes to emotions. They are more emotionally "independent" and this yields in some cases a tighter focus, and in others an ability to be more objective - free from emotional biases imposed by themselves and others. This is great for things that require logic and understanding. However, this is terrible for things like having synchronized goals with others or often times emotionally stability.

Look at Grigory Perelman, a 40-year-old native of St. Petersburg, who turned down a million dollar reward for solving a proved a theorem about the nature of multidimensional space that has stumped people for 100 years. He lives in his parents basement and has no interest in either the prize or the money.

No logically you can't find fault with Grigory's decision. Money and awards don't buy happiness for everyone. However emotionally it just seems wrong and totally out of line with normal human behavior.

My point is that the same elements that make people genius often make them have goals and aspirations that are no better or worse than most people's; but certainly very differnt. Extremely intelligent people can often be classified as emotionally insane.

Emotional decisions are very subjective, but because most people agree about on them they seem like "common sense". Things like being accepted by a social group, making a lot of money, accumulating respect and power. This things rarely cause individuals to live significantly longer. And the effects they do have are often more related to the healthy effect of "feeling good about ourselves". But we all "agree" they are essential and important. Simply because that's the way we're wired.

Extremely genius individuals aren't wired that way. They don't always receive pleasure from these things and as such don't seek them out. Their decisions aren't illogical, but emotionally seem bizarre to those more "traditionally" wired and constrained.

[Evan]

There is no doubt that some group smaller then all the citizens of the USA could make better decisions then the whole. The hard part is picking the group. IQ doesn’t work for reasons you said.

My personal take is that the best criteria is how invested in the issues are these people. If you want to discuss land zoning pick people near that location. If you want to talk about war in Iraq ask the people in Iraq, the soldiers going there, and the countries nearby. And if you want to ask about abortion ask women who have had children recently or are pregnant. I’ve found then when people need to make a decision about something important to them they try hard to figure it out and do a pretty good job deciding. Not true always but on average I think polling those people will give you better results then polling everyone.

[JT]

Okay, I am not going to read any of the 300 plus comments and just go from the gut. I also took the Mensa test and was eligible for enrollment. I never did anything with it, sort of like my bills from last month. Don't get me wrong, I have the money to pay them, its just so much work. I will, however, spend two hours reading philosophy or researching quantum things on the internet. Smart people walk a fine line I think. I also find myself obsessed with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation but am tactful enough to not correct it in conversations.

Another example: Where I work, I deal with a lot of small business owners. Most of them are dim wack-jobs. But I think you have to be. A dim wack-job is not going to perform market research to determine if their idea is feasible in the area. They are not going to look at small business success rates and realize they are very low. They are just going to have an idea, not over-analyze it, and mortgage their house to pay for the Cafe of Broken Dreams-serving hot, moist crap that you can get off McD's value menu, with stupid inside-family-joke names for their combo items.

[Cosbert]

Tommy,
Let us see if you can actually admit a factual mistake. REAGAN NEVER SAID "I DON'T RECALL" (or words to that effect) During the Iran Contra Hearings. Reagan never testified during the Iran Contra Hearings.

However, Hillary Clinton did claim to not recall 47 times during her sworn testimony regarding Whitewater.

Start listing names, 300! you're full of $hit as usual. I'll pay you $1 for every name you can (accuratly) list for members of the Reagan administration who were convicted of a felony. Less $1 for every member of the Clinton "inner circle" who have been convicted of felonies, 'commited suicide' under suspicious circumstances or 'died in airplane crash' or accepted disbarment rather than face a public trial (So we can start with Bill).

[Tom]

Hi Scott,
I had very similar experiences when I joined Mensa (and gave up on it after three meetings/ events) ... but just for fun look at the numbers ... Since you can join Mensa if you score in the top 2% of a number of tests it is actually more like the top 3%-4% that can get in ... now in the US there are around 300million people ... even just 2 percent would be a staggering 6 million people. Mensa however has a much much smaller membership (can't find the number but is max around 100,000). Hence if you add a dollop of psychology to the mix you end up with the club for smart people ... that don't have success somewhere else (obviously I am oversimplifying). The succesful smart people, i.e. those who might have common sense or generally don't only have intelligence but also the experience and training to use it, might or might not join Mensa, but if they do they tend to not stick around.

[gr8hands]

Sorry, but Reagan, like bush, was not "savvy" -- he had very good handlers (like his wife, Nancy, who clearly wore the pants in that family). Anyone who feels the need to consult astrologers prior to making their schedule is hardly "smart."

Carter was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship -- only one president has done better, Clinton (who became a Rhodes scholar). In his biography, Reagan was "a 3rd rate student at a 5th rate college." That should settle the intelligence disagreement.

For those impressed by Reagan's supposed "photographic memory" it is significant to know that he often didn't understand what he had memorized, nor could he "connect the dots" on what he had memorized, nor explain it to anyone else, nor ignore older wrong information in light of newer accurate information. So much for supposed intelligence. Also count how many times he said "I don't recall" (or words to that effect) during the Iran Contra hearings.

Do a little research yourselves and see how many people in the Reagan administration have been convicted of felonies that occurred during their tenure. (hint: it's over 300) I guess that isn't so "savvy" to choose so many corrupt people to work for you.

[Jon]

So, it turns out one of my favorite sayings was originally said by somebody else, so I guess I'm at least as smart as that guy:

Intelligence is the ability to find good answers, but wisdom is the ability to find good questions.

They are totally different things. A smart person has answers, but wise people should be in charge and ask them the questions.

And you touched on another point: voting isn't about being wise, it's about identifying the wise. I think people are better at that than you think. And, a lot fools get elected, too. That's just life.

[ASM826]

How did you conclude that Reagan was dumb and Carter was smart? In fact, Reagan was a smart, savvy politician, as was Carter. While media outlets and reporters may choose to portray national politicians as fools, the fact that they have successfully navigated the process of getting elected shows that they are competent, functional people. Your disagreement with their viewpoints on various issues does not influence their I.Q.

[Adonai Elohim]

Amazing how many posters are in the top 2%.
Why hasn't anyone made a club for people who score 100%? I'd settle for mensc.

[Albertadude]

Uh, how exactly is the worse president in the last 100 years, Jimmy Carter, smart and your best president since FDR in Reagan , dumb??? Doesn't say much for your intelligence does it Scott!???

[Agro]

Just a note:

My uncle dropped out of school at 14. He hardly even went to school prior to that, he was always being taken home by the police for truency. (he loved to go fishing instead of going to school)

Now he is a multi millionaire with properties all around Australia and has his yacht "parked" outside his place on an Island in the Whitsundays. His runabout boat he keeps in Sydney is "only" 24ft (poor bugger)

So "dumb" people may not be so dumb just because they aren't into learning the usual way.

[Agro]

My theory:
1. Brains can only hold a certain level of smartness.
2. There are 2 kinds of smarts, book smarts and common smarts (or street smarts.
3. The more you have of one the less you have of the other.

Ever noticed that really intellectual people just have no clue about the real world? Well now you know why - there is no room in that book crammed brain for any common sense.

[Tysen]

One technique that I use for evaluating things (particularly ballot thingys) is buzz words. It's the way most non-entertaining pieces of writing are judged. I am sure English Teachers, Science Teachers, Bosses, and Consultants all look for buzz words. Pick a word you like, if they use it vote yes! I think I voted yes for a municipal bond issue involving "recreation", which I like doing. It may or may not be planned to be used to build parks on toxic waste sites, but that was beyond my analysis.

[gr8hands]

Amanda, you're absolutely right! Many ultra-bright people do not feel the pursuit of money or fame as a worthwhile goal, and so will not be labelled "successful" by many others.

Teachers, so important to the world, are rarely compensated adequately. Police, Firefighters and the military are also extremely important -- but you don't get rich by putting your life on the line every day for society. Is it a waste for a "genius" to enter any of those careers? No, I don't think so.

[gr8hands]

Jill Behpour, when "smart" people do something dumb, they're just called dumb. No special verbiage required.

[gr8hands]

Anonymous, "smart" people outperform "dumb" people (I don't particularly like those terms, because they're used poorly) in most jobs, because those who plod along are unlikely to try and find more efficient ways to do the job. Or recognize when something "isn't right" and take appropriate measures. Or improve the process. Or recognize when it is unsafe, or unproductive, or unnecessary.

Plodders tend to take more time to train, have to be remedially trained more often, have to be supervised more, cannot easily be cross-utilized, and are more difficult to upgrade train when new equipment/methods are introduced.

Plodders, with their frequent "oh well" attitude, don't care as much about quality, but only burning up the clock to the end of the shift.

BOCTAOE

[Broacher]

>>So if "dumb" people who do something "smart" are called "idiot savantes", what are "smart" people called who do something "dumb"?>I came up with the term "genius manque", but am not in love with it. Is there another, better term to use that anyone knows of?<<

Al Gore?

[Broacher]

Has anyone ever done any solid study of the relationship between ethics and intelligence? Are smarter people less or more likely to be better weasels than dumb people? Or is it just a case that dumb weasels don't have a great survival record? (I wonder if the Dilbert Weasel list would be any help in this study?)

In any case, I find that the popular assumption that 'most smart people are also good people' so... well, stupid! Kinda like rats are vermin, squirrels are cute, I guess.

[Nomi]

"Some flag saluter said 'It's madness to call Reagan dumb.' I actually finished ready the post just see if there were more gems in there, sadly there weren't."

neopolitan -- Sorry to disappoint. I'll try harder next time.

I may change my screen name to "flag saluter." Would that help?

[Jill Behpour]

So if "dumb" people who do something "smart" are called "idiot savantes", what are "smart" people called who do something "dumb"?

I came up with the term "genius manque", but am not in love with it. Is there another, better term to use that anyone knows of?

[Amanda]

I have to say, reading over these comments and the wonders of studies brought up, that it has been my general observation that people with high IQs often do not live up to their potential because they see little reason to do so. There is little monetary gratification to be had in minute research, even in the sciences- and absolutely none in the humanities. They are often teased and abused in school, so that's not very motivating. So they often turn to what they do love, and do that. It is usually not what "normal" people would find interesting, motivating, or satisfying. Having been brought up in speciality gifted programs and schools, I know lots and lots of people like Dilbert's garbage man. If you can;t have the usual motivations for getting on the world, you usually turn to something that at least gives some sort of positive reinforcement.

[Kappa]

The IQ doesn't always mean intelligence. Mensa sometimes equates to Densa.

A boy I knew growing up was tested with a genius level IQ. His parents took classes on how to deal with a child far more intelligent than they were. Spoke in complete sentences at 3, could recite the alphabet forwards and backwards in several languages at 4. Discovered the opposite sex and became a socially retarded drooling idiot with a single purpose in life. Reproduction. Turned down a full scholarship to an Ivy League school because there were more girls at the local community college. Later dropped out of the community college to work at the local amusement park because there... guess what .... were more girls. Divorced wife number 1 and married affair number 3 because she was a bit more top heavy. Child number 1 is slightly smarter than the carpet.

Think Jeff from the BBC comedy Coupling

[Anonymous]

I think dumb people are discriminated against. Unfairly. For example, I have worked for two of the biggest software companies around, and their interview process weeds out all but the very smartest people. However, after one joins the company, the work one has to do can be done by any moron.

So why discriminate against dumb people? Why hire people who are much smarter than they actually need to be to get the job done?

Just like there is no research that shows that people of any one race or religion are better than others at doing a job, there is probably no research that shows that smart people are any better than dumb people. So should "smartness" be added to the list of "sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ..." as one of the things you are not allowed to evaluate in interviews?

Heh heh ..

[Broacher]

Like so many things, the market decides. And that's what's wrong with the Dilberverse structure most of us work in. It's ambiguity and lack of meaning leaves little or no room nurture or protect the human power of applied intelligence.

The half-full viewpoint says that's about to change.

The half-empty viewpoint says only while wearing camouflage gear and touting an uzi.

The glass-is-too-big side says two lottery tickets, please.

[Mark O]

That's all very well, but who decides who is smart and well-informed? Who decides where the cut-off point is?

Even ignoring the practical possibility of malice, bribery, or indeed common-or-garden recklessness or negligence affecting such decisions, the theoretical hurdles (such as what criteria to use, how to assess intelligence and knowledge, and what the de minimis level of intelligence/information should be) are considerable.

Which isn't to say I don't approve of the concept...

[Caledon]

I'm pretty sure I'm the third smartest person in my office, and by smart I mean in traditional IQ terms. I don't consider this a boast in the same way that it would also be true to say that I think I'm the fourth tallest - it's a physical attribute.

It's an office of about 50 people and we're in "political communications" so there's a lot of different personal, and well voiced, opinions on things.

The two smarter ones are very well informed people (one is actually standing for office soon) with fantastic retentive memories and would, especially in politics, be the sort of people who would qualify for your opinion poll.

And here's the problem - one is a complete a-hole who lies his way out of trouble and does no work. The best way to think of the other is as the most racist cab driver you've ever met who happened to go to an Ivy League school.

And this I think is why your idea wouldn't work, what if a number of very smart people decided to reduce crime by removing the ethnicities most likely to commit it?

Intelligence is certainly an important quality when decision making but it is not the only one.

[Michael jackson]

There is an intersting book titled "The Wisdom of Crowds" that seems like it might change my view on this and possibly yours as well. I haven't yet read the entire book but I would like to when the time allows.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/index.html

[Broacher]

Smart people, bad ideas-- this little essay gem from that smart person, Paul Graham called "Why Nerds are Unpopular":

http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html

If you enjoy Scott's writing, head up-URL and check out his others.

His 'undelivered' high school graduation speech has to be one of my all time favourites ("What You'll Wish You'd Known").

[Bret]

Scott suffer from "The Fatal Conceipt" by nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek. Hayek was pretty sharp, I wonder if Scott would listen to him.

[Daniel Miessler]

The key with Democracy is to have a general population that is "generally" intelligent and informed. This means a good portion of the people -- ideally most of them. A few stragglers are no big deal because they're offset by the group.

The problem with this country is that more and more people are actually mouth-breathers, which causes the entire system to fail. Like 10% of the population has a truly informed opinion based on anything other than crap. And it's getting worse.

I'm living in this country's flagship city right now and I'm quite sure like 20% of those around me could pass an SAT exam at the 10th grade level. In short, if your democracy relies on intelligent, informed people voting, and you don't have enough of those people -- you're done.

We are that. We're done.

[Dave]

I would like to point out one misconception - Reagan wasn't dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. The man had a photgraphic memory and taught himself how to read before the age of 5, when he was reading the local newspaper.

But, actually, this mistaked belief of liberal conventional wisdom, is the perfect illustration of your larger point.

People who put things into very simplistic terms, like Reagen did, are ofthen thought of to be "dumb" by folks like your Mensa crowd. But, the ability to crystalize and simplify the issue at hand shows a much higher degree of functional intelligence than that demonstrated by the an entire college faculty.

[Bob]

Intelligence is paralyzing - it's that whole "shades of grey" thing. Well, until you get older, sick of indecision, and pick a course of action/political philosophy and ram it through.

Bob

[Broacher]

The funny thing about intelligence is that it's like so many 'unattainables' in that people imagine it to be more desirable just because, for the most part, you've either got it, or you don't. Kinda like musical or artistic talent. Or a naturally beautiful and athletic body. Or being born into a wealthy family.

But imagine if the world put actual cash value in intelligence. Like, what would happen if income tax was pro-rated to the citizen's IQ? Disaster? Comedic disaster? Redefinition of intelligence and IQ testing?

But in a sense, we already do have at least one real cash incentives for being intelligent: college ntrance scholarships. Sure, if an average intelligence student learned all the tricks in getting the highest grades, and worked tirelessly to gain top grades in high school, they could very well be awarded a tuition break. But it's kind of like the average high school benchwarmer hoping to get a sports scholarship. You really are aware of the fact that you're going to have to beat a whole lot more people who are all swimming in the deep end of the athletic genepool.

And what about stupidity? Should it be taxed? There could be a reasonable (elected?) argument made that the current system actually promotes it. Maybe we should tax intelligence instead?

Why are intelligent citizens always considered to be a kind of national capital? What about intelligent criminals? Terrorists? I wonder what the IQ distribution is in those ranks? Wouldn't it be a given that the smartest crooks just don't get caught?

I was hoping that Scott might provide a more usable scale than the IQ scores to help bring more meaning to the whole spectrum of human intelligence. Like, what distinguishes clever from smart? Genius? How much of a constant is it?

A great tidbit from Ogden Nash:
"Here's a good rule of thumb, too clever is dumb."

Maybe the best course is to work out ways to moderate intelligence in society. A system where we could distract the minds of those with unnaturally high IQs enough to curtail any dangerous new thoughts from developing. If we could only find the technology.

Oh, speaking of which-- has anyone seen the remote?

[Santiago]

- Information recall (knowledge) is one thing.
- Being able to understand the information (intelligence) is another.
- Being able to apply knowledge to achievable goals (common sense?) is yet another.
- Wisdom is being able to assign value to information, understanding and application.
- Leadership requires enough of each of these as well as the charisma to sell oneself as an authoritative figure.

I am exceedingly gifted with the first four qualities. However, I lack the charisma to make it worth much. I produce great works that go unused because I lack the ability to "sell" their usefulness (most leaders only use that which they understand). This analysis factors into this discussion, yet is has not been overtly mentioned until now. For example, the useless mensans mentioned are so because they lack the wisdom to place proper value (or lack thereof) on what they understand. Good leadership is the key, yet every good leader needs non-leaders with the appropriate gifts. Intelligent people like myself who excede the understanding of their leaders are therefore typically underutilized.

[Ethan]

Scott, while smart people might be more informed about political issues and might be better able to distinguish effective solutions from ineffective solutions, it does not follow that their political opinions should be given more weight. It *would* follow if the main political problem was that we simply had a hard time discovering (and then supporting) an effective method of getting what we all want. But instead the problem is that we want different things. That is where the idea breaks down: what smart people want is not more important than what stupid people want. Additionally, the idea doesn't address principles or ethics. I would prefer the opinion of a principled idiot over opinion of an unprincipled genius in the area of politics. Why? Because I personally believe that there are things governments should not do as a matter of principle, and while the principled idiot *might* not share my principles I *know* that the unprincipled genius does not. Also, it is easier to convince a principled person to adopt a more worthy principle than it is to explain principles to someone who doesn't have any. To put this all in context, a smart person is much more likely to develop a universal health-care plan that works. But a principled idiot might point out that the government has no right to implement it unless it has somehow magically found its own pile of cash (printing it doesn't count). They both prefer a world in which everyone has health care, but the principled idiot isn't willing to do damage to the concept of property rights in order to get there.

[Chris]

Respectfully, I think you may be missing the point. The point of democracy is not necessarily to place decision-making power in the hands of the most qualified people. If that were the case, we would trust trial lawyers to make decisions about tort reform, doctors to make decisions about medical policy, and soldiers to decide military policy.

Certainly the opinions of those groups deserve weight when making policy decisions in their respective fields since they are the most informed. But they are also the most involved.

The point of democracy is to create policy that the majority of people are happy with. Or at least policy that most people hate less than they hate the alternatives. Now that doesn't always work out perfectly, but I think you would agree that a tort policy that smart trial lawyers like might not necessarily be a policy that most of the rest of us would like, or even be good for the country. That's why it's important us plebs, ignorant buffoons though we are, have a voice in things, since we’re ultimately affected.

[Paul]

Scott,
I'm also a member of Mensa. One issue that frequently appears in the member letters section of the Bulletin goes something like this, "We are a group of the highest tested individuals in the world. Why can't we put our collective brain power to good use and solve the problems of the world?"

I think that your statement "The best performing groups were the ones where there was one smart person and the rest of the group deferred to him." is the reason. In order to arrive at a solution based on the input of thousands you would need to sift the ideas until you found the most viable solution. The sifting would need to be done by a chosen few and finally an individual arbiter (the "one smart person"). I believe that in Mensa you would never reach the consensus of who that "one smart person" is let alone form a committee to sift ideas. Once you chose the person the general membership would feel they are just a smart and shouldn't have to subject their solutions to someone who isn't any better.

[Erik]

William, you are spot on. Every day, I am drawn like a brainwashed sheep to a large gathering of other brainwashed sheep...where I do nothing, and am generally not very successful.

It's a good thing the ancient Greeks didn't agree with your philosophy; else, there'd be no, uh, philosophy.

[Adam]

Consider Congress itself. Every one of the members is at least fairly intelligent, considering how far they have gone with their education, and how successful they have been in their own lives, and they are far better informed than any avaerage citizen. So why can't they agree on what to do? Or are you measuring intelligence by scientific knowledge?

[de]

This short "manifesto" describes a new form of government. In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare.

from : http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html

[Mindy]

I think the theory is fine, but the way of establishing who is inteligent and well informed is troublesome, to say the least.

It just reminded me of a row that I had with friend of mine a while ago. She was visiting an astrologist who was predicting various things in her life, and I gradually gathered that she is taking the advice thus obtained seriously and literally. Still in disbelief, I made a joke about it, to which she angrily replied - "What do you know? She's an expert! She graduated astrology! And she knows all of that far better than you!!"

I guess you cannot argue with that.

[Mayur]

Dennis says his IQ is 189. And that is all he has to say! So much for people with high IQs. I'm glad I don't even know my score.

[Ben Yogman]

I've never applied for membership to MENSA... by their "workout" and some IQ tests earlier in life I could if I were interested.

The reason I don't?

Am I a little insecure about being smarter, but no more successful than the people around me?

Am I full of great ideas I'm either too lazy, or don't have the courage to pursue?

Do I enjoy meaningless things that remind me how smart I am even if they don't accomplish anything?

Well, actually the answers are all of these are yes, and I'm guessing they would be for a lot of members. I don't need to reinforce my negative qualities.

[Mike]

So MENSA is like the internet used to be?

[Broacher]

If anyone's interested in a very enjoyable read that explores the realm between smart and very smart, check out "The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World" by A. J. Jacobs.

The writer undertakes (successfully) to read the entire set of the Encylopaedia Britannica (33,000 pages) and lives to tell many an interesting tale-- including attending a Mensa convention. A lot of fun and full of interesting trivia and observations about intelligence.

[Borg Warrior]

IQ without EQ equals PF (profound foolishness).

It's not at all unusual intelligent people to combine logical thought (high IQ) with emotional stupidity (low EQ) to end up justifying absolutely silly viewpoints. Many holocaust deniers, for example, are highly intelligent, but their paranoia and bigotry leads them to use their intelligence to filter out evidence that runs contrary to their emotion need to hate somebody.

We saw an excellent example of this phenomenon during the recent Y2K hoax. Millions of intelligent people actually believed that Y2K failures were going to end the world as we know it. In the end, there were no Y2K disasters, no cascading errors. Nothing. Nada. Not even in countries like Russia and Vietnam where no Y2K reprogramming took place. Proponents lamely tried to claim that they had "fixed all the errors" but if the problem had been anywhere near as great as they were saying, there would have been at least *one* Y2K disaster *somewhere*. Nope.

So, then, why were so many intelligent people convinced that Y2K was going to be an apocalyptic event? The reason is that apocalyptic visions are part of our cultural heritage and a constant source of paranoia and fear. Those emotions got channeled into what seemed to be a logical thought process, blinding people to the obvious flaws in the Y2K story, such as the fact that there's no such thing as a "cascading error, and embedded chips always use elapsed time rather than Gregorian dating.

The Y2K story was so scary that many folk with high IQ simply put that intelligence in harness to add weight to an essentially absurd (but emotionally compelling) belief.

[Pandu]

Regarding IQ and income, I recall in college being taught that the most successful businesspeople tend to be around the middle if the IQ range. It is difficult to communicate with people who are too far away from one's own IQ. For instance, my interests include philosophy, religion, natural sciences, etc. My neighbors are interested in things like car racing, hunting, etc. We don't have much to talk about.

If we consider the IQ of individuals in a large population, the values would form a bell curve, 100 at the center. Most people are within 1 standard deviation from the mean. Genius is more than 2 S.D.s above the mean. If we can communicate well within 1 S.D., then I can relate to under 20% of the population, whereas the average fellow can have a good conversation with some 60%. If that guy starts a business, he's got a better chance than I do of it being a hit.

Another factor is that people are not always highly motivated by money. I took my IQ and applied it to helping the environment. If I would have applied it to some other career, I'd probably be earning double my present salary. This is where wisdom rules the intelligence. I knew happiness comes from doing good, much more than from having a lot of money.

[blog reader]

These comments are a hoot. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people take your comments as totally serious instead of partially (or all?) tongue-in-cheek.

I'm a lifetime Mensa member, originally joined in 1983. Yes, there are the fair share of socially inept dorks, but no more than in "regular" society. Scott -- you hit it on the head when you said the best thing is not having to explain what you mean. (at least I think that's what you said, I'm posting after an 18-hour workday)

[Lora]

Smart and well-informed? By whom? Media coverage is biased. So are our history books. We are spoon fed what others decide we should know. hat type of genius pool do we have 'out there'? What about the leaders who seem crazy to the normal guy but gets a group of seemingly normal people to buy into his ideas-and do really dumb things? Maybe craziness is a factor in genius. Creative genius can take all kinds of forms: Bill Gates. Ross Perot. Donald Trump. Tom Cruise. Soctt Adams. Successful in all ways? You decide.

My dad tells me the story about a guy who loses his wheel while driving thus losing the lug nuts. He comes to a stop-abruptly- in front of an insane asylym. The driver does not know how to deal with the dilemma of having no lug nuts to replace the wheel. Then a voice from the other side of the gate suggests he take one lug nut from each wheel to hold the wheel on until he gets to a service station. The driver is stunned by the suggestion and turns to the resident and asks, "Why are you in such a place, you are not crazy." The resident responds by saying, "I might be crazy but I'm not stupid!"

[Pandu]

p.s. I'm also a Mensa member, but I've never been to a meeting.

[Pandu]

Stephen Keiser,

You were doing ok with the 'not superstition' thing until you got to this:

"save as many people as possible from the wrath of God as He once and for all judges all of the sin in this world."

1. God has no reason for 'wrath.' Anger is a reaction to unfulfilled desires, but God is entirely self-satisfied.

* "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world." http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/3/37/en

* "O son of Pṛthā, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything — and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties."
http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/3/22/en

2. Judging isn't God's job, though He sometimes intevenes.

* "The King of the pitās is Yamarāja, the very powerful son of the sun-god. He resides in Pitṛloka with his personal assistants and, while abiding by the rules and regulations set down by the Supreme Lord, has his agents, the Yamadūtas, bring all the sinful men to him immediately upon their death. After bringing them within his jurisdiction, he properly judges them according to their specific sinful activities and sends them to one of the many hellish planets for suitable punishments."
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/26/6/en

[Terry]

Smart and dumb. Like blinking ads on a web site.

Oh wait, that's the Dilbert site!

Smart but dumb. Fugly too.

[J]

....post was too long to read

[Dmitry Z]

Not to make an argument for either side but just add to the voting dumb/smart evidence: Russian elections of year 2000 when Putin was elected. He was contested by, among others, the darling of intellectuals, Mr.Yavlinskiy, the pro-Westerner and a "liberal", supported by other "whiz-kid" buddies of his, the likes of Gaidar and Chubais. Time showed how much the liberals ruined the country in the 90-ies and made themselves and their friends (Khodorkovskiy and the likes) super-rich. And Putin's rule proved to be nothing but beneficial for the country, with order restored, stock indices and level of life rocketing.

However, at the time, when most of the country voted for Putin, most smart people were devastated how dumb the majority was to take such a stupid bait.

[lyn]

Scot, you assume that smarter people will be more likely to accept the logical course of action. Remember the whole cognitive dissonance thing. They may be smarter and more well informed, but they are still likely to choose one side over another for pure emotional reasons.

[Rebecca]

Conservatives like to point out that university professors have a "liberal bias," and, indeed, the majority of the most highly educated group in the country is more liberal than the people who are less educated. This becomes even more pronounced in disciplines like Political Science (although economics profs are often more conservative, at least with fiscal issues). This "liberal bias" among university professors either means a) hanging out at universities getting an education infects you with a liberal bias or b) professors know more and this "knowledge" is in fact what makes them more liberal.

[Nick]

I too did a tour of duty with Mensa and totally agree with your comments.

Recently I read a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds" which demonstrated that if you get enough people together then things sort of balance out and decisions are good. Perhaps we should use a political system where everybody votes on everything not just elect some smart arse to government and then let them do what they want ?

The other thing that worries me is if you look into any really big cockup you will find someone behind it who is really smart and thought it was a good idea at the time !

[passerby]

Re Stephen Kaiser and superstition and religion

He stated the various definitions of superstition and used bible to show they didn’t apply. Here’s why I think they do apply.

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
-Religion is definitely a belief and not based on reason or knowledge. There is no reason to believe in any particular religion over any other, all are equally made up. The bible or any other book is not proof of anything. I could write a book and claim the words were from a god, doesn’t make it true. Just because a large number believe something does not make it true. A lot of Americans believe(d) Saddam was behind 9/11. Knowledge of a religion is usually from a book of fiction or a person telling them they hear voices in their head, not from any actual facts so isn’t so much knowledge as blind belief. I don’t see how the quote Stephen gives from his favourite work of fiction in any way disproves this definition of superstition applies to religion.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
- Religion is clearly a collection of superstitious beliefs, with quite a structured system. Stephen doesn’t even attempt to deny this one.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
-Plenty of acts based on religious beliefs, if the beliefs are superstitious then the acts based on then are superstitious acts.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
-Stephen said religion is about love not fear. So what about all the sermons and street preachers shouting threats of 'Fire and brimstone and eternal pain in hell' if you don’t follow their religion. I have heard such claims many times as a child at church and more recently when walking in centre of town. (above quote is from Rev Ian Paisley hear last year). Sounds like trying to make people do irrational superstitious acts in church out of fear of the consequences of not doing so. In my experience religion teaches you to behave well out of fear of this hell they made up rather than out of knowledge that it is the right thing to do. Some religious people have implied to me that without religion everyone would become mass murdering criminals as there would be no morals to stop them. I am not religious but I still have morals and know right from wrong. I do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not out of fear of a god punishing me.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion
-Pretty much sums up any religion. Even Stephen says they accept the christian god as true due to having faith. Faith is belief in the absence of any evidence, that is a blindly accepted belief.

You say god is love so believe in love and you most believe in god. Well that only applies if you don’t consider god to be anything more than love i.e. he’s just a human emotion no special powers or miracles or created world or anything. Somehow I dont think that is what you mean.

As far as I can tell there is no proof that anything of a person survives after death but even if it does no one knows what happens. So whether or not there is a god or not, no one knows what it is like or what the afterlife is like or what this god wants from us. So any form of worship or talk of the afterlife is just human made up stuff with no relevance to any god that might exist. Not saying the worship is irrelevant as I do know that people there do get a benefit from it, just that that benefit comes from their fellowship with the other people around them not from god. Any benefits they get and any voices of ‘god’ they hear just come from their own mind.

Just because religion is a superstition doesnt mean it cant be beneficial, the superstition of not walking under ladders exists for a good reason, but basing important decisions just on a superstition out of a belief that it is real is very dangerous in my opinion, especially when it is politicians leading a country doing that.

As an aside, people often point out how many smart people follow religions, it isn’t just the domain of gullible poor educated people. I suspect many of them just pretend to believe because of consequences of not doing so. I’m sure any atheist running trying to become president would pretend to be religious if they want any chance of winning

[Tim Eldred]

It is amazing to me to note that 90%+ of the people I know that have a Ph.D. degree are proud liberals. One would think that somebody with gobs of brains would see the disconnect between smart = liberal.

[wernman]

"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise" -- 1 Corinthians 1:27

Voting is much more about discerning character than raw intelligence. Practical wisdom and intellectual wisdom are two entirely different things. The former is the one you want running your country.

Liberal elistists who live in ivory towers but are clueless about practical wisdom paint Reagan, Bush, and Quayle as idiots because they can't defeat them on the issues. All 3 are quite intelliegent men. (Yes, even Quayle; he was very well respected by his democractic opponents in the Senate -- ask them.)

So who's more of an idiot? The conservative God-fearing idiot or the liberal godless genius who can't defeat the conservative God-fearing idiot and the issues, and therefore has to resort to attack-against-the-person?

[Louisa]

The other day I answered the phone to a political opinion poll (not that common in the UK), and having nothing better to do, I heard the guy out. He asked me all kinds of things like 'should Croatia join NATO'. After reading the Dilbert blog for a while, my first thought was 'I'm not well informed enough to answer these questions'. But then thought, maybe it's important to know what the ignorant people think so that we can find out what's wrong with public opinion. I'm sure no-one is going to look at those poll results and think 'gosh, the masses really need educating on the workings of NATO', but hey, in an ideal world...

[Bill Smoker (yes, really)]

Some information for Buckshot:

1.Bill Smoker is my real name. It's what it says on my birth certificate. You aren't the only one with a silly name, Mr Shot.

2. I have an IQ in the mid 160s, and have been a member of Mensa, which you would have known if you had read my comment properly. That doesn't mean that I'm clever. It doesn't necessarily follow that my brain is wattle and daub, either. It just means that I do well in IQ tests.

3. I gave up smoking laughing tobacco (and the regular kind) seven years ago.

4. I vote on issues, I don't watch Friends or indeed many TV entertainment shows (I prefer documentaries or current affairs). And I work as a writer, including scripts and screenplays.

Who was it who said that winning an argument in cyberspace is like getting a medal in the Special Olympics? Smart guy, I would guess...

>>was just wading through some of the comments. One guy, Bill Smoker (tee hee) said (not an exact quote) "IQ tests don't show who's smart, they just show who does good on IQ tests).

??????????????????? Just goes to show you, if people do shitty on IQ tests, they think IQ tests don't mean anything. I guess that's easier than thinking they are dumb as a mud fence.

Anyway regardless of what Bill was smoking, he probably votes for the guy with the best hair, and then goes to work and tells people about the latest "Friends" rerun. And then talks about a great idea he has for a movie script. <<

[Lon]

that post was boring

[Javier Cámara]

Authority is a useful criteria, but in the end it is not the people what is smart or dumb: it is what they say and do what is. The smarter guy in matter A can be an asshole in matter B. You never know until you listen to him. Probably, just reading poll results is not a good way of getting informed, and one has to enter into reading opinions.

Recently I am finding interesting similarities between your Dilbert comics and Douglas Adams books. Here is a quote from him that may be relevant to your post:

"man had always assumed he was more intelligent than the dolphins, because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars, and so on; whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. The dolphins believed they were more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons."

[Vermont Gal]

Hey Scott! Inspired by you (or perhaps your bad example) I got my flu shot yesterday!

[Roger]

I love to watch the Democrats cloth themselves in the "appearance of intelligence" as a political tool. They want us to vote for the really smart guys who are of course all clustered in one place. John Kerry is the most interesting on this subject as he played the smart card during the election but wouldn't release his college grades. It turns out that his grades were virtually identical to the dumb guy who won the election! His excuse for not testing better then the dummy involved his doing some kind of non-school stuff that really smart people do. He was famous for asking other smart people how he should handle every minute detail of frivolous stuff like his position on Iraq, gays, taxes, etc. There was even a story about his staff taking his cell phone away from him so he couldn't poll everyone he knew on every detail of everything. Bill Clinton is constantly referred to as "the smartest president we have ever had" by Chris Matthews (he's the guy from hard ball). Clinton was known for acting on the last loud piece of advice he listened to. He also used focus groups to craft every word he uttered so that it touched the hearts of Americans and gave him some subliminal voodoo mojo over his opposition. Jimmy Carter is rumored to be very bright and he stayed up nights reading the handbooks on the capability of missile systems. Al Gore was always thought to be much smarter than the Republicans although nothing comes to mind. He was understood to be the "intellectual" and Bush of course was not. I wonder if intelligent and intellectual are synonymous?
The dumb guys (the Republicans) tend to stay the course, believe in God and have opinions that can live through a poll that suggests that they shouldn't be thinking that way.
This of course brings up some obvious questions.
Are these guys really smart?
Is smart a good thing?
Why do these "smart" guys worry so much about how they come off in public? After all they are so smart and they should know exactly what to do. I hope someone who is intelligent will explain all of this to me.

[neopolitan]

Some flag saluter said "It's madness to call Reagan dumb." I actually finished ready the post just see if there were more gems in there, sadly there weren't.

But it does remind me of comments a few years back along the lines of "The people who misunderestimate Bush are the same people who misunderestimated Reagan." I always thought that was rather amusing. Others probably consider it profound (when you take away my cynical use of the Bushism). I guess it depends on whether the single issue you vote for is the name of your political party or not ...

cheers,

neopolitan

[Anonymous]

Funny story. When I was 12 my old man decided he, my mother and me would take IQ tests so we would understand just how much smarter he was than us. Results: dad, 124; mom, 132; me, 136. He never forgave us.

53 years later (I'm 65) I've accomplished nothing, live in poverty, and have attempted suicide on more than one occasion. Boy, am I smart, or what?

[DarkBob]

Funny how the further back the comments get, the more informed the comment becomes (since the poster has had chance to read through the previous posts). That's kinda inverse to the amount of attention these comments get from people viewing the days' blog.

Odd that. The first comments end up being the most interesting anyway (on balance) since their the least informed. The later ones tend to be more boring since they end up being the product of the previous posts.

Strange that it kind of mirrors the idea that so long as you've got a strong view, you're a much more interesting read (or candidate if you will). The informed posters (who've had more time to read what everone else put) tend to be boring anyway.

There may be something to that. On the other hand (as I suspect) there may be nothing at all and this is just a way for me to waste 10 mins of time when I should be working.

Keep up
-DarkBob

[WCE]

I work for a company that builds large rocket engines, and I've been a member of Mensa. (They aren't geniuses, they're just in the top 2% relative to the general population.)

I've also been a member of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), which requires you to have scored in the 99.9th percentile on a standardized aptitude test. (I was in the top third of ISPE, based on my test scores.)

People get offended when you cite your IQ, but of all the advantageous traits out there, height, strength, etc., it's one of the only ones that isn't compensated directly. There are no genius groupies, no company actively recruits geniuses, no company pays geniuses for being smarter than average, either. In fact, there are definite disadvantages to being too intelligent in the workplace. For one thing, you're probably smarter than your boss, and he resents that. He also doubts that it's true, because of something I've termed "The Foldover Effect". This is when your boss thinks you're dumb because you know things that he's mistaken about, and he doesn't realize he's wrong, so he thinks you are. (If your boss thinks the capitol of California is San Francisco and you know it's Sacramento, he thinks you're wrong, and dumb for knowing the right answer.)

What else happens in the workplace is that projects are parsed into small tasks that are usually simple enough that anyone could do them, so there's no opportunity for someone with special capabilities to demonstrate what they can do. When you go outside the normal work tasking and suggest a great idea to upper management, you once again run into The Foldover Effect. (Upper management in most companies is usually no smarter than Bush is.) I tried to get the company I worked for to file a patent on a cancer treatment that is now in-use and works, and the company refused on the basis that they didn't see the business case for a cancer treatment. At another company, back in the early '80s, my boss asked me if I could think of a commercial application for flat-panel LCD display technologies, and I suggested making a "portable computer" and drew a laptop. (This was years before the first laptop computer.) He said he didn't think there was a market for portable computers. My next boss asked me for ideas for his company to pursue, and I suggested that we develop "autonomous RPVs" for various military surveillance missions (also back in the '80s), and he said he didn't think there was a market for such things.

Long list, plenty of other examples. Basically, having a 150+ IQ isn't a guarantee of success, you just have more opportunities for frustration. Imagine if you were surrounded by people whose IQs were, on-average, no higher than 67.

Now you know how I feel.

[ScratchDaddy]

I remember what the first contestant to get fired during the first season of The Apprentice said after he was fired.

The challenge during the first episode was to sell more lemonade than the other team.

"Well, I take some solice in knowing that I have the highest IQ among all the other guys. I guess the lesson that we've learned today is that there's no correlation between intelligence and lemonade sales."

I laughed so frikkin' hard.

[Jan Wilhelm Lohne]

I, for one, wish for more bald people in politics.

[yo]

its not IQ that's correlated with higher paying jobs, but EI (emotional intelligence).

or at least, that's what the guy who wrote the book called "emotional intelligence" said. :-P

[Peter]

I tried one of those newspaper Mensa tests and got 100% score in 5 minutes out of the 20 that were allowed. I'm not that smart, the test was too easy. I reckoned that the test was aimed at signing up people who are too dumb to realize that they are being patronized.

[huaqing]

"The synchronously latest suit weapon+the latest FB+latest edition!Don't enter a

station to see!"
http://www.wowgold-market.com

[Pantsofdeath]

I had exactly the same experience with Mensa, I joined Mensa back in 1990 in an attempt to compensate for some rather average degree results, and went to a meeting. I never went back again, and kept my membership a closely guarded secret thereafter. What an ... erm... "interesting" group of people they were..

[ShirtBloke]

Too many opinions.
Not enough time.
Gave up a quarter of the way through.
Smart or dumb?

[Jocky]

Oh, and as for the "Rapture" don't get me started on that you idiotic Twonk!

[Jocky]

Stephen Kaiser??!!??!!
I assume Scott allowed you to post just so everyone could laugh.
Your points against christianity being a superstition
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
you try to argue that quotations from the bible (and the first one isn't really that related) is somehow a way to disprove that christianity is not a superstition.
Quoting from an old text does not make something so. The Bble itself was written a few hundred years after the baby J was about.
Now how reliable can the bible be, think about it the stories collected about Jesus were tales that must have been passed down, by word of mouth, for 5 to 7 generations, and you are trying to tell me that's some sort of evidence.
If you have actual evidence for the big G then show it. And by that I mean don't quote from a book, with no scientific basis, but produce evidence. If you want to make that leap of belief, which is what most religious people have to do, as there is no evidence, then that is fine. But you have to admit that is what you are doing. I don't have a huge problem with religion, and i know belief makes people happier, but what annoys me is stupid idiots who claim the Bible is proof of anything. If we had a big old holocaust and the little babies survive and grew up and found the Bible in amonst all the other books of fairy tales, do you think they would take it more seriously than little red riding hood, or harry potter.
That leap of faith you've taken is great but it is faith and however you cut it, despite there being alot of you, it is still not proof and it is just a popular superstition.

[Francisco Gutierrez]

Why should dumb people vote? The wisdom of the crowds. If only smart people vote, you have a centrally planned economy, and we know what happens to those. In a market, all information is taken into account, so markets are smart. The few who have information move the price in a certain direction, and the many who don't have any information move the price in a random direction, but random moves cancel each other, and all you have left is the information. In a democracy all information is taken into account, but the problem is that all votes count the same and the noise overwhelms the signal. The vote should be weighted, not necessarily by intelligence, but by historical record of right vs. wrong voting after the fact. The decision of right or wrong would be judged according to how a vote contributed for or against a standard, which should be "the securing of the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happines", that is, after all, the reason we have government in the first place according to the declaration of independence.
Of course, the easier approach would be to let everyone vote, but limit government so severely by an ironclad constitution that even the stupidest votes could not hurt anybody, because all important decisions would be made privately, and the government would be limited to protecting the rights of the decision makers. Smarter people than any of us thought this up many years ago, but unfortunately the constitution was not ironclad, and now democracy can really hurt us because government is too powerful.
So we either restrict government like the founding fathers intended, or do weighted voting like technology can let us do today. Otherwise, we have pure democracy, like the one that killed Socrates and destroyed Athens.

[Scott]

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.

[John]

The advantage of having the masses vote is that you get 150 million people to do so. This may not sound significant, but you have to factor in collective intelligence.

Consider the game show "Who wants to be a millionare". When you need to use a lifeline, the people who use "ask the auidiance" get the right answer about 20% more often then the ones who use "ask an expert". Then take the gumball experiment. If you put an unspecified number of gumballs in a machine and ask a lot of people to guess, the average guess will be surprisingly accurate. In fact, very few people will be closer to the correct answer then the average of all the "idiot" guessers. So I would contend that its better to leave a large number of idiots to decide who should be our president, than a small group of smart people.

[Speed]

Stephen Kaiser: I ask you this. If God truly loves us, and truly created us and is truly all powerful, why do we have free will? Why are there so many different religions/belief systems? Why is the world a mess?

How do you know that your belief system is the right one? How do you know that the right religion isn't Judaism, or Islam, or even a belief system not yet devised?

If the Earth is so horrible, why don't you kill yourself (thus spending eternity in Hell) and check out an alternative?

What makes you think the Bible is accurate? Assuming God is real, it was told to humans (incapable of even understanding eternity, so theres no way we can understand the awesome power of God), and then modified by humans. We don't even know what the original Bible says.

I'm not an atheist. Don't get me wrong. I'd call myself agnostic. I believe there is something greater out there than a big explosion. I don't know what it is, and I can't accept any religion at face value. I also refuse to believe that a loving God would send say, Gandhi to Hell because he's not Christian/Catholic. I believe that assuming there's a God, a Heaven and a Hell, that one gains admission, not based on their religion, but based on how they lived their life. If you lived like Mother Theresa, but didn't believe in God, I can't believe that you would go to Hell. I can't believe that Pope Benedict will go to Heaven either, because he has so much hate in his heart (he hates the Muslims, the gays, the Jews, etc.), even though hes a Pope.

[Kevin Kunreuther]

1.Which membership is more useful, Mensa or the Freemasons?
2.How many geniuses does it take to screw in a light bulb? One if you're lucky. If there is more than one in room, you'd still be in the dark.
3.It may be geniuses today are culturally brought up not to use common sense as a group (A Republican plot?). A group of geniuses invented the atomic bomb, fed and rebuilt Europe after WWII and safely brought home stranded astronauts in space. What has happened since 1975 that geniuses can't work stuff out together anymore or take care of themselves?

[MN]

Here's the refences to the New York school study:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~djtaylor/genius.htm

"The converse - that high IQ does not ensure greatness - holds as well. This was shown in a study of adult graduates of New York City's Hunter College Elementary School, where an admission criterion was an IQ of at least 130 (achieved by a little over 1 per cent of the general population) and the mean IQ was 157 - "genius" territory by any scaling of IQ scores, and a level reached by perhaps 1 in 5000 people. Though the Hunter graduates were successful and reasonably content with their lives, they had not reached the heights of accomplishment, either individually or as a group, that their IQs might have suggested.

In the words of study leader Rena Subotnik, a research psychologist formerly at the City University of New York and now with the American Psychological Association: "There were no superstars, no Pulitzer Prize or MacArthur Award winners, and only one or two familiar names." The genius these elite students showed in their IQs remained on paper."

[MN]

Study done in New York. A prestigious school which only admitted kids with IQ 130 or above. Average at the school was 157 (genius territory). None -- absolutely not one -- of the kids who graduated received a Nobel laureate or became famous, even though most of them did quite decently in life; nothing spectacular. So your point is well-taken.

[Bryan]

“Well, I’d like a brain surgeon who’s about as smart as I am and knows as much about brains as I do, and NO more.”

Well, to be fair, I AM a pretty kick ass brain surgeon.

[dk]

Here's my problem with letting only smart people make the decisions: they will most likely make only the decisions that most benefit them. That is, smart people are a distinct group in society, and they can enact laws (or choose people to enact them) that directly benefit them, to the detriment of the dumber masses.

I'm not saying the people we elect now don't enact laws for the benefit of a specific group in society (i.e., the rich), but at least now we're all to blame - mainly the morons who voted these guys into office, so in fact, they get what's coming to them.

[Some random person]

This may be a little bit off topic, but I am curious if you have thought about IQ's affecting of personal worth. How would it have affected you if you found out you had an average IQ?

[Will]

You haven't even touched upon whether IQ and "intelligence" can be objectively, reasonably well-defined.

I might have a few details wrong in the following story, but the gist of it is accurate, as far as I can remember: Post-WWII, there was a wave of immigration into America from Western Europe and Eastern Europe, among other places.

America's immigration policies tended to favour Western Europeans over Eastern Europeans, because standardized IQ tests on existing immigrant populations "proved" Western Europeans were smarter on average. However a few years later, after both groups had settled in, the IQ scores of the Eastern European immigrants (the ones already living in America the whole time) went up, and were much closer or equal to those of the Western Europeans. Did the Eastern Europeans suddenly get smarter? One explanation is that the test was biased towards native English speakers, so the Western Europeans had a natural advantage at first. Once the Eastern Europeans settled in and learned the language, that advantage vanished.

You probably heard that argument before, or some variant of it. I'm pretty sure in recent years theres been some talk of removing "cultural bias" from standardized tests in the U.S. Whether the issue of "cultural/language bias" is valid or not, it just highlights the fact that there is no single unassailable, agreed-upon standard of intelligence. Can you really boil down all the complex facets of intelligence into a single number? (Some ppl are extremely good with numbers, but horrible at languages; others can pick up new languages with ease, but need a calculator to do simple arithmetic. Can you directly compare the two groups? Imagine taking another generalized human trait, such as athletic ability, and trying to express that as a number. That would be absurd, since it would be useless for directly comparing athletes from vastly different sports such as a gymnast, basketball player and weightlifter.)

Anyway most peoples' "common sense" tells them that a high IQ is not enough for success in life. And that gut feeling is reinforced by all the stereotypical caricatures in popular culture of nerds with tons of "book smarts" but zero success at life (e.g. "Steve Urkel", "Milhouse", "Dilbert", etc.).

[William]

It is not possible to be well-informed on all the issues all of the time.

To be able to state clearly "I do not know" or "I do not understand" is the greatest show of intelligence a person can have. Stating "that person is an idiot because they can not do (or do not know) what I do" is plain stupid.

If you are smart enough to recognise that you're not as well informed as you would like to be, you are probably smart enough to make a reasonable judgment call on who is most able to represent you in the decision making processes of government.

If you act on that, you are making the best decision you can ever be expected to make and are avoiding basing your decisions on single issues (which may or may not include hair styles).

The tendency of both the well-informed/apparently intelligent and the uniformed/ignorant to make broad-reaching voting decisions on single issues is the greatest threat to good representative government. This is why those that know and understand their limitations (and therefore recognise those of others) need to stop making excuses and start exercising their right to vote.

[Jeff]

Regardless of IQ, anyone who has so much time to go to any gathering of any kind, every week, on weekends is generally not very successful because they choose to do nothing.

Q: What's the difference between winners and losers?
A: Winners do what losers won't.

[Nomi]

Oh dear. Can't read through 200 and something posts right now, so forgive any repetition.

This must have been said already in some fashion, but here goes: It's madness to call Reagan dumb. I don't know what his IQ was, but he had something that I'll call instinct. His instinct was genius level. And an unbendable conviction didn't hurt either.

About the well known fact that people with higher IQs on average make more money than people with lower IQs -- that does not mean that those with the highest IQs will have the highest incomes. Isn't there even some statistical principle about that far-end-of-the-spectrum phenomenon?

[Abdul]

Voting is not merely "choosing the person/group that you think can represent your interest and values".

It's even further from "choosing the person/group that can make the most money for the country". Unless you're a whore who don't realise (and don't want to realise) the existence of disadvantaged people.

Voting can be seen as a symbolic action. It makes people part of the country. To have a say, no matter how small it is. You did something what evryone else in the country did - voting. The technocrat, the cleaner, the CEO, the dishwasher. The stupid and the smart. The top 2% and the bottom 2% of the Mensa IQ quiz. They all should have the right to vote.

Voting is the essence of democracy. If voting is discriminatory, then the resultting democracy is a lie.

[Regret]

Can't find pants. Must go look.

[Stephen Kaiser]

Superstition? I'm going to go a bit off topic from the post here. I know you didn't openly state that you completely disrespect any religion in particular, but your attitude today seemed quite disgusted with Christianity. Only a bit today but its been more and more recently it seems. Is it so superstitous as you think?

Dictionary.com - Superstition

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion

Regarding 1) Luke 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

Regarding 2) N/A - Redundant

Regarding 3) All actions are based on some kind of belief

Regarding 4) (Paul speaking of born again Christians) For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Reagrding 5) (Paul speaking or his brethren in Corinth) 1 Cor 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

John 8:31,32 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

My point is that true Chrisitianity is not a superstition. It is a love relationship with Jesus Christ.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish (thats a spriritual death ie. Hell) but have everlasting life.

Do you believe in love? Is that a superstition? God IS love.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

A Christian knows that God is real because there is a love and a faith that can only be known by trusting God and taking Him up on his word.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I am constantly pained by the confusion so prolific in your posts and the comments on this blog. There is an obvious lack of an anchor in so many people's lives that I see here.

I am waiting for the rapture. I would really like to leave this mess of a planet and spend eternity praising God as he so richly deserves. But I would rather stay on this planet a little bit longer in the hopes that I can be used of God to save as many people as possible from the wrath of God as He once and for all judges all of the sin in this world.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

[Amanda]

Sounds like a room full of Asperger's Syndrome. Which, knowing as many Mensa and Mensa-qualified people as I do, doesn't surprise me at all.

[jim]

I’d also refer to military studies done years ago where researchers compared the performances of small groups that had different compositions of intelligence. They found that the groups with the highest percentage of bright people performed the worst. Apparently all the smart people insisted they had the best ideas and nothing got done. The best performing groups were the ones where there was one smart person and the rest of the group deferred to him. Therefore, I would argue, too much intelligence ruins everything- I had a similar experience playing sport (doubles petanque). The opposition teams were far superior in playing skills so my partner and I adopted tactics that were exactly the opposite to what the best teams play. The accepted best way to play petanque is to play agressive and if things go wrong play defensive. We played defensive and if the opposition made a mistake turned to aggressive play. Even though we carried 2 negatives ( inferior skills and tactics ) we won the tournament because the other teams could not comprehend what we were doing and made excuses for their lack of sucess (eg Blaming each other) that did not recognise that we were working to a plan. Perhaps observation skills of the world around you contributes to sucess more so than superior knowledge or skill.

[Chris]

The vast majority of the truly intelligent people that I've met (not people who have done well on some arbitrary tests, but people who have published research papers, and contributed intellectually to their field) are extremely well rounded people, who are good at a variety of practical and intellectual pursuits, and also deal well with people, for the most part.

Many people complain that intelligent people are only really brilliant in their area of specialty, but I've found that most of the truly intelligent people I've met have a wide variety of interests, and know (and understand) far more than the average person about a wide variety of areas.

The antisocial genius isn't a myth - they do exist. However, the vast majority of really intelligent people (in terms of intellectual output) are well-adjusted people who just happen to be far more intelligent than the average human being.

[Me]

Scott !

Looks like you have recovered from the flu.. You seem to be back in full swing ( sorry for having explained twice :))

Cheers,

Me

[gr8hands]

Scott,

I will pose you the same questions that I posed to various people at the Mensa meeting I attended:

If I have a lower IQ than you, can I create a test that accurately evaluates YOUR intelligence? (There is only one logically correct answer: no)

What validity does the Mensa test have, when it cannot possibly be an accurate test of the intelligence of anyone smarter than the smartest person on the group creating the test?

[Ned]

Joe Mama wrote:

Ned: [Reagan] presided over the miracle Olympic Hockey Win.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but to clarify, Carter was President.

Posted by: Joe Mama | November 14, 2006 at 03:51 PM

Joe - damn, you're right. I was remembering Carter blocking US participation in the summer olympics (a really dumb way to stop international aggression - punish a bunch of American kids who've worked all their lives for their single shot at the Gold) ... somehow, I "remembered" the winter olympics as in '82, but you're right.

Carter was still an idiot - and he was an idiot for using the olympics for wimp-assed anti-war "gestures" - but he did preside over the Miracle Hockey Win.

When you're right, you're right, bubba ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly smart people don't waste time joining Mensa, and don't devote effort to things like IQ tests... they have better things to do.

[gr8hands]

Joe Mama, thank you for correcting Ned's presidential error. I'm surprised since Ned is supposed to be a historian of sorts (with credits on the History channel). Just goes to show that some experts are only experts at very finite things.

I was also surprised that Ned suggested that Reagan's invading Grenada was a praise-worthy thing, or his misunderstanding on the direction the economy "transformed" due to Reagan's financial mismanagement. Ned also got it wrong suggesting Reagan "bombed Moamar Ghadaffi into the stone age" -- since he was still a threat into the current bush administration.

Ned also got wrong the "rabbit" story, but I've changed my mind about him being a decent authority based on the past few posts of his where he's shown ignorance of facts and downright errors. Perhaps someone else (a moron) is just using his login name and information, because even the writing style is different.

[Rick]

Requirements for Mensa - high IQ

Requirement to take Mensa test:
Know you are a loser but would like evidence you are at least a smart loser.

Mensa Party : A lot of smart losers.

Moral: If you need to take a test to tell other people you are smart - you know you have already passed the loser test.

[CC]

Scott,

Intelligence does not equal more money. I work with intelligent people who are working on PhDs or Masters or M.D./PhD's in Biochemistry and Immunology and most of us make no more than $20,000 a year as students (Canada). For the number of hours spent in the lab, we end up making less than minimum wage (the MD's are exempt from this poverty of course).

Anyway, the night janitor who comes in and spends his shift reading sci-fi novels and brushing his hair makes more than us as a manual labourer and I'll bet he dropped out of highschool by 16

Fair? I don't think so. I'm not bitter :D

Sorry if I'm off-topic, your post was pretty good today!

[Catbert]

Intelligence is worthless without wisdom (aka common sense, judgement, etc). Wisdom is the application of intelligence. Just like the great poet who longed to actually write some of them down. His poetry doesn't amount to much without applying it.

I had a friend in college who graduated with a masters in mathematics. He is very good at it. I, on the other hand, am a physicist, which is just the application of math. He could out-math me any day of the week doing all sorts of calculations. But he sucked at physics. I wasn't very good at math, but when I could see the practical application (physics) it made sense.

Point is, math isn't very useful if you don't understand its application. Same with intelligence.

[Tony LaRocca]

Speaking as a Mensan (and a blue-collar worker,) I can say that I've met a few kind, wise individuals in our "club." However, the majority that I've met are bitter, arrogant assholes who feel they should have done much better in life due to their superior brain power.

[Dorai Thodla]

Nice post.Really makes you think. I think the definition of smart is a bit ambiguous. Street Smart vs Book smart?

I think I am smart about a few things in life but very very dumb about a lot of other things. What does that make me.

I think ultimately it is what you want to be smart about. Or by which crowd I want to be considered smart. Does that make sense?

[Ryan]

First, I have to say that there is something quite 'zen' about reading the comments on this blog. People say such amazing, ridiculous, and off-topic things... and with such conviction. It's a process, really. My head usually starts throbbing within the first 5-10 posts. Then as I continue reading, my indignation turns to dismay, and finally to acceptance. I inevitably wind up questioning my core assumption that the world would be a better place if everyone in it valued reason above all else and thought before they spoke. And on a good day, I'll come away with a sense that in spite of, or possibly even because of, all these "diverse" (I'm being polite) opinions, everything is somehow as it should be.

Which leads in a sort of disjointed way to my real point ...

(A point that, incidentally, is a lot more on-topic than all of those MENSA anecdotes or people railing against the IQ rating system. Come on people, let's display some reading comprehension skills here! He's handing you an argument that says "Common sense is a better basis for judgment than a high IQ score." and you come back with rebuttals like "IQ does not equal Common Sense." and "IQ tests are a falicy." Huh?? Geesh, no wonder my head hurts. Of course, to be fair, maybe I just misunderstood. Maybe you were angrily agreeing with him, or phrasing your support in the form of a counterpoint. In which case, my apologies.)

... perhaps things can't help but "be as they should be", regardless of politics.

I was initially very enthused by the notion of somehow weeding out the uninformed and careless and harvesting only the opinions of rational, well informed people. Now I'm not so sure it matters.

This whole discussion of "smart vs. dumb" assumes that there are "right" and "wrong" choices to be made. In the realm of politics, I wonder if that's really the case. There are so many checks and balances in our political system that I doubt there's really any way to screw it up so badly that anarchy breaks out and we're invaded by China, or Mexico, or (heaven forbid) Canada. And by the same token, I also doubt there's much we could do to dramatically improve it. If we could magically bestow every politician with omniscience and omni-benevolence, I'm not sure daily life would be significantly better 2 or 4 years from now. And if the wheels were in motion for something really bad to happen, even with all the branches of government harmoniously united for one term I can still imagine plenty of situations where they wouldn't be able to stop the momentum.

My gut-level intuition is that the general trend of policy and events is driven by some external and wholly organic (as opposed to artificial/imposed) factor; economics seems like a prime suspect. Our decisions about a particular political candidate or initiative might alter the slope of the trend slightly, or possibly induce local minima or maxima, but they won't affect its overall course.

I wouldn't characterize this as an "imaginary democracy"; that might be taken as implying some sort of systemic conspiracy or corruption. I would describe it more like kayaking through the Grand Canyon. You can steer a bit and maybe even stop at times, but you sure as heck can't paddle up-stream and in the end, you're going where the river takes you, period.

I would love to dig up some examples from history to see if they bear out this hypothesis, but since I've already stretched my 15 min coffee break to 3 hours reading these damned comments and fulfilling my inane desire to contribute, I'll just qualify it as "food for thought" and let it go.

[Baba O'Reilly]

The commenters on this blog remind me of the followers pursuing Forest Gump on his cross country run.

[Nicki Lagrange]

too much education bad

“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.” - Karl Rove

[Dennis Miller]

My IQ is 189.

[David Anderson]

Hmmm...political organizations are loaded with very smart, knowledgeable and well-educated people, but they can barely run things as it is.

I think it's a fact that people can be smart at a few things, and dumb at many others. OTOH, I have run into a lot of people I'd characterize as dumb who managed to succeed very well at a personal level simply by exercising careful thought, 'common sense' and understanding their own limitations [which may be the greatest wisdom of all...people convinced of their own intelligence generally think they are brilliant at everything...and aren't.].

Those dumb people are usually also be a lot nicer than the Mensans I've met too. I've met a few successful Mensans, but they were uniformly rude, abrasive twits...unless they deliberately decided to be charming in which case they came across as merely creepy and manipulative.

[Chris]

======================================

Smart people aren't dumb. Rather, dumb people console themselves with myths such as "IQ tests don't really measure intelligence," or "smart people have no common sense." It feels warmer and fuzzier to think that where the universe gives, it also takes. Sadly, the universe is not that fair.

The idea that IQ tests don't measure intelligence comes from the occasional high-IQ person with a lot of test anxiety. But there are dumb people who underperform on IQ tests too; it's a wash. The idea that smart people have no common sense comes from confusing native intelligence with academic, intellectual habits that impair one's ability to act decisively.

Nevertheless, IQ is the best single predictor of performance, in all walks of life. The smartest burger flippers on average outperform the dumber burger flippers. The smartest professors on average outperform the dumber professors.

=====================================

This hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of people in 'intelligent' professions really are smarter than the burger flippers of this world.

People feel threatened by intelligent people. If presented with the opinion of an intelligent person, many people will do the exact opposite, simply due to their intelligence. Then they throw out one of the lines given in the first paragraph. The reality is, people don't like to think that other people are smarter than them.

[Chris]

Furthermore, there is no such thing as 'too smart to finish school' or 'too smart to hold a job'. I know plenty of Professors who finished school and hold well-paying jobs that only someone of their intelligence could do.

[Chris]

It interests me that it seems that only 2% of the population are supposedly smart enough to get it, while 98% of people who have taken the test claim to have qualified.

[Morf]

Perspective.

[Jesus]

Just you wait, Scott!

[Kymberley]

You are right about the "not explaining", thta's why I enjoy the company of Mensans. Our Mensa group has quite a varied membership. Some successful geeks included, the unemployed poets must be in a different group.

I'd also suggest a taxacracy as an alternative. The more tax you pay the more your vote is worth. Sort of like being a shareholder in your country. The middle class then has more infuence than the super rich who avoid taxes and those who don't pay them.

[gr8hands]

Emma wrote: "Do rocket scientists look down upon the smarter than average people who are 10 points lower than them?

Posted by: Emma | November 14, 2006 at 02:49 PM "

Unfortunately, far too many do. (I think that's evidence against "intelligent" design.)

There is a lot of confusion here about "smart people." It appears too many of you think that "smart people" have absolutely no interests outside of academics -- as if a brain surgeon can't work on cars, or a rocket scientist doesn't know how to fix a faucet or play the guitar.

Most truly "smart" people are very well rounded -- because one aspect of intelligence is curiosity. What most of you are posting about is the caricature "absent minded professor" portrayed in movies, or people you only know at work (so you have no idea what they do in their spare time).

BOCTAOE.

[Robert Hamilton]

Scott,
I joined Mensa in 1983 and went to one meeting. I stayed a member because I needed the validation, but I did not attend another meeting for 23 years. I volunteered and was accepted to be the editor of the local area newsletter a few months ago. I told them that I wanted to spice things up a notch and wanted to be a little more cutting edge and topical, and so for my first issue I wanted to reprint those Danish cartoons of Allah on the cover and have the members discuss that issue (and to see how long I could stay alive.) Shortly after proposing that idea, I was told that they had found another editor. While intelligence is clearly a necessary asset for being a good leader, there currently is no test that can adequately measure that. Just as you cannot use any existing computer program to decide who will be a happy couple in marriage, there is no algorithm for finding a politician with the right stuff. I think that you know that very well, but are stubbornly trying to justify shirking your civic responsibility for lo these many years. There is an old Turkish (or Elbonian) saying that goes - No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back. - That is all you have to do to correct your non-voting sins. Just vote next time. If you would like, I'll tell you who to vote for.

[Farrar Hudkins]

Another problem with the Mensa people, at least around here, is that they're too smart to do anything on schedule. After attempting to contact two regional representatives and failing several times to get in touch with anyone on a higher level to actually take the test, I gave up. Various tests I have taken over the past several years have shown my I.Q. to be between 165 and 172, and since it is a ratio which involves age I know that it will only go down from there. I decided that being labelled "Academically Gifted" in the third grade was good enough for me, and if Mensa can't update their contacts' information or get a test together, that's their bag. It would be nice to hang out with other smart people, but it's not, in my opinion, worth the effort.

I'm glad you had a better experience than I did ... I never actually spoke to or got an e-mail from anyone in Mensa; I suppose they don't figure there are any geniuses in Louisiana. From what I've seen, they may be right.

[Brad K.]

Scott,

What Mensa-type geniuses have is focus. They are the ones that can approach knowing the universe by contemplating a grain of sand. I weld. But I am not a car mechanic, I didn't grow up around any, and don't change the oil on my car. I have changed the starter and brakes, I can learn, but I haven't.

When you state you want to know how the informed and intelligent people feel about the political landscape, I *think* you want 'truth'. That you feel the intelligent people are more capable of discerning truth among the distraction. And by informed, you mean people that use more time than you have, to understand and evaluate all available information.

I believe there are truths. I believe peace is better than war, but I also accept that brutality and tyranny in the absence of weapons is not a peace. That sometimes war is the lesser evil. And I find similar quibblings and qualified creeds make up the bulk of social and political fundamentals.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' not withstanding, our founding fathers had to deal with authority violating their security, their pursuit of happiness, and their homes and families.

I applaud your goal, to have the best qualified people find truth and let the rest of us know, but I have my doubts that if there are fundamental political truths, that they would matter. In a democracy, the ability of groups of people to influence individuals and groups is what drives through any change, or holds onto the status quo.

Some mudslinging now, to give a couple of examples. Running Bob Dole for president was a huge political mistake. Dole was not a long shot -- he was not electable. I believe the same thing about John McCain's projected run for the White House -- McCain is pretty as hell, probably as honest as he might be, but his claim to fame is his Prisoner of War record in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, as a veteran and a hero we have every reason to honor and value McCain. But what does it say about a potential president that he peaked 40 years ago, in enemy hands? McCain has struggled, unsuccessfully, to make a name for himself and create a basis for running for President. He has been trying for 8-10 years. And there is still a lot of legitimate question about 'Who the hell is John McCain, and why would I want the SOB in the White House?' Hilary will walk all over the carpet bagger, and I really don't want to see another Clinton in the White House for at least another couple of decades.

When you state that smart people are dumb, I think a better statement would be that smart people are more focused. Better educated people are more focused, and have less broad-based experience. Where most high school graduates are good at emergency car repairs, fewer college types are. Where most high school graduates can explain why you need to join your union, Harvard and East Tennessee State University graduates question that unions contribute a damn thing to the success of any business, or contribute to the security of the nation or growth of the economy. Just because a few economics classes portray the damage and brutality that many unions represent as harmful, 'educated' people stop supporting stuff that everyone knows.

And so you have smart people looking dumb. And you still have the problem that there really isn't any truth underlying politics. Instead of hoping that someone else will find truth, look to the acknowledged great ones, the Abraham Lincolns, the Francis Scott Keys that captured a moment of personal truth, that touched a nation. Ultimately, the answers about political candidates and issues are about what you make them mean -- to you.

[erik]

Maybe smart people are just lazy. I'd elaborate some, but meh...

[gworg the lesser]

Nice ramble. Why do you assume success == money? Surely success == happiness... whether that comes from riches or something else is another issue entirely.

[Andrew]

I remember being in the gifted program all through middle and high school. It was a fairly small group of around 30 kids or so and although everyone in the group was of above average intelligence it did not change the fact that there were all kinds of people there. Some were nerds, some were video gamers, some were stoners, some were punk rockers, and some were athletes. There were 5 kids in particular were way above the rest and they are certainly Mensa material. Of those 5, three were really losers, they didn’t study or do their homework, and they just played games on their calculators all day. These kids would ace every test you gave them though. Of those three only one was able to hold down a job for more than a couple of weeks. The two other kids that were really intelligent were really on top of their games and went all out with all sorts of clubs, sports and activities. Therefore I concluded that intelligence is a definite advantage, but it is a useless one without motivation. Some people just aren’t motivated to do well.

[Mallen]

I think once someone becomes above average in "smartness" they lose the ability to talk and communicate with the rest of us. Once your brain grows, your speech slows and soon you go!

http://bleepthisjob.com

[CleverShark]

*For anyone out there who doesn't know how to keep an idiot in suspense I will post the answer tomorrow.*

The suspense is killing me!

Oh wait... ;-)

[CleverShark]

You shouldn't judge all members of Mensa by just by the ones you saw at a meeting ;-) I suspect that the vast majority never show up, possibly because they're too busy doing other things, or because they read stories about Mensa meetings filled with the people you describe...

[Joe Mama]

Ned: [Reagan] presided over the miracle Olympic Hockey Win.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but to clarify, Carter was President.

[Gerald]

Elections are not just about making decisions that are "smart". They are a way of finding out the subjective preferences of society - what sort of society do we want? What's my preferred trade-off between overall economic wellbeing and looking after the worst-off?

Smart (usually middle class and above) people would have strong incentives to vote for candidates who want to tax dumb (usually poor) people and give their money to smart people (it's good to tax poor people because there are lots of them...). Not exactly fair.

As mentioned by others, we need smart people to do the "how" but dumb people need to be involved in the "what".

But dumb people might not understand the unintended consequences of some of their objectives, and that some desired outcomes are mutually-exclusive. That's one of the reasons we need a good education system, and high-quality free press.

[DWH]

I am a firm believer in learning by doing.That is exactly how I learned quality control at a plastics factory.So with that in mind here is the true story;Years ago at work a customer sent a 'representative'/'engineer' to the factory that could not figure out how to use a crescent wrench!So eight years of college=idiot vs. high school graduate=that knew his job.It scares the hell out of me that most of the industralized world is being ran by "professional students" that couldn't fix a doorknob.

[car free since '93]

Krissy,
I am a girl. But nothing's flapping and flopping on this body. I'm thinking I better keep biking forever!
CFS '93

[postexodus]

Why do you measure success by income?

[VVi!!]

My problem with the idea of trusting smart people to make political decisions is not really anything to do with the inverse correlation of intelligence with common sense, but rather to the correlation of intelligence with potential for great evil.
When a stupid person thinks evil, they think, "let's invade somewhere bad. That'll be fun for us and not for them!"
When an intelligent person thinks evil, it tends to be more along the lines of "wouldn't it be cool if I made everyone my slave and threatened the world with annihilation if they don't bow down to my every whim and fantasy." And you don't want to know what the fantasies of an evil intelligent person are. Unless you already know... :-)
The thing is, that intelligent people are just as likely to be evil as stupid people. This means that you can't guarantee that they're not just having a huge prank on you by making everyone elect an idiot anyway.
Remember that some of these people are already helping the idiots run for office on both (ahem... all) sides of the political arena.

[Doug Nelson]

Just as it is dangerous to confuse stupidity with ignorance, it is also dangerous (perhaps moreso) to confuse wisdom with intelligence. And success has more to do with likeability (which can correlate to perceived stupidity, and therefore inverse correlate to intelligence) than with wisdom or intelligence.

[MattyD]

Isn't the best measure of intelligence your ability to gather and analyse information when required, not necessarily what you remember?

Once, didn't some argue Henry Ford was insane because he couldn't remember his own telephone number? By way of response, he pushed a button on his desk and had his assistant provide the number. His point, as I recall, was that the ability to cite facts by rote was no measure of a person's analytical/problem-solving ability.

Charged with solving a crisis of nationwide importance, who's counsel would you seek: a high school dropout who built an international business from scratch, or the egghead who answered the most questions on 'Jeopardy'? I don't mean this rhetorically: which of them could join Mensa, and which understands more about the way the world works?

And for that matter since none of us can prove/disprove the God stuff, doesn't that make half of us (Schrodinger cats) superstitious and the other half in denial? What bearing does this have (if any) on our ability to analyse real-world situations and formulate effective responses?

You don't have to look too far to see that stupidity has no allegiance to race, religion, colour or creed.

[Adrian]

Democracy is not about making the smartest decisions it's about minimizing discontent in society: "hey, you voted, you had your saying, anyway we are doing what the majority wants so that as many people as possible will be happy"

[Anthony]

How about a system of voting licenses?

People would have to prove that they meet certain standards of political knowledge, both on the systems of government and on the political environment, both local and international.

People can apply for this license once they turn 18. It would be just like driving license. After all, it is not unreasonable to expect the person behind the wheel of a ton or two of potential speeding death to know what they are doing, so why should voting be different? When someone is making a decision that can affect the lives of millions, wouldn't it be nice to know that at least they know what they are doing?

[Florin]

I don't know about "uneducated" people voting, it's a very sensitive subject, I don't think we can change that, but I know I'm pretty pissed off, that the tax increase for cigarretes didn't pass here in California. I mean, ferrchrissake, there shouldn't even be a debate on the subject! I wonder why don't we get to vote on abolishing the tax altogether? It just sucks, it pisses me off that my contributions to Medicare and Social Security go to treat people's lung cancers and obesity-related illnesses. Bad drivers pay more for their car insurance, why wouldn't unhealthy people pay more for their health insurance???

[Phil]

This post and the comments to it resolved all of my doubts and answered all of my questions.
Thanks :P

[Rich]

I tell you what I think, but you're much smarter than I am. Sorry.

[John Edwards]

"We know that I.Q. correlates with income" so why are the Mensa memebers so poor? Does it correlate to a cut off point where people get so smart they're constantly distracted by the universe so they can't pay attention long enough the warrant anything beyond the fast food industry?

Bit like a roller coaster of wages, steadily climbing up and up until it suddenly plunges at the point where someone starts thinking "Fermat's Last Theorem, yes, I could do that..."

[Amy H]

Hmm just to be safe, we'd better also track the opinions of people with good hair.

[Jason Allen]

I.Q. tests measure how much a person knows, but that's only part of the equation. The rest is personality. Does the person have a bad short or long term memory? Are they focused on a task, or flighty? Do they obsess over small details to the point they miss the obvious? Are they outgoing or overly shy? Are they driven to succeed, or do they prefer intellectual pursuits? You have to look at the total package.

Carl Rove is a smart guy, but I'd feel the need to shower after shaking his hand. Dick Chaney is a smart guy, but I wouldn't want to go hunting with him. Bill Clinton is also smart, but I'd need a baseball bat if he got anywhere near my niece. Hillary Clinton's quite smart, but I won't vote for her. Micheal Jackson is a very talented singer/songwriter, but I wouldn't let him anywhere near my nephew. Gina Davis is a MENSA member, but look at the movies she has acted in. Al Gore's quite bright, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Jude Law is...well, OK, I don't know if he's that bright. But I'd love to take a weekend to see if he's talented.

BTW, I'm not impressed with MENSA. I've never considered myself "smart" or even above average, yet the IQ tests I had to take in elementary and high school claim I'm MENSA worthy. I'll never join an intellectual group that would let /me/ in.

[Emma]

Sometimes mental intelligence isn't all you need, what about the emotional stuff?

You could have been #1 in your class at uni. Woohoo. And when someone in your family decides they want to change sex or you get dumped by your long term partner....what will provail, i.q or e.q?

I've always wanted to take the test through MENSA, but like alot of people, i underestimate myself. I worry about the score i might get. I know i am intelligent, but when i meet rocket scientists, that goes out the window.

Do rocket scientists look down upon the smarter than average people who are 10 points lower than them?

[Dave]

I don't think I want smart people making the decisions about our goverment. Seriously I understand stupid... But I am rather clueless when it comes to smart decisions.

[WCE]

Scott - The problem with this question is that political decisions usually don't require lots of brains to make, but they do require common values with the people being governed.

You don't need a genius to make an obvious decision ("We were attacked?!? Let's attack them back!"), and the vast majority of political decisions are just that obvious. The "smart moves" usually don't work that well, as you generally have dumb people carrying them out (and screwing up) or you have smart people carrying out their own agendas while pretending to be implementing your policies.

If you have someone like Bush in office, he at least can identify with all of the people out there who don't have a clue what's going on, and that's 98% of the population right there. The best you can hope for is that the president will get upset about the same sorts of things that make you upset. He can hire smart people to work the details.

[KiwiAtaahua]

This isn’t a case of either/or – “common sense or high IQ”. It’s about having a healthy mix of both available among the decision makers. Kinda like how compost derived from a variety of plant matter makes for healthier trees.

[Matthew]

If you would rather let "smarter, better informed" people vote and make decisions, and you are in the top 2% of the population in terms of intelligence, then it seems to me the pool of people for you to look to in making these decisions is rather limited.

But maybe I'm just bitter because while I'm certainly not MENSA material, I am definitely smarter than the average schmo. And thus, I'd feel pretty left out if only people in the top 2% were trusted with the fate of our country and culture, when I'm only in the top 5 or 10% . . .

[stupergenius]

I don't think anyone has realized that being a "smart guy" does not qualify you as knowledgeable. Having a high IQ and being an expert at one thing does not mean you are automatically an expert on another topic, Jimmy Carter fits this role perfectly.

Engineering....Politics....does not compute....does not compute....

[Rubymac]

Some really thoughtful comments, although I was too frickin' lazy to read all of them!

Balance is what is required for optimal decision-making. Ignorance is not stupidity because ignorance can be cured. Theoretical knowledge is nice, practical application of knowledge is better. Creative problem solving by people with a grip on reality can benefit society when it is teamed with knowledge gathered by people who are good at gathering and synthesized by people who are good at that. Doing all of that without getting enmeshed in the politics of selfishness is not likely.

Someone said that people who aren't smart usually know that. In my experience, truly stupid people (note: not ignorant or developmentally disabled) NEVER know they're stupid. They NEVER wonder if they have all the facts or if they are interpreting them correctly, or if there is another and better solution. And they will always damn the torpedos rather than change course.

Good solutions to problems are possible. But only if we concentrate on what we have in common rather than on what divides us. But to get there, we will have to climb over the truly stupid and that's where most intelligent people fail - they will invariably question their own solution and/or motives, and that pause gives the truly stupid time to disable them.

[Matthew Harper]

If people can accuse you of being elitist for wanting smart people to make political decisions, then what do we call the inverted snobs who make such an accusation? How about calling them 'delitist'? - That's my candidate for Dogbert Word of the Day.

[Robby]

I still maintain that, good idea or not, it is impossible to track only the opinions of smart people. How would you decide who is smart enough? If you asked people if they are smart, many of the stupid people would lie because everybody likes to think he's smart. If you administered some sort of intelligence test, it would have to created by someone. Would it be the "huge losers" in Mensa? Your own opinion of them seems to be that, while they are intelligent, their intelligence has no connection to the real world. An intelligence test created by them would only pass people like them. Is this the sort of person whose opinions you want to borrow? I know I don't -- but I cannot think of anyone else qualified to create such an intelligence test, and I know that, even if such a person or group exists, there is no way to verify his identity over the internet. Your intelligence test could be created by a Chinese sweatshop worker posing as a Nobel laureate. And when people disagree with the opinion of the smart people, they will claim that the intelligence test must be flawed and not listen. They will insist that it was designed so that only people with a certain opinion could pass, and, true or not, it would destroy the credibility of the entire initiative.

My point is that it's not going to happen. Not in this universe.

[Ned]

Basic flaw in assumptions:

1. IQ equates to "smart" - Carter Example

Carter may have done well at an engineering university (Annapolis) in an tech-field (nuclear engineering); but clearly that has nothing to do with managing the nation. In fact, if his notorious micro-management is any indication of incompetent leadership, and if the economy, Iran and attack rabbits are indication of a lack of success, I'd guess that Jimmy Carter isn't very smart.

FWIW, I know Jimmy Carter (and his son, Jack, who just lost in a race of Governor - by running the most incredibly stupid campaign I've ever seen ... and I've been running campaigns since 1976, and I've seen some pretty dumb campaigns). When I knew Jimmy, he was Governor of Georgia - not a particularly challenging position, but he managed to piss off (in my presence) blacks and local religious leaders of both races - groups that this liberal Christian should have been able to count on.

As for Jack - his "bright" kid (as opposed to Amy, who clearly took after Uncle Billy) - he tried to run for Senate from Nevada while still technically a resident of Burmuda or Jamaica or someplace tropical and wet. More to the point, Nevada is about as 50-50 as you can get - it has two senators, one Democrat, one Republican - Las Vegas has two Congressmen (one a woman man) - one of each - plus a Governor who ran as a Republican then pushed to raise taxes and expand the social network safety net (i.e., entitlements) - i.e., he governed like a Democrat.

So you'd think he'd want to run as a conservative Democrat, right? Maybe, but look at what he did to sabotage his campaign. In a 50-50 state where fast food burgers and casino buffets are the state meals, "smart" Jack got food poisoning from eating (wait for it) bad sushi. Hell, nobody except the far-lefties in Nevada even know what sushi is (most of us think of it as "bait").

And look who he brought in to campaign for him. Al Gore. Dad (well, we'll give him that one). Madelaine Albright (who isn't very, is she?). Jesse Jackson. In other words, the pantheon of way-left liberal jokes, the kind of polarizing people-out-of-the-past who turn off Independents. In a 50-50 state, "smart" Jack got 39 percent of the vote, losing to a veternarian with good hair and a daddy who made it rich in the Casino market (no doubt, working with Lucky and Lefty and Big Al and all the rest).

In short, it was a dumb campaign. Run by a very "smart" man who's also the son of another very "smart" man who ran dumb campaigns (and goverened dumb for four agonizing inflation-ridden Iran-dominated rabbit-chased years).

Reagan, on the other hand, no scholar by any means, lowered taxes, saw the economy transform, pushed the Soviets into collapse by entering an arms race they couldn't afford (but we could), invaded Grenada (Carter gave away Panama, but Reagan proved we could take any banana republic we wanted), bombed Moamar Ghadaffi into the stone age (basically, across the street from his neolithic tent, but still it seemed to work) and presided over the miracle Olympic Hockey Win. Not bad for a dumb guy. Oh, and he won two terms, by huge margins, while Carter, the bright guy, couldn't manage to carry more than a handful of states AS the incumbent (in short, he was no smarter, politically, than was George HW Bush, certainly no paragon of brights).

Bottom line, Scott - your premise is flawed. Carter governed dumb. His son ran dumb. IQ as measured in the ability to understand nuclear reactors is hardly a political asset. But having good hair and an easy sense of humor apparently IS a political asset (maybe Reagan was smart enough to play dumb and govern smart - unlike Carter who played smart but goverened dumb and ran from rabbits).

Just a (long) thought

Ned

[ed]

so what do we learn from all this? people with higher doses of book-learnin' are more likely to fall under the siren spell of groupthink? do they assume that all those other book-smart folks who hold a given position MUST be right?

hmmm.....well, that WOULD explain the rigidly-enforced political thought of colleges and universities.....

as for the "room full of poor mensans", randy newman covered that subject years ago. his terrific song "it's money that matters" nailed that sucker down, and you could dance to it, too. (well, sort of)

[Chuck Simpson]

Most educated, well-informed people depend on information gleaned from candidates' public records and any really intelligent person knows that the important information, like what they really think about and what is really important to them, is never in the public record.

I base my decisions on their reactions, expressions and body-language during unscripted moments like Bush running over people with his bicycle or when they are trying something for the first time like John Kerry trying to tell a joke.

Really intelligent people hide their intelligence to make other people more comfortable and less wary. That is why you don't find them at Mensa meetings.

[Scarecrow]

Hey! I'm smart, too! Get a load of this:

The square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the opposite sides.

Gimme those Mensa papers. I want to sign up - as long as they're not stuffed shirts.

[Tillerman]

Most smart people like to hang around with average people because that makes them, I mean us, feel smarter. These are the smart and happy people.

The folk that join Mensa are the people who are not smart enough to have worked out yet that hanging around with other smart people won't make you happy. These are the smart but miserable people.

Most people who vote are so dumb that they believe it is their cvic duty, or even more bizarre that their vote will make a difference. These are the dumb but happy people.

The people who run for office do so because they are too dumb to hold down a real job such as world-famous syndicated cartoonist. Once elected they spend all their time arguing with other dumb people who are too dumb to find oil in Texas. These are the dumb and unhappy people.

[Sam]

I bet there's some kind of multidimensional chart that you could make where you track knowledge on individual political subjects versus knowledge across a multitude of subjects (cultural, technological, economical, etc.), and then other factors like Intuition and Problem Solving skills, and maybe Kung-Fu, as well as a Zen-like compassion for humankind, combined with a Soros-like drive to use knowledge, money, and energy to make the world a better place. Once you've made this impossible to construct chart, you could use it to generate a kind of ideal Think Tank where you're the President and I'd be the Vice President, and we can pay ourselves huge sums of money to dispense advice on global policy to all the peoples of the world.

As President, you wouldn't have to be the smartest, only the one who gets to decide who is the "smartest" according to your criteria, and therefore the one who gets to decide the focus of our collective energies by admitting those who share your political views and omitting those who are obviously stupid. (That would be the X Factor of the chart - whatever criteria you decide should keep someone out, like they have bad hair, or they watch Dr. Phil.)

Or, better yet, we could use our collective knowledge, strength and influence to form a secret society that could strong-arm political simpletons into doing what we know is best for the world. Yeah.

[Warran]

I worked for Bell Labs, at the time part of AT&T.; That place is full of Mensa members who can't find their way out of the building to go home and bathe.
My favorite was a designer I met who was wearing his bathrobe and slippers. He had an idea late at night, and came in to work on it -- 4 days earlier. He was still wearing the robe and slippers.
I "moderated" a discussion between two genius engineers who debated the merits of cutting their yard clockwise or counterclockwise. To me it was just a matter of the grass piling up in the center when you were done, or being broadcast out during the mowing. To them, it was all about rotational angularities and if you cut faster going one way versus the other. The thing is, both made arguments that sounded pretty good.
In the cafeteria, there were always peas or corn kernels on the tables where they were laying out different things.

[AllanL5]

I used to worry about telling people there really were better and worse ways to think about things. I mean, who was I to make such judgements for them?

Then I read in Edsger Dijkstra's writings (famous software guy, wrote "Goto Considered Harmful") that (in creating software, anyway) it really DID matter how you thought about things. There were ways of thinking about things that were completely non-productive, and other ways of thinking about things that led to good problem solving.

Thinking about things the 'right' way led to reasonable solutions to issues. The 'right' way being a combination of reason, logic, and emotional valuations of outcomes.

Really smart people are able to assemble 'castles in the sky', where less smart people wouldn't even see the utility of such a thing. Since a 'castle in the sky' HAS no utility, the less smart people would be more right about that.

Maybe it's life-strategy that has more impact on effectiveness than just 'intelligence'.

[Christopher]

Scott, I love the way, right at the end, you heap shit on the "rapture" superstition. As I write this I still can't stop smiling.

Thank you for making my day even better. Although, yesterday I resigned (I was going to write the company name, but thought better of it), so it would be hard to top that.

[Buckshot]

I was just wading through some of the comments. One guy, Bill Smoker (tee hee) said (not an exact quote) "IQ tests don't show who's smart, they just show who does good on IQ tests).

??????????????????? Just goes to show you, if people do shitty on IQ tests, they think IQ tests don't mean anything. I guess that's easier than thinking they are dumb as a mud fence.

Anyway regardless of what Bill was smoking, he probably votes for the guy with the best hair, and then goes to work and tells people about the latest "Friends" rerun. And then talks about a great idea he has for a movie script.

[Sara Short]

If you're not smart enough to figure an issue out on your own, are you smart enough to discern who's smart enough to figure it out?

[jeqp]

Intelligence is like beauty -- it's a nice thing to have, but in the end it doesn't count for very much. I think generosity, courage and just plain "niceness" are more important.

The other issue is that the most intelligent people may not have the nations best interest at heart. Maybe they've figured out a way to get money from poor people (on average, less intelligent/educated) to rich people (on average more intelligent/educated, if we assume that your unsubstantiated claim that there is a correlation between IQ and income is correct). Would that be ethically right? Or more pertinantly, would it be in the best interests of the poor people? Maybe the less intelligent people wouldn't be able to find the flaw in the argument, and just have to rely on their gut feeling that it's not right to take money from those with little and give it to those with a lot.

[Krissy]

"And can someone tell me what bras are actually for?

CFS '93"

You must not have a female in your life or you would not be asking this. Course, I guess you could also be a flat chested girl, so let's just say... You must not have big breasts or you wouldn't be asking this. Bras are the single greatest invention ever. Without them I couldn't run, jump, or even walk briskly without a great deal of pain. The world would be a sad and jiggly place.

[MadMatt]

Ohhh, IQ tests... read The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen J Gould...

[Buckshot]

Reagan was not dumb. Try being president when you are going senile...(!) As for Carter, we were repeatedly told he was a "nuclear physicist" and thus we concluded he had a very high IQ. The truth is, Jimmy Carter took ONE CLASS in nuclear physics while in the navy, to learn about radioactivity. Sure, he was smart (like Reagan, and GWB) but certainly was no genius.

Now Clinton(s)...he (they) is(are) smart like hell! And a piece of shit. (pieces of shit) I don't know if there is a connection.

My view is that people who pay their own way should get to vote, and those who accept ANY government assistance should not. That would at least end the pandering to the bottom layer of scum we affectionately refer to as "the masses".

[CAROL]

Great, Scott, but the top 2% of test-takers is still a lot of people. Maybe your local Mensa group wasn't exclusive enough. So, now you have to join the Triple Nine Society.
To get in, you have to have tested at or above the 99.9th percentile on any one of a variety of standardized adult intelligence tests. You can usually use your college entrance test scores. Then you can tell us if the smarter triple-nines are even bigger losers than Mensans, or if they're titans of industry.
See http://www.triplenine.org/default.asp

[squigs]

But that's the problem with Mensa. It select not only the intelligent, but has the side effect of attracting only those who are insecure enough to feel they need to prove it. Most people who are eligible are confident enough in their intelligence that they don't need to prove it.

I have a friend who is a Mensa member. He doesn't go to meetings, but does mention Mensa membership on his resume. It doesn't occur to him that this will potentially deter employers. His view is that surely, all things being equal, they'll go for the smart guy. It doesn't occur to him that a potential employer is going to make an emotive rather than logical decision, and go for the guy who doesn't come across as an elitist jerk.

[Tom]

Most likely not all geniuses join Mensa. Perhaps only the loser ones do. Or maybe only the loser ones actually turn up to the meetings, which would make sense.

[Rene Bartar]

Scott, I remember that you've blogged months ago defending that the 'Mob's choices are good'. Now you advocate that ignorant people shouldn't vote.
How's that??

[sam]

If you haven't already, read 'Emotional Intelligence' by Daniel Goleman, for an interesting take on this very subject. It's very cool, and even has a few salient points to make on the so-called lack of free will in humans...but maybe we don't want to open up THAT can of worms again, eh??

[Bill Slenter]

I believe the best voter is one who has a balance of smarts and common sense. The simpleton uninformed voter relies too much on hype and heresay to guide their votes, while the bumbling booksmart folks over-think the issues and don't have the common sense to look at the big picture. That's why they spend hours debating irrelevant technical matters in Mensa meetings instead of managing their own lives.

Balance is sorely lacking in both the voting population and the politicians in office. The only way we're ever going to get there is for more balanced people to start voting their conscience. That includes you, Scott!

I vote, and it bugs me as much as it does you that I don't know more about the people and the issues when I vote. So I vote what feels right to me, and I have a few guiding principles. For example, I generally vote no on propositions except for those that really stand out as being sorely needed and stand a reasonable chance of being implemented as intended. Other than those, I feel that most propositions are an attempt by special interests to take advantage of the voting public's susceptibility to hype after the more-informed legislature turned it (or something similar) down. I also don't force myself to cast a vote on everything. I'll skip ballot items that I feel indifferent about. For example, in my hometown, I did not vote for the school board because I don't have kids and feel the parents have more invested interest in this choice, so let them decide.

Develop your own guiding principles along those lines, and I think you'll feel more comfortable voting.

[obiDonWan]

Your naive belief that there are "smart, well-informed" people is almost touching.

[Bill Smoker]

I joined Mensa some years ago. I applied mainly to prove to my own satisfaction that I had the brains to do it. I let my membership lapse after a year, because I found that the organisation was full of people who thought they were clever. They made for extremely dull company.

A high proportion of Mensa members are very keen to be thought of as 'eccentric'. For the most part this involves having bad hair, wearing an ugly bow tie and talking specious bullshit in a loud monotone. A room full of people like this, each of whom think that they are the most clever person there, soon becomes tedious. Give me the average IQ crowd for friends any day.

I have come to the conclusion that a high IQ doesn't neccessarily mean that you are smart. It just means that you are good at IQ tests.

[car free since '93]

For those who mentioned that we should have enough sense to get out of the rain...Why should we get out of the rain? People always say that, but I really don't know. Unless there's lightning, standing in the rain is no more harmful than taking a dip in the pool. Less harmful, actually. And, no, you don't catch colds from getting wet. Someone explain to me, please? I don't have enough sense to know.

And can someone tell me what bras are actually for?

CFS '93

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

Perhaps you overlook age and a wife. Smart people in previous generations tended to be kept on the straight and narrow by a wife and a society that enforce conformance to a larger degree than it does today. These days potential wives does not have to attach themselves to a bright person in order to have a good future. That is probably why a lot of smart people don't have wives to sort them out.

As someone in an article I read pointed out. With age you become socially smarter. You learn to cooperate. You learn to give and take.

(Young?) Smart people tend to believe that people are logical creatures. They don't understand what drives other people. They think that they know what is best and that everybody else also think like that. Reading "On The Psychology of Military Intelligence" taught me that other people may do extremely stupid things and believe that what they do is the right thing.

Even smart people are not rational at all. A simple example from my field: It is relatively easy to prove that programmers using Ada (or any programming language that looks like Pascal) spends a lot less time looking for errors than programmers using languages that look like C. The saving is well over 50%. You will not find programmers flocking to Ada because of this. Ada is not a fun language.

[LemonCurry]

Michael | November 14, 2006 at 11:10 AM

You said: A conservative might say, "Appeasement has not worked historically."

Well over 100 million US citizens believe that appeasement is exactly the right move when dealing with the IRS. Historically, it has worked wonderfully.

That makes your statement a very silly thing to say.

A thinking conservative would have said: "Pick your enemies carefully."

[skraps]

No no, you vote for the TALLEST guy! Now that you are a titan of industry you should invite them back over to your house to brainstorm Iraq and Israel. I bet you could keep a whole mensa squad on call for cheap.

As for voting, I think there should be a reading room at each polling place where you can hang out and do research right before you vote (no talking or campaigning allowed). In fact, there should be a mandatory 15 minute waiting period before you can fire off your opinion.

[Robin Burchett]

Scott, I would be suprised if smart people were significantly less successfull than average or moderately bright people. But it is more striking and memorable when an apparently smart person is a loser. My wife, for instance, was struck by my breathtaking brilliance, and the fact that I earned $4.00 an hour as a children's entertainer. Some of us are lucky and marry normal people who get us on a path to where we can afford dental care.

When we see the relatively dim bagging groceries, it seems right and thus makes no impression.

Also, in many cases, the person has an average overall brain capacity, but it's concentrated in a way that may be impressive but not terribly useful - i.e. can remember birthday of everyone he's ever met but can't comprehend girlfriend's expectations of a present.

And MENSA? May be made up of that subset of smart people who aren't comfortable with 'normal' people and thus congregate with people who 'understand them'. I'm halfway in that camp and have chosen to mainstream myself. It turns out that there are a whole range of personality traits that make a person worth knowing aside from pure information crunching capacity.

[Leora]

So what we need, then, is a new group of intelligentsia, apart from the Mensa losers. How about some devastastingly attractive, splendsmartiful, humour-appreciating types? We could call it...Dogbert's New Ruling Class! We could take on the role of Enlightened Despot as a group, making oh-so-wise decisions for everyone. Anyone who doesn't "get" Dilbert is automatically disqualified.

I propose the first meeting at Scott's house.

[Jay.W]

Fuzznsmoo,

The analagy between stocks and votes holds, but only on the date of the IPO.

I'm just wondering if Spitzer could sue those phone-happy Republican supporters the way he sued the investment banks for providing biased investment advice.

[patience]

Scott,

James Surweicki the wisdom of crowds is a good place to start.

[None of the above]

I propose that higher IQ is only useful up to a certain point. Hence in the 100 - 120 range, above average, good workers, don't hand you bag of nails too often. 120 - 140(ish) these are the guys you need to target for voting advice. 140+ = completely useless at anything but mapping the molecular structure of haemoglobin.

Since you squeaked in, Scott, it can be inferred that you are borderline between good voting advice and unemployable.

And I think most titans of industry (and politics) are there because Daddy was. People break into that club rarely, and it's generally through exteme luck, rather than intelligence. But that's just my opinion.

[Jay.W]

Mark Thorson - "It would evolve toward an unstable, corrupt oligarchy -- the exact opposite of the society we
have today. "

Oh, I get it, because the US has a stable, corruption-free democracy.

What Neocon sponsored School of the Unfathomably Naive did you go to?

The US is a plutocracy, and always has been. Democracy is the veil the wealthy begrudgingly operate behind to pacify the potentially revolting masses.

[Norm MacDonald]

The comments here confirm my theory that everyone on the internet falls into one of these three categories:

1) People in Mensa.
2) People who could be in Mensa but are too smart to join.
3) People who are glad that they couldn't be in Mensa, because Mensans are actually very stupid.

Of course, my other theory is that Germans love David Hasselhoff.

[car free since '93]

Maybe all the practical geniuses decided they didn't see any reason to pay an entrance fee to join MENSA. So it was the impractical geniuses that ended up in the organization.

Pay to get in to MENSA? how smart is that? It's like "Who's Who in America". They invite you to be listed so they can sell you the book. Impressive.

CFS '93

[Luisa Paganini]

Interesting history on the Mensa people...I guess the fact that geniuses only make up about 2% of the population sort of proves that that's just not the best genetic combination you can have. If it were, the number of geniuses would be growing throughout the years, and it isn't. So maybe uneducated people with low IQs, being the majority of people in the world, are really our best genetical match so far. And they do multiply at an amazingly high rate, too. It's a sad point of view, I know. I wish it didn't sound so true...

Ps: I'm still not over our election results over here, so my opinions are still going around the fact lots of stupid, poor, uneducated brazilians chose, yet again, our president. :(

[RJ]

All I can say is, the polling system cannot possibly be taken seriously. I was once called to participate in a poll, and did so. I was asked tens of intricate and specific questions ranging from my opinion on welfare, to criminal justice.

Needless to say, I had not studied these topics or these specific questions, and was no way qualified to have an opinion on them, even though I consider myself a relatively smart and well-informed person.

As you say, Scott, the reason why we elect OTHER people to represent us in the government is because we all have to focus on one area of life where we become more qualified than other people to function, and thus earn a living in that area. We can't do this and at the same time be informed enough to make government-type decisions - that's why we elect politicians whose JOB it is to analyze that information and lead the way for us.

So it makes sense to judge your leader on character (I don't mean only moral character, but all aspects of ability and personality).

RJ

[cMAD]

The prerequisites for Mensa are
1. high IQ
2. nothing actually useful to do with it

I finally joined Mensa, some 18 years after it was first suggested to me, when I was sufficiently convinced that my boss would spend the resources of about 3 engineers (including one PhD) and one manager just to prove that I'm not as smart as I say I am.

This, of course, is absolutely typical of any USAmerican corporation (and the world is becoming more and more Americanized). It's not exactly typical that said boss vigorously opposes organized religion and faith-based decisions - well, as long as the employees he cares to listen to faithfully execute any half-baked whimsical idea he utters.

Well. As the Japanese are alleged to say:
"The nail that sticks out gets hammered in"

[Catbert]

Dumb people make smart decisions and vise versa? I would propose that the ability to make a decision is far better proof of genius than IQ.

Face it. The whole concept of IQ is crap. It has NO correlation to intelligence. The one thing IQ does show is that people who still think it is relevant aren't very intelligent. Sweet irony.

[Terriful]

I also agree that you must vote, Scott. Also, I hugged the Disabled American Veteran standing in front of Stater Bros. grocery store on Sunday...right before I gave him a big donation.

I believe in the ideals that founded this country...

and I believe they are still worth fighting and/or dying for...

I wear my "I VOTED" sticker with pride.

T.

[crasster]

Labels like "smart" and "intelligent" are not particularly useful, I find. I've met some really smart "dumb" people and some really dumb "smart" people. IQ tests measure narrow definitions of intelligence and, yes, while they correlate generally with success (in a western, career sense), they may not actually say alot about the relative abilities of a person.

[Fuzznsmoo]

I wonder if introducing rationality in to voting would be like introducing rationality in to picking stocks - an almost guaranteed way to lose money.

[Peter Fleming]

Never confuse intelligence with wisdom. An intelligent person can draw you the atomic structure of the rain that is falling on his head, a wise person knows to get out of the rain. The third thing that should be taken into consideration is a person's "drive" to do something. Some people are self motivated, some are lazy. This has more to do with successful people than intelligence or wisdom. Being successful in and of itself does not mean a person is a good voter, but it might make him more likely to vote. At this point I'm rambling, so I'll stop typing.

[Bob Billfour]

Last year there was a fake IQ test on the web. It asked real IQ test questions, but by the time you'd already started the test it already knew what your score was going to be; it randomized a number between 135 and 170.

It then gave you a cute image to paste into your LiveJournal to show all your friends how much smarter you are than them... except there was a trick. You, the test taker, always saw the high score you think you earned, while everybody else sees a score in the low Imbecile range, rougly 60-85. They laugh at you, sharing their scores which look high to them, and low to you. Chaos ensues. It bagged more than 30,000 people the first day.

Predictably, those most pleased with themselves actually insisted the score was LOWER than they KNOW their REAL score to be. When the joke was finally revealed, those who got tricked bristled indignantly.

There's something satisfying about pranking those who consider themselves above the rest-- by letting them demonstrate publically that they're not.

Details are at: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/IQ_Challenge

[Michael]

"As for a test before voting, I say before being allowed to vote, we should have to take the same test that an immigrant has to take in order to become a citizen."

I agree; however, I think a more accurate conclusion is that this would increase conservative turnout. Conservatives are more concerned with government history. Liberals are more concerned with current issues. This can be backed up by a quick summary. A conservative might say, "Appeasement has not worked historically." A liberal might say, "Let's give them what they want and avoid unnecessary violence."
Those with a greater interest in government history (conservatives) are more likely to pass the citizenship test.

[foo]

Interestingly enough I joined Mensa fairly recently for pretty much the same reasons. Even more interesting, my first reaction to my fellow Mensans was "god, they can be dumb for people that smart". My cynical theory is that the cleverer you are, the better you are at finding good reasons for whichever opinion you want to be. Also, if you're very bright, you won't have a lot of people around you to give you a much-needed reality check.

But maybe that's just a clever idea to explain why I sometimes do dumb things.

[Misanthropic Scott]

Firstly, I'd say that IQ is not a true indication of intelligence.

Secondly, people are often self-serving.

So, while getting the opinions of people allegedly smarter and more well informed than you may be a good exercise to arriving at a conclusion, it won't help you determine whether the solution that is best for this hypothetical individual matches your own needs.

Please Scott, vote!! And, vote your own conscience for your own self-interest. That is what it is all about.

Certainly, we also need protection for the people holding the many minority opinions, but still, vote your own conscience. Don't trust that some hypothetical smarter person knows more than you do, or even exists.

[moira perez]

i think there are several flaws in scott's idea:
1. assuming intelligence is something that "you have" as opp. to something you acquire. people with less nutritional, household and educational opportunities would not pass the "smartness" filter, due to their lack of opportunites. politics would then be reduced to middle and high class people, thus ceasing to be representative. (so much more so, since scott includes "well informed" in the requirements)
2. he is not taking into account the basic fact that there should be someone designated to decide who passes the filter and who doesn't. this person would hold a great amount of power, without there being any "cheks and balances"-type structure.
3. intelligence can be understood in many ways (as scott's Mensa story illustrates) and again, someone would have to decide which kind of intelligence (and thus which kind of people) shall be preferred. This would certainly exclude cultural minorities, which do not share the w.a.s.p. idea of intelligence.
4. i think the whole problem is in the "poll mania" that has been going on in the last few years, whereby both media and the public have come to think that quantity (percentages of people who back such and such a policy/candidate/etc) can replace quality, be it thorough analyses done by specialists, or the mere habit of each one of us sitting down to think before voting, instead of just saying "look! 60% support this candidate, let's just vote HIM". It also includes the assumption that polls are an "objective" and "scientific" way of gathering information, which is clearly not so (and "smart, well informed people" will agree with me on this one).

[Mind those beside manners!]

Interestingly, I've heard of studies that have shown many lawsuits against doctors could've been avoided had the doctors demonstrated better people skills.

[Broacher]

>>Can't stand it... have to say, "Simpsons Did It!!" Episode where the smart ppl in the city tried to run the gov't there and hilarity ensued.<<

Did you catch their 'Charlie' parody episode Tracy? Where it's revealed that Homer is actually a genius with a crayon up his nose? Once the crayola is removed, his intellect returns with disastrous social results and so he hires 'Dr. Moe' to put the crayon back.

Actually, you take the logic of that and extend it to Dilbert's garbageman-- aka the smartest man in the world. Maybe it's just that the smartest people really do prefer to appear dumb.

[CLB]

A good read today. Challenge yourself more often!

If the candidate with the best proposal is elected based just on the merits of their plan, and he/she lacks the people skills to overcome opposition, gain cooperation from both parties and implement it then nothing will change.

[Mark Thorson]

I think you misunderstand
the positive benefits that
elections have. They provide
the illusion of democracy,
while providing a mechanism
by which our government can
be corrupted by the people
who really get things done.
Without this illusion, public
contempt for the government
would be much higher, and it
would be much easier for a
revolutionary movement to get
traction in society.

Furthermore, the corruption
mechanism is cumbersome, which
slows down big changes and
makes it tough for really bad
ideas to make it through the
system.

Your vision of a government
run by a small core of smart
people would not turn out the
way you think it would.
There's no good way to
moderate the corruption of
such a group, which inevitably
leads to excesses. Lack of
the illusion of democracy
requires ruling with a firm
hand, which further stimulates
the development of a popular
feeling of ill-will toward
the government. It would
evolve toward an unstable,
corrupt oligarchy -- the exact
opposite of the society we
have today.

[max]

you are lucky. at this moment there are 135 comments. that would leave you with 2.7 (round up to three, 'cause 0.7 of a person is hard to find...) individuals that belong to de upper 2%. but I read less than half those comments and at least 10 different guys said they belonged to the upper 2%...
it seems that most "intelligent" people read your blog...

[Scott Graves]

Will tells us "Of course, as this would skew the voting base dramatically toward the left, the leaders of the right would fight it tooth and nail, especially since if the right began to educate themselves, there might be even more swing leftward."

This is an assumption that those on the left are a more intelegent base of voters. This simply is not true. They are just as likley to to be ignorant as any right wing voter. The differance being that those on the left are so self centered that they think the only things WORTH knowing are the things they know...

[Craig]

The problem is with anyone who "believes" they are smarter than everyone else. Typically, an unintelligent person will be humbled at some point in their life, and not believe they are smarter than they are. Intelligent people, on the other hand, go through life easily, and are use to winning debates and arguments. They will typically win an argument where they are wrong, simply because they are smart enough to put forth a good argument. This gives them the false belief that they were right, and they start thinking that they're always right, becoming very stubborn.

The problem is, when you are too smart, you can rationalize the irrational. You start believing every idea that gets in your head that sounds good, because you are able to rationalize it so easily. Then, when a less intelligent person than you has a better idea, and hasn't played the "rationalization game", you dismiss their idea, simply because you're "smarter", and therefore any idea you have must be better than theirs.

Intellectuals tend to not mind losing, and in fact, prefer it. They see losing in stride as something only very smart people are capable of, while all the dullards are hellbent on winning. This is why they're counter-productive in wartime. The losing side can always take solace in knowing they took the high road, rather than committing some atrocity or vicious action to win.

An intellectual, who is humble, and is willing to listen to someone who they know is dumber than them, is usually the best position to be in. This is someone who may be a brain surgeon, but knows better than to try to get in a debate with, say, an engineer about engineering. Someone who realizes that "everyone is your superior in some way, in that, you learn from them."

But the second you start believing that, because of your superior intelligence, everyone around you should automatically listen to your advice on everything, even things which they know more about, then you start becoming the bad kind of intellectual. Unfortunately, these intellectuals vastly outnumber the good kind.

Also, regarding your Mensa example, many very smart intellectuals that I've met, typically ones that sympathize with socialism and communism, believe that they should be paid simply because of how smart they are, and not because of how much work they do. I had an ex try to convince me that her home country was better, because if you got a job and had two degrees, you'd make more. Even if those degrees were Architecture and French, you should make more in the architecture field than someone who just has an architecture degree. I asked "what's the purpose of knowing French as an architect?" She insisted that because that person had more education, they automatically deserved a higher salary, regardless of the fact that the extra degree served no purpose in that job. She also believed that Buddhists float when they pray, and a few other crazy things. She had a very high IQ, breezed through college, and could easily win most debates, so pretty much any idea she got in her head stuck.

[BabyEatinDingo]

IQ tests are really only measures of the ability of an individual to take IQ tests. Depending on factors like how much sleep I've had, how much caffeine is in my system, my mood, and the specific IQ test I'm being given, I have an IQ anywhere from 140 to 195.

Does that make me a genius? Well, according to the "IQ higher than x" definition, yes, I'm a genius.

I certainly have better-than-average pattern recognition skills, and I have an affinity for mathematics (of course, those abilities also fit every "idiot savant" in the world). I read more than anyone else I know, except for a 500-plus-pound friend who doesn't do anything except read (and eat; seriously, I'm not sure he even sleeps), and work in the news media (as well as being married to a political reporter). I'm exposed to "filtered" and "unfiltered" political information in quantities that are literally mind-numbing.

So... at least in a superficial (and highly arguable) way, I'd meet the criteria of "smarter and well-informed" you're seeking.

But the idea of you (or anyone) seeking my opinion on political issues is nothing short of horrifying. I may be "smart and well-informed," but I'm also an arrogant anti-social elitist prick.

The problem with asking "smart and well-informed" people about politics isn't which way they'd recommend one should vote on any given initiative, or which candidate they'd endorse; the problem is that their motivations are no more likely to be altruistic than those of the idiotic and ignorant.

I may endorse the candidate or initiative that serves the greater good; I may endorse the one that benefits me the most personally. Or I may just decide that neither is really going to affect me in any truly important way, and endorse the one that gives the most personal amusement.

[Joe Canuck]

Like most citizens of a technologically advanced society, you make the implicit assumption that there is an isomorphism between intelligence and the real numbers. Clearly there is not. Intelligence is a vector quantity. You can map it on to real number only after making culture-specific assumptions about the relative value of component elements of the vector. (Suggested reading: Marvin Minsky's "Society of More"; Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man").

/Joe

[JShope]

Life requires constant balance.

You can focus on your intelligence and knowledge, but you handicap yourself if, in so doing, you neglect your decision-making skills and real-life experience. There are many engineers that can regurgitate the how-to knowledge that they were taught, but don't have the real-life experience to know when people aren't interested.

I want to have politicians that understand successful business and happy, healthy personal life. They don't have to be geniuses, CEOs, or full-time charity workers. Sadly, there is too much 'noise' in all the campaigning to identify the quality traits of the candidates.

Too many of politicians are power hungry, celebrity seekers. So, oftentimes we're left to choose the best of the worst. At that point, it really is a crap-shoot.

[Will Von Wizzlepig]

As for a test before voting, I say before being allowed to vote, we should have to take the same test that an immigrant has to take in order to become a citizen.

The dire consequences of not licensing car drivers, plane flyers, doctors and lawyers are obvious.

Of course, as this would skew the voting base dramatically toward the left, the leaders of the right would fight it tooth and nail, especially since if the right began to educate themselves, there might be even more swing leftward.

Actually, that's kind of scary. I kind of want the right to keep away from me.

[The Dan]

I joined Mensa for the same reason most people do- to be able to say "I got into Mensa". I actually have no idea what my IQ is, nor do I want to. It's probably not that high; I just test well.

But to the conversation about IQ vs. being a decent human... as a longtime engineer, applied scientist, and inventor, I've run into a lot of people whose intellect, creativity, or organizational skills are astounding. To be sure, we see many who are stinkers, but I would posit from my own breadth of experience that the upper middle class, at least of the technology field, is populated almost exclusively by extremely smart (high-IQ), high-functioning, well-adjusted individuals (as opposed to in-duh-viduals). With rare exceptions, my high-IQ classmates in high school and college have also done well for themselves; holding down good jobs and running reasonably non-dysfunctional households.

[michele]

I was also told by a pediatric developmental psychologist that IQ tends to go down as you get older, while emotional intelligence tends to go up. So as she gets dumber, she will probably get smarter:)

[Matt]

I think Scott's underlying question can be broken into two parts.

First: Would polls or statistical data collected only from intelligent and well informed people be particularly useful?
Second: Sould we limit decision making to said intelligent and well informed people?

I will begin by conveniently brushing aside the question of how we identify these brilliant and well informed people and how they are chosen. That could be a topic for whole posts no doubt.
To answer the first part: While data collected by intelligent and well informed people is generally much more valuable than info collected from the general population, it has some significant drawbacks. The most serious drawback is probably that the process of becoming "well informed" has great potential of limiting or at least shaping the thinking of the individual. For example, I spent eight years in the army; this arguably makes me very well informed on military affairs. However, it also has inprinted certain prejudices (such as an obscesive hatred of the AirForce). It is very hard to differenciate my "well informedness" and my "brainwashedness". But that's ok because I also graduated from Harvard which means that in addition to being well informed about everything, that I am specifically trained to recognise my own prejudices, which is good because I am sure that I picked up quite a few while at Harvard.

My point is that the process of becoming well informed also brings with it a certain ridgidity of thought. This is the prime argument against, for example taking the opinion of 90% of [fill in the blank with Generals, Doctors, Scientists, economists...] as effective truth.

All that said, I am much more inclined to value the opinions of those who make their decisions based on looking at the available data and applying logic than those people who base it on a "moral judgement". But then, that is probably the result of my upbringing and education. If my "moist robot" programing had been different, I might have a different opinion.

[Linda Leisz]

Scott, I love you. I swear I think you are the most brilliant man I have ever read.
You put too much emphasis on the whole smart, well-informed thing though. Intuition is remarkably accurate. Although I suppose I am smart (135 IQ, whatever that's worth, which is nothing) and also gifted with a fair amount of common sense. But you can over-think things and research them forever and never come up with an answer - or just go with your gut reaction.
And then, I voted . . . ;)

[Jonathan]

ROFLC (Rolling on Floor Laughing and Crying)!!!

The best part: "...Then, the horror. It turns out that the people who join Mensa and attend meetings are, on average, not successful titans of industry. They are instead – and I say this with great affection – huge losers. I was making $735 per month and I was like frickin’ Goldfinger in this crowd..."

Thanks Scott, I enjoy your posts.

Jonathan

[Dan Watkins]

Lou asks, what are smart people good for, given that the world belongs to people with 120 IQ's?

People with 120 IQ's *are* smart people - they are just not super-smart people. A 120 IQ puts you in the top ten percent of the IQ curve - I'd be happy to be in the top ten percent of anything.

Pre-1995 SAT scores have known correlations with IQ. Based on his SAT score, President Bush's IQ should be about 120. He is not by any means a dumb guy, despite what his nastier critics say. He is, though, at a level of government where the average IQ is probably 130+ (top two percent, give or take). That notwithstanding, his problems may proceed more from a certain characterological inflexibility than from IQ as such.

Dan Watkins

[dora pirate]

Is intelligence even relevant to politics. Intelligent people in different geographic areas could have entirely different opinions on an issue based on what provided the greatest utility to them at the time.

[tim wojtaszek]

Too many implied meanings are being based on what it means to be smart or intelligent. As it has been pointed out, solving logic problems, math ability, and pattern recognition and extrapolation can make someone appear smart or quick-witted. This says nothing about the other factors that influence one's thought and position on a topic. For that it takes experience, and hopefully real experience over observational experience. The example of a brain surgeon works here. Would you prefer a brain surgeon who has 15 years of operating experience, or a less experienced surgeon? This is not to exclude the fact that bias, arrogance, and prejudice often are orthogonal to intelligence.

I think of intelligence as a foundation, but it takes experience and reasoning skills along with the ability to manage choices and their consequences. I would more likely look for input from a sage than just any randomly intelligent and well-informed person. Of course, i'd like to know his past decisions to see if they reveal any prejudice or disposition that might influence him.

I would also point out that anyone who is willing to be influenced by someone else's opinion or arguments must always question what benefits that decision would have on the givers well-being? Self-serving intelligent advisers may be no better than someone else, and likely worse.

[tracy]

Can't stand it... have to say, "Simpsons Did It!!" Episode where the smart ppl in the city tried to run the gov't there and hilarity ensued. Didn't work for the same reasons people here are mentioning, including in the pizza analogy.

Hope the flu has run it's course and the Clydesdale is gone, Scott.

[Dunbar]

Someday we'll know the answers to all the questions that life throws at us. When that happens, one question shall remain: What do we do now? Maybe we dont need all the answers. Maybe we dont need lawyers too. But then do we really know?

[michele]

IQ is a poor indicator of success in our world. One also has to be able to cope with the society in which they live. One also has to have good motor skills to get around. People also have to know how to care for their appearance, how to interact with others that are different, knowing when to talk and when to listen etc. My kid has a near genius IQ, but these everyday social issues are the things we work on daily. I would speculate that Mensa has a greater proportion of highly funcioning autistics, or people with autistic tendencies than the rest of the population. Maybe that's what you were really seeing when you regarded your companions as losers. ( Next time you meet a loser genius, try looking him or her in the eye, or tell them a joke that requires some theory of mind and see if they get it. Pay attention to how close they are standing to you. It might be a good experiment.)
I'm beginning to believe that genius is more of a neurological disorder than just plain run of the mill smart. I can't tell you how many times I've wished that my precious child could lose a few IQ points in trade for greater functioning in the world.

[lsv]

People are upset that our church is having "Midnight Mass" at 10pm on Christmas Eve so I replied, "It's midnight somewhere..."
The nun I work for said, "Wow, that was a good answer."
She's really never told me that before, which only confirms my hypothesis that I AM the smartest child of my parents and 1 out of 8 isn't bad.

My real concern, how can the creator of Dogbert think he's not smart?!?! I mean it's Dogbert!!!

[passerby]

GetErDone
You mention Saddam with your comment of "if we're hit first, we hit back", um when did Saddam attack USA? Not saying I support Saddam or anything and he did do a lot of harm, just that I don't recall him ever attacking the USA. You do know that 11th Sept 2001 wasn't anything to do with Saddam at all don't you?. Bush implied (i.e. blatantly lied) that he was in order to start his illegal war in Iraq and the world knows this which is why he and by association the US is unpopular the world over.

You made a big deal of how you looked after yourself and never asked for help or relied on the govt, then say you claimed bankruptcy. Isnt that asking for legal protection from your creditors, a protection given by the government, so you did ask for help and needed government protect as well as of course stiffing your creditors of money owed to them. And if you say it was only banks that lose money with you, they just pass it on to their customers. So not only did you fail to cope you made things worse for other people.

One area I sort of agree with you on is changing the morals of a country to suit those coming in. Not all moral values are equally good or we wouldn’t need to set out morals in the first place. Unless you think the country immigrants come from has better moral culture than your own country, why would you want your morals to change to become like theirs. Given that they want away from their own country, it isn’t a great advertisement for the way their country is run. Not saying the moral stance of a country should never change because things change over time and not being religious I am suspicious of a moral code based on what people say their imaginary friend told them so there is definitely room for improvement, but the improvement should come from those in the country not recent arrivals who don’t understand the place yet.

[robert b]

Don't be naive. It's the guys that have good hair and are TALL that win elections. I remember when I saw Dennis Kucinich in a debate for the Dem nomination. One look and I knew for certain that he would not win. I have no doubt in my mind that Kucinich is smarter than Kerry, but look where his shortness got him.

[Goober]

To be learned is not to be wise. Wisdom involves the correct application of knowledge.

For my brain surgeon, I might allow some small leeway if my choices are: 1) a pompous, belittling surgeon who can't get along with the nurses but knows absolutely everything, or 2) a personable surgeon with a good bedside manner who knows almost everything. I trust that I'll get better care from #2. In fact, he would probably consult #1 if he felt it was necessary, but I doubt that #1 would consult #2.

This is the situation with the Clinton administration. Knowledge does not equal wisdom.

By the way, for those too young to know, Jimmy Carter also pronounced nuclear as "nuculur".

[Magoo]

"Your first mistake is assuming an IQ test actually measures intelligence. It, no doubt, measures SOMETHING. But would you really call whatever it measures "intelligence"?"

I believe what is measures is intelligence. what you are confusing it with is wisdom. like the blog explained having a high I.Q. does not necessarily mean you will make wise decisions. Though many intelligent people can combine wisdom and intelligence nicely.

[Terriful]

Excellent post by : jarad | November 14, 2006 at 09:19 AM

[CDriK]

Real nice. France still loves Scott.

BTW I know very well a mensa guy and can
confirm what you said.

My theory is:

When you're intelligent enough to understand
that life has no meaning in itself, you don't
have to give a meaning to your life.

You know what, I might be even more intelligent
than mensa guys because I didn't even go to
the mensa test they proposed me. ;-)

[BJ]

As a Mensan, I want to thank you for justifying the fact that I've never been to a meeting after 15 years of membership.

Did you ever think that maybe Mensans in general aren't losers, just the ones that have nothing better to do than attend the meetings and act smart?

[tim shepard]

I was thinking about joining Mensa out of curiousity,
(IQ 159 thank you very much). Then I looked at their website and discovered that Mensa was really a club for people who liked to dress up like Tolkien characters.

Anyway, one thing that always impressed me is that, supposedly, the average person has an IQ of 100, right?

Well, have you ever met someone with an IQ of 100?

That person would have to be as dumb as a post. Can you imagine that half of the population is stupider than that person? It boggles the mind.

[Bill Taylor]

You're POTUS example shoudl show you that common sense (not idiocy) is better than genius, (sine I am not one, it proves my point that I can show you this, and you didn't figure it out on your own). Reagan as no idoit, or nobody's fool. And Carter may have been a genius, but look where that got us. I suggest you do some reading before calling someone an idiot.

[Flabaya]

Yes, smart people are dumb. Because we outnumber the dumb people.

[Pat]

Your problem is that you are too smart to realize that there is no such thing as smart.

If the smartest person you know is a brain surgeon and you need so help probating a will, all that smarts doesn't do you much good. So you find the "new" smartest guy who's a wiz at law, but you need the engine in your car fixed. That lawyer doesn't help you much. So you get a new "smart" mechanic just before you realize that you have a problem at your restaurant.

You can rely on one opinion within their field, but maybe not outside of it. When talking auto mechanics, a brain surgeon is just out of his league.

You have grossly limited your concept of intelligence, probably because you're an engineering-type person. Engineers are the round peg or the round holes of academia. But the world is made up of square holes.

Here's a thought for you. If you take the "big 3" of high school: grades, athletics, and personal skills; you will find many girls who are validictorian, class president and captain of a sports team. Girls master all 3. You will seldon find a boy who can master all three, but lots master 2 of the 3. Ever wonder why?

An interesting read might be some of Dr. Mel Levine's work at www.allkindsofminds.org

Open up your definition of "intelligence" and see a different world.

[Ruby]

I feel I have to add my comment here, but duck as I do it. I have tested out at Mensa and passed, but declined membership. Why? I just wanted to know where I stood I guess and it's refreshing to know I am there. But... in most of the jobs I have held, my coworkers would seek my opinion on things. I would hold back for a bit as I know where this always lands me. Eventually I would give my informed opinion. (I am one of the rare beings in the US that have common sense...) So I form my opinions on knowledge balanced with an outlook that carrys over to real life as they call it. Usually by the second month I am labeled as a bit of a know it all. So, here we have the undereducated, led by the emotional idiots calling me a know it all.

So, here we have a hateful, war torn world full of people who didn't pass the test... who wish to just say...

Stay the Course...

Git er Done

Yee haw! Kill em all...damn ragheads anyways...

I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut most times, just not right now...

[Terriful]

Wow, what a good post and something I've wondered about my entire life.

My father has his doctorate in education. God love him, he is the DUMBEST man I've ever known as far as real life.

My husband worked at NCAR in Boulder, CO while in college. It gets frigging cold there in the winter! But scientists would come in without their coats. Someone was hired to remind them to go to the BATHROOM for goodness sake.

Look at the voting results, specifically, eminent domain..

Do these people not own property? Do they all work for the government? Or where they too stupid to realize that voting YES on eminent domain gives land owners the right to sue the government for fair market value?

I could go on and on and on......

But I won't.
Terrie aka terriful

[Jedi Kevin]

I've said for years that smart people often out-smart themselves.

[brem]

Also, I've always wanted to become a member of Mensa, but I never scored too well on IQ tests. I'm not dumb, but I'm not fast at answering questions, which is penalising.

Anyhoo... Since the criteria for entering Mensa is to score in the upper 2% of a local group, how about I do a test with a bunch of republicans? Then I'd be sure to score higher than most of them. And it would furthermore corroborate the assertion than republicans are dumb. (I can't say dumb-asses... that wouldn't be appropriate)

[Trauma Advocate]

It seems to me that all the smartest people simply do not vote for that reason. The smartest people are the ones that understand the issues are way over their heads. I am guilty of this as well. But as I've come to realize, as little as you know, you would STILL be able to make a relatively good decision, because you have a working brain. If I ever get around to registering, I'm probably going to end up voting as well, despite my complete lack of factual knowledge about the candidates. Value judgements are easier to make about people like that then you realize.

[dean]

What we need are the people who ace this test...

http://community.sparknotes.com/untelligence/

[RogerTheShrubber]

My father had a 185 IQ but was not someone you'd ask for advice. He was great at his work, especially streamlining paperwork, but a disaster at negotiating. At my summer job in the labor pool at the same place, I was making more than he was as the General Supervisor of General Accounting. He worked in business but had no business sense.

If you pay good attention you will notice that people who prove smart in some areas are idiots in other areas. They tend to hide their weak suits, naturally. You find out by testing them.

Emotional intelligence, so to speak, can give someone advantages, as they should be better at making friends, avoiding making enemies, and manipulating people in general. However, it gives no advantage in mathematics, physics, or general knowledge. You don't need it to ride a bicycle, dodge one, assemble one, or fix one.

BTW, why haven't bright people noticed that IQ is not a quotient? Originally it was 100 times the quotient of the mental age divided by the physical age, and thus an index of a quotient and not a quotient itself. Now it's a delusion shared by the masses, since its definition has to be repeatedly revised and adjusted to make it seem statistically normal while it continually acts otherwise.

[Joshua Jacobsen]

I think that the definition of intelligence has changed considerably since the original IQ tests were created. Intelligence was once considered a potential for success and achievement, which is what IQ tests were meant to measure. Unless I have faulty information, IQ measures were meant to guide resource allocation toward people who would make the best use of an education.

Today, we have puzzle-oriented measures of intelligence rather than achievement-oriented measures of intelligence.... which kinda makes the concept of intelligence less useful.

[who said that]

I know nothing - I don't want to know anything - with an empty mind comes understanding and true intelligence. And that is not something I "know" - it is just something that is.
Then you don't make a choice based on "available information", which is merely a collection of ideas anyway - you just Know - as opposed to know - and you don't have to think about it.

[Lynn]

I would love not to explain everything twice.
I would love not to explain everything twice.

[brem]

There is a guy at work, who is 10x more intelligent than me, but whose ability to express thoughts and social interactions are nil. Not next to nil, nil.

[brem]

So according to your assertion, you are a genius who is not dumb. You must then be amongst the 2% of the 2%. Henceforth you are really in the elite sub-group of the 0.04%.

Assuming only 2% of the geniuses are not dumb. Which seems a fair margin if I follow your thoughts.

[Lou P.]

Having a high intelligent quotient, and being adept at dealing with people and handling social situations, are two very different things.

As for the polling question, I concur that those with higher IQs (and likely a higher education) would be less likely to make statements based on wild, sweeping generalizations.

But, ultimately, as the great Hugh Hufner once said, "We are separated by our myths."

[adorita]

You got that right! I'm a smart loser too. This is a curse. (My mom thinks that's why I'm still single at 29)

With 138 IQ, I only make $800 a week and live with my parents. My less intelligent friends went to get their masters at Harvard or Yale. They now work for major firms with 3 times the paid, while I sit around all depressed.

I think people with higher IQ are more likely to procastinate. We get too much information and can't make decisions.

I heard that the world belongs to people with 120 IQ. So what are smart people good for?

[John Bonus]

Why do you seem to imply that it is necessary to have a liberal bias to be smart and well informed? That attitude is neither smart nor well informed.

[jarad]

Ok, I don't want to change the subject but, well...I do. This excerpt posted by the name of E
There have been a lot of smart people in history that were, well, evil. Not all of them were crazy or sociopaths... some of them were just mean. Not to bring out the tired metaphor for all things evil - but there were a lot of smart Nazis floating around in the '40s.
Everyone get out your clubs and be ready cause you will not like what I have to say in this post.
Was Hitler really evil. now before you go swinging that club at me really look at the situation. Germany was falling to peices and Hitler took the country from desolation to world powerhouse...how big is Germany. Hitler was brilliant, he has the highest Oratory score ever and was able to accomplish in a couple years practically world dominance.
Now look at lets say Osama Bin Laden. He is obviously a pretty smart guy who has been able to elude the intelligence agencies around the world and continue to blow up pretty much whatever he wants. Change world policies and general everyday decissions by people with a few of his actions.
Now look at the USA over the last couple decades...Lets start in Vietnam, then Cuba, hell lets look at Afghanistan and Iraq. The US goes in with the big heavy hand and demands changes, using military enforcement...you could say that they have done the same thing as other powers in the world past and present.
ok, now to my point. Is evil not just a matter of perspective, does Osama not think that the US is evil, does that make them evil. I don't think so.
now to my own personal belief. Hitler was not originally looking to world domination when he started his turn around of Germany. I could be wrong but, he seems to smart for what turned out to actually plan from the start his actions. I believe that he was looking to turn the German economy around, war has proven over and over to be a great economic benefit to countries. Only when the power of his position got the better of his intelligence did he take his original plan further. again only my stupid idea. And it would explain why he felt that splitting his army in 2 and attacking on two fronts would work. Power and the human drive warped his judgement and he made a mistake...I would also like to add that I am thankfull that we are not living under Nazi rule, but, I do think it is interesting to look at histories makers and analyze the actions in an unbiased light...
Evil, a point of view or an absolute?

[Jim]

Oh and this "smart people have no common sense" is just wrong. Most stupid people I have met had none either, it was just harder to spot under the layers of pure ignorance.

[Ben Bateman]

1. Large numbers of dumb people have more experience, raw information, and varied perspectives than small numbers of smart people.

2. Hasn't somebody already tried to let only the smart people run the country? Like in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, etc.? It hasn't worked out too well.

3. Political problems (and in fact most of life's problems) aren't intellectual problems. Our failure to solve them is not due to a lack of intelligence or information. For most problems, everyone knows what the solution is. The tough part is finding enough people who have the determination and willpower to actually carry out the solution.

Consider obesity, or addiction, or poor social skills, or not getting enough sleep. Everyone agrees that these are problems, and everyone knows what the solutions are. Yet somehow these problems don't get solved. Fat smart people have at least as much trouble losing weight as fat dumb people. Maybe more.

It’s the same in politics. Iran is about to complete a nuclear weapon that it will probably use to destroy Israel. I hope that just about everyone agrees that this is a bad thing. And if we agree that it’s a bad thing, then the only real solution involves credible threats of military invasion. But all the smart people think that’s much too scary. So they insist that we can’t do what we obviously have to do, not because there’s any intellectual reason for inaction, but because they can’t emotionally handle making a big decision and enduring the consequences. Smart people always want to believe that their intelligence will save them from all discomfort and inconvenience. So they waste all their time and energy looking for magic solutions, instead of accepting that life sucks and plowing ahead with the least-bad of the available options.

[Jed Snole]

Consider the Marines' slogan "We're looking for a few good men." Sexism issues aside, this probably was a lot more true than they would have been willing to admit. The armed services are looking for a *FEW* people who are quick thinkers, good decision makers, effective leaders, and a lot of people who will just carry out orders but not get any ideas of their own. With decades of experience, they've figured this out. If everyone in the army was an intellectual powerhouse, they'd have major problems. They need the right mix of people who will make a well thought out decision, people who will make a quick bold decision, and people who will just carry out orders.

[Jim]

Did you not ever think that, regardless of IQ, a proportion of any group of people are misfits, underachievers or lonely and these are the people that came to your Mensa meetings? The smart, popular, ones were too busy out making money, spending it or having a good time to care about you.

Likewise regarding groups of smart people. The GWB government, like most governments in the West, is a failure as it is a group of dimwits lead by an idiot.

I work for a financial organisation. It’s filled with smart people. I thought I was clever (IQ 149, PhD) until I got here. I am merely average here. We make a huge pile of money every year through the combined intellectual effort of smart people.

[Jim]

Did you not ever think that, regardless of IQ, a proportion of any group of people are misfits, underachievers or lonely and these are the people that came to your Mensa meetings? The smart, popular, ones were too busy out

[Howard Leamon]

Following on from other comments, IQ tests (similar to tests taken by job interviewees, which are clearly IQ test based) certainly measure how capable you are at performing IQ tests. Nothing more. It's just another measure by which a group can pigeon-hole you. I strongly suspect that smart people who get on and earn are probably smart enough to realise that Mensa membership isn't really worth the plastic their membership card is printed on and wastes their time, preventing them from generating more money.

In short: you're smart, well done. Now prove it by getting a job and earning some money.

As an extra to all of this, titans of industry are littered with people who are clearly brilliant but don't have any high class formal qualifications because they were too busy being brilliant and earning money to consider wasting time getting a degree.

Richard Branson is a pretty good example. I'm sure Bill Gates dropped out, too, to further the fledgling Microsoft. Whatever you care to think about their actual products on a personal basis, both those men are fabulously rich because they're brilliant.

The best example I can think of as someone who was academically brilliant as well as a titan of industry is Lee Iacocca.

I have no idea how this really meets with American politics or the intelligence of the voting populace, just that brilliant ideas that actually work need only come from brilliant people (even if it's only spontaneously brilliant), rather than someone with a membership card.

[Mark]

You know, I'm not sure what I think. Scott, what do you think I should think?

[Mitch]

I think the trouble is in defining intelligence. I personally believe that real intelligence is in knowing the extent of ones ignorance. I am fairly bright in the areas of math and science (I am a Chemical Engineer), but I can not take care of any accounting matters to save my life. I think that people should stick to what they are good at. There are people who are able to see both sides of an issue or are good judges of character, or are able to forsee the effects of actions. People who are able to demonstrate these ablilites should be able to vote. Just because you do good on an IQ test doesn't mean that you can make good political decisions.

[Hovig]

I've heard a car salesman say it's easier to sell cars to smarter people because they have more imagination, and can be intellectually manipulated. They think about what "could be" or "should be" rather than what already is.

Intelligent people often compromise their intelligence by engaging in wishful or ideological thinking. Many people do not look at evidence when they make decisions, they decide what "seems right," or "should be right," or even what "would be" the best answer.

Intelligent people also often think they know better than the simple facts. They say things like "if only," or they make simplifying assumptions. For example, "we could solve world hunger if people would only stop eating so much." Nice idea, but unrealistic.

My sister has an expression: "Would, could, should." That's her way of saying someone is engaging in a flight of fancy, or making unrealistic assumptions.

[Charles Jolley]

How you would go about figuring out how is the smartest and best informed on a particular topic so that we can all listen to them? Doing it on a topic-by-topic basis seems like a better way to get good results rather than some general measure like IQ.

[neolifeforever]

"We know that I.Q. correlates with income..."

Really?

I'll take that on.

To Prove: IQ (knowledge) is inversely proportional to
income (money)

Given (axioms): Knowledge is Power
Time is Money

Proof:
We know,

Power = Work / time

Therefore,

Knowledge = Work / Money

As Work is a constant,

Knowledge = 1 / Money

Therefore,
Knowledge is inversely proportional to Money earned.
That is, the smarter you are, the poorer your likely to be, and the dumber you are the more money you have to blow around.

I think that explains some of your 'titans of industry' right there, not-to-mention the straggling poets and single-input-coffee-handlers.

I don’t know what else this proves (besides that I have way too much free time on my hands), but it must be something.

neolifeforever (IQ = 152, pretty doomed I'd say)

[techguy]

"If you're in Sacramento tonight *(12/14)*, the Sacramensans are having a dine-in at Los Jarritos on Broadway at 6:00. Good, cheap, food. We'll be easy to spot.

Posted by: JayBob | *November 14*, 2006 at 07:45 AM"

Mensa, in a nutshell.

[Brad Gardner]

You know IQ tests are only supposed to be able to signal whether you're an idiot, not whether you're a genius. The guy who invented them back in the 19th century publicly said that "this is for finding retards, not geniuses" (I'm not sure if those were his exact words.

Anyways, it seems your doing a funny comparision of people who do things because it feels right, and people who know alot of trivial information. You seem to be forgetting that catagory of people with critical reasoning skills. You know, people, who when given x amount of data can compare costs and benefits of certain actions. Unfortunatly there is no test you can take to prove you have critical reasoning skills, since no test gives you a large catalogue of variable information, and then asks you to make decisions about it (they usually give you a small catalogue of invariable information, since variable information tends to produce "no right answer). The only test that I might think would approximate is.... grades at a 4 year University? A master's degree? You know, that type of stuff.

[John Smith]

The biggest problem in politics isn't the smart or dumb people who have opinions - it's the dumb people who think they have 'facts'. A few years ago, a Guardian/ICM (both respected newspaper and polling org) poll found that 25% of British voters didn't know we were an EU member state, 15% 'knew' the USA was one, and 33% thought Norway was. If you can come up with a smart argument against the EU (not that there are any that aren't based on xenophobia), I'll listen - but our political process cannot possibly make positive steps forward, because the debate is so fundamentally misinformed. IQ be damned - the truly dumb people are those who insist their opinion is right, when the basic facts upon which the opinions are based are all wrong.

[rockbert]

It's not the voters that are the problem, it's the candidates. It doesn't mater how smart you are if you're choosing between buffoon #1 and buffoon #2.
So Scott, your mission is clear: Get that hair weave and RUN!!!

[Graham Robinson]

MENSA - the society for people with a "genius level IQ" but too dumb to realise that IQ tests measure educational attainment, not intelligence.

Clues that IQ tests are meaningless :

1. You can improve your IQ through study.

2. IQ has a strong cultural bias.

3. IQ tests were originally developed to test how young children would perform at later school exams.

Cheers,
Graham

[basselope]

"Intelligent", "Smart", "Stupid"... these are all dangerous concepts when used willy-nilly. Any person's level of competence is directly related to the situation in which that competence is being measured. Jake from the Ozarks is going to look pretty sad on Wall street, while Trader Rick wouldn’t last two days back in Jakes stompin’ grounds.

I see the same sorts of issues in the political world, and I really must disagree with you, Scott, that character has little to do with ballot propositions. In much the same way that the people of the U.S.A. generally trusted President Bush to “Do the right thing” when he was given the power to take this country to war, we all – even if subconsciously – tend to consider the consequences of passing or failing a given proposition (i.e. How is Uncle Sam going to help/screw me this time?!?)

The character of the writer of the proposition affects its ability to used and/or misused. The character of the voters (informed, anti-government, Conspiracy nut, etc) affects the propositions survival. The character of those implementing said proposal affects us all. So, we’re all in this together and, frankly, should be. The idea of a beautifully crafted society being taken over by some educated idiot scares the hell out of me. The kind of Bonehead that trumps up some flowery rhetoric and sets out to slay a few of his neighbors with God on his side is something that should be avoided at all costs. There have been more atrocities performed in the name of “Goodness” than you can shake a proposition at.

Okay, that may seem a bit extreme, but the logic flows right down to the local level as well. It wasn’t all that long ago that the (locally) intelligent, well informed Titans were running the show in the southern U.S. states. People, good people, lost their lives for no other reason than flowery rhetoric and “Goodness”.

And, by the way, I’m no genius… so take all of this with a grain of salt. (grin)

[canajian]

Political polls are not there to seek the best decisions, they are to seek the popular decisions, not decisions that smart people will make.

However, I wonder if it was a choice between A and B, and all the smart people choose A, would B be the most popular decision ? That way we can reduce the population size by quite a bit and improve the accuracy of the poll by only sampling the smart ones.

[Dan J]

It really bothers me that someone would use a fictional story to prove a point. What does it prove other than the author's imagination? I'm refering to JD's post at 7:20 am, for those interested.

Dan J

[Paul]

Intelligence is extremely relative. The human brain is finite, and can only hold a finite amount of knowledge and wisdom. That much being said, some people could be ridiculously intelligent and still forget what day of the week it is. I believe that most of the people in Mensa have wasted their precious brain cells on the wrong knowledge.

[Tom Foster]

I read an interesting theory a while back. I went something like this.

Very intelligent people often seem socially maladjusted and lacking in common sense.

Both social adjustment and "common sense" are introduced to us at relatively early ages, and develop mostly between the ages of 7-21.

Social "adjustment" doesn't usually mean adjustment to society at large, which is too big and complex for anyone person to encompass in it's entirety. But rather to a subgroup that is small enough to comprehend but generic enough to be applicable to most social interactions.

After 21 anyone without common sense is never likely to develop it. Likewise anyone who is socially mal-adjusted is never likely to be otherwise; anyone who has "adjusted" to a particularly fringe mentality is unlikely to be able to adjust to a more generic one.

People who are have particularly high IQs generally experience unusually high levels of social alienation from the main social body at school (ie between the ages of 7 and 21) and are therefore particularly likely to adjust to no group, or a fringe group. This then carries on into adult life.

The alienation is not, therefore, a regularly re-newed condition, the result of a prima facie inability of hi IQ 35 year olds to get on with other 35 year olds, but rather a stagnant continuation of a condition established early on.

But don't ask me to specify the source of that theory. (I made it up - bet it's true though!)

T

[James]

So what was your IQ?

[Amethyst]

I doubt IQ actually measures intelligence. Rather, it seems to measure what you already know, not your ability to learn new things.

Not to mention, as you yourself have found out, that a person can have all the book knowledge in the world but no social skills whatsoever. I think that's actually a symptom of Asperger's syndrome, which is seen in a lot of people with high IQs. Einstein reportedly had that, as I recall reading.

[RPK]

I remember being in a weekly office football pool and seeing the so-called 'smart' guys and 'experts' get beat by people who knew nothing about football.

Some of these guys knew all the injury reports of each team, the weather reports for the day of game at every stadium, and what the quarterback's paperboy had for breakfast that day, and used all this information to make intelligent, well thought out decisions as to which teams to choose.

Then there were others who picked their teams at random, or even worse, using really bizarre criteria:

'That teams uniforms are much prettier, I'll pick them.'

'Lions are much stronger than any bird, so Detroit should beat Arizona.'

'Miami has a nicer climate than Buffalo, especially in December, so I want Miami to win.'

Need I tell you which people won more?

Being informed and intelligent on any subject does not mean you can perform well in that area.

Don't be surprised if the next round of NFL coaches that are hired includes some middle-aged secretaries with good color sense for the uniforms.

[Erich]

Scott,

I’ve had some 30-40 odd jobs, I’m an artist (landscapes in oil) and I too seem to have a hard time in life. Though I’ve never taken the Mensa test, I looked into it and it seemed like a dating service for smart people. I’m already married and joining them might be a bad idea. I’ve taken other IQ tests and didn’t do too bad.

Like you, I find it hard to work for dumb people. I always thought I was the dumb person for not being able to do some simple things that a boss was asking, mostly because I thought it was stupid to be doing what they were asking. “Why are we doing it like this, there’s a better way if we just…….” “You’re fired.” Or, I’d be at a job where I was sitting there thinking “why in the hell am I wasting my life doing THIS right now” “I Quit”

I’m imagining you being in the same shoes, but a much better employee than I am, which over the years built up this fantastic cynicism of yours. It was like job training for cartoonists.

Anyway, in response to your post, our government was designed really well with all the good intentions, back when a Man had integrity. Over the years, greedy people have bastardized the system and dumb people have led us in to misguided territory. Democracy is still a wonderful thing but in order to ensure it’s survival, a few key changes need to take place. Over on my Blog, I often put down in writing several ideas to help make government work better and like you, I often take a stroll down fantasyland where I’m the President. Sometimes the Bill/Monica one, sometimes not.

The only good thing to come from the Bush Administration is that hopefully it will spark a paradigm shift in how we view politicians and some young people will want to rise to presidency to undo the last 6 (to 8) years of stupidity.

www.erichblog.com

[Dave Wright]

As I am both smarter than you, and better informed, I can confidently make the following statement. You are mostly full of crap, but funny and interesting.

[Kevin]

1. Smart people like "novel theories". There have been studies [wave hands] that show that talking heads on news shows are very poor at predictions, and the conclusion is that they avoid boring, normal sounding ideas even when those are the best bets.

2. Democracy has a great function of teaching people about government -- the hard way. It also prevents revolutions by insuring that its easier to vote the bums out. But see also 3.

3. Smart people like to understand things. But much of life consists of things we simply can't understand. In these cases, it's better to go with things that work as shown by experience. We call these things morality and tradition.

4. Being smart is of tiny utility in the short term compared to actually knowing things. So smart people think they know more than they do. Heart surgeons think they understand politics. Economists think they understand psychology.

In cases where an 'average' would take his stockbroker's advice, a smart person might think they know better. (Once in a while they do.)

5. Smart people want to belong to the 'smart crowd'. The social friction between smarts and nonsmarts causes smart people to do things that are ultimately silly because they don't want to look like nonsmarts. When the nonsmarts have the right solution, smart people feel a need to do something else to distinguish themself.

Summary:

Smart people are like gold prospectors, nonsmarts are like coal miners. Coal miners usually make a decent living (nowadays). But gold prospectors don't make any money (usually).

Each type needs the other, but don't buy the map to a goal mine from a dirt poor genius. And don't vote for someone who advocates a system that is already failing in some other country.

"But coal mining is so .... boring."

As an engineer, my suggestion is to go with things that work. Don't show me an engine blueprint, show me a running engine.

Democracy, Judeo-Christian culture, capitalism, freedom, morality, are like working engines. Each is too complex to understand but quite popular with 'average' folk.

Arguments about existentialism, socialism, etc. are for art majors -- in real life, go with the country that wants to build a wall to keep people out (USA), not to keep them in (USSR).

Kevin

[Paul Wright]

Scott,

BTW the short story is by Asimov. Title was "More than Human" or something similar.
Couple of anecdotes - my old Astrophysics Professor was brilliant, but hopeless in the bank - he could only deal with numbers that were orders of magnitude, not the rather specific numbers you need to write a cheque.
Secondly, I used to work for a company that employed lots of smart people. Loads of them. Not enough people to actually do things though, so we paid PhDs megabucks to do experiments that could have been done by a trained monkey. Literally. And then the company imploded because all these smart people were focussed on internal politics rather than making money.
My wife keeps telling me she is not as smart as me or my old colleagues, but she is the smartest person at her company. Which is focussed on making money. Guess who is the most successful of the two of us?

Final thing - I've got a PhD in physics, which doesn't make me a rocket scientist though I guess I do have the qualifications to be an astronaut. Funnily enough because most people find physics difficult, they think I am smarter than other people with the same level of qualifications. I can't speak German - though I've tried on and off for 20 years. I don't think that therefore all Germans are smarter than me.

There are different types of smart, guys.

[Playtah]

Scott, you said in the forward of your "Don't Stand Where The Comet Is Assumed To Strike Oil" that our "knowledge" basically boils down to this: someone you don't know told you something was true.

I think that's true, but ironically, I don't know you. Wanna come to Michigan and have coffee?

--Playtah

[techguy]

I've had similar experiences at Mensa meetings; I guess they are the same everywhere. In fact, my son got shivved by a fellow Mensa teen. Which brings me to my point, namely, that geeks have no social skills because no one demands that of them. Because they are found to be "smart" at an early age, and able to do math better than anyone else, it is assumed that whatever else they do will be fine. Teachers love the genuis kids, because to keep them occupied, they just throw them another puzzle, like fresh meat for a tiger. The genuis kids' expertise is eventually valued by the dumb kids, so they don't get beat up as much. Thus, into the workplace, the geeks can behave in all sorts of socially unacceptable ways because the rest of the company requires their servicres. Meanwhile, the geeks themselves don't need a lot of friends because they can occupy themselves for hours. All of this adds up to a loner profile, but not necessarily good at policy decisions.

[laura]

I am a clinical psychologist and a neurocognitive specialist. I don't think that I have all the answers regarding this IQ, intelligence issue, but I do know that there are many different kinds of "intelligence". We are used to think that a Nobel Price in physics is smarter than a farmer who knows everything about the harvest, and the seeds, and so on. Nobody said that intelligence and the ability to function correctly in your life are correlated. Maybe you can solve a puzzle in two seconds but you can't do your grocery list.
I would say that if you want to vote and take responsibility for your decission you have to be informed, but I don't know if I would also say that you have to be super smart to be informed, to be responsible and to decide on your candidate.

[Doryen]

Here's an example of superstition and intuition being a better policy than intelligence and awareness. My office has a weekly football pool. My direct supervisor is a HUGE football fan. He knows stats, he knows players, all the teams, everything. I, on the other hand, know nothing at all. Every week we go toe to toe. My picks are based solely on how I feel about any certain team versus another when I get the game sheet every Tuesday. I'd say about 50 to 75 percent of the time my picks are better than his (even if it's only by one or two games in a given week). He knows all the stats and I know absolutely nothing about football...I can't even catch one. My point is, maybe having all the knowledge and awareness about a specific issue hinders your ability to make decisions on a larger scale? What about the information you don't have? Like the factors that don't appear in stat sheets (emotional state of the players, desire to win, weather in a given state where a game might be playing, acts of god, luck, etc...) If you know too much you can't take action because you have to consider too many factors, and you might end up making a decision based on one specific factor or making a big deal about an issue that isn't a real issue anyway.

[Mikester]

IQ tests only measure one thing and one thing only!!

It measures how good are you at doing IQ tests!!!

The smartest person in the world may not score the highest as they think too much outside the box - they selected the circle not the box.....

[drunk flux]

IQ tests are a falicy, they only measure the ability to assimalate information. That ability changes as we get older. That is you can test at 140 when you're 12 and at 40 you will most likely test at 135. Lots of things affect this such as age, stress, enviorment and disease for example and IQ tests don't take that into consideration. They don't take into consideration that dyslexic and ADHD people usually fall into the top 2% but almost always fail at taking tests. So they are not only biased but they are a sham.

And as far as degrees go well, all they tell you is that they passed the class, not if the got an A or D. If they learned the information or cheated off their neighbor. It doesn't even tell you if they are good at the job. Simply that they passed the class.

Any child with a high intrest in math can be the next Bobby Fischer if trained from childhood to be only that just like Bobby and they will be crazy and unable to function in society just like Bobby.

[webar]

IQ tests typically measure certain very quantifiable abilities. Pattern identification, memory, linear thinking and problem solving are some examples of abilities that get roughly bundled together and called 'intelligence'.

Are any of these abilities likely to make me a better voter? Well, yes.

For example, I have a very good memory of events. Years later, I can remember specific assertions that elected officials made.

I can also use my pattern and reasoning abilities to project forward to likely future effects. The case for a war in Iraq looked like a domestic and foreign disaster to me before it ever came to a vote in Congress.

'Course being able to see the future does not endear me to my neighbors, who perceive my pessimism as a failure of patriotic support, bordering on treason. Sometimes it's hard to be part of an intellectual minority.

:-)

p.s. BTW, it's ironic how many Mensans want to distinguish themselves from those "other" pathetic losers that have more brains than social skills. Get a clue. High functioning and mature adults don't need to disparage others to build themselves up.

[Pete]

I think you're trying to combine two things into one.

The system was designed for political candidates to represent their constituencies, not try to convince their constituency that their ideas were better than the other guy. Neither happens now since all candidates do is try to convince contituents that the other candidates ideas are bad.

Success in politics has nothing to do with better ideas. It has to do with popular ideas. It's book smarts vs. street smarts and street smarts usually win in politics. Smart people who try to sound smart lose because they come-off as condescending. Unless the study you propose is limited to smart people who are smart enough to scrap their better idea for the average, yet popular, idea your results will be misleading.

[CJ-in-Weld]

Smart people aren't dumb. Rather, dumb people console themselves with myths such as "IQ tests don't really measure intelligence," or "smart people have no common sense." It feels warmer and fuzzier to think that where the universe gives, it also takes. Sadly, the universe is not that fair.

The idea that IQ tests don't measure intelligence comes from the occasional high-IQ person with a lot of test anxiety. But there are dumb people who underperform on IQ tests too; it's a wash. The idea that smart people have no common sense comes from confusing native intelligence with academic, intellectual habits that impair one's ability to act decisively.

Nevertheless, IQ is the best single predictor of performance, in all walks of life. The smartest burger flippers on average outperform the dumber burger flippers. The smartest professors on average outperform the dumber professors.

[josephdietrich]

It's pretty obvious that general intelligence is only one variable of many in life success. In terms of psychology, personality traits also clearly play a role. As an example, of the Big Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits), a high score in Conscientiousness is something that is almost certainly required for success, yet it is something that is often ignored by those who cite intelligence as the most important factor in predicting future life performance.

Then you throw in a bunch of other variables, like where you were born, into what family you were born, what the rest of the world was like when you grew up, and so on and it becomes self-evident pretty quickly that there is not any one overriding factor that can predict whether one is a success in life or not. There are many, many ways in which one can become a captain of industry.

At the end of the day, it seems like common sense to say that a high IQ can give you a leg up in life, all other things being equal.

But never in life are all other things equal.

Re: Mensa -- it seems to me that a person who spends the time and energy to be really involved in Mensa is someone who doesn't otherwise have enough to do with their life. Which right there is indicative that they are not going to be incredibly successful.

[kurt]

I do not believe that the important issues facing our nation are difficult to understand. I don't think it would take a genius to make progress on them. Quality of character and strength of leadership would be far more important than I.Q. for this task.

I do think that entrenched interests have much to do with our problems. I do think that it would take a lifetime of service, struggle, and soul-sucking compromise to maneuver yourself into a position to do good. Most good people have better things to do with their lives than risk losing their soul on the chance that they might eventually get to a position where they can help an ungrateful world. These folks almost never become our leaders, except by accident.

The entrenched interests have a pretty strong grip on things right now. So we get presidents that are prostitutes, not patriots. [Ooh, that's so alliterative, I even impress myself] Ah, but comes the Revolution...No wait, that just means a few years of bloodshed, followed by more of the same.

I think people, acting in their millions, make collectively rational choices amongst the candidates presented to them. But they are in the position of chosing the lesser of two evils, rather than the right man (perhaps eventually person) for the job.

And even in their millions, the people can be mistaken. But in their millions, they admit their mistakes at the polls, and change the course of nations. Sometimes dramatically.

[kromagon]

Bob Metcalf (the founder of 3Com and inventor of Ethernet) tells a story about when he was in college. There was a guy in his frat that was so smart, that by the time Bob roled out of bed on Sunday morning, the guy was done with the NY Times crossword puzzle. Bob knew that he would never be as smart as that guy. Since Bob was always second best, he pushed himself, and he became insanely wealthy.

The super-smart guy wound up getting a job in a lab somewhere, and lives on a farm, and he never got rich, but he didn't care- since he knew that he was smarter than everbody else, he didn't feel the need to acheive great things.

With the possible exception of Bill Gates, I think you will find that all of the most successful people grew up second best at something fundamental, and that's what motivates them to acheive.

[JohnAnnArbor]

Your first mistake is assuming an IQ test actually measures intelligence. It, no doubt, measures SOMETHING. But would you really call whatever it measures "intelligence"?

[Jack]

There's a calvin and hobbes cartoon (i wish i could remember the date) in which Calvin is transported into a cubist universe, and can see every aspect of every object. "I'm paralysed by being able to see every aspect of an issue!" he laments. Smart people often feel that way. Smart people, therefore, often don't make bold statements in opinion polls. Bold, polarised opinions are usually reserved for beligerent airheads...
It seems to me that any proposition made by a human being who isn't insane or medically retarded is likely to be based on at least a degree of either logic or, perhaps less justifiably but no less understandably, emotion. Smart folk can pick up on the logic of a proposition, if there's any to be had, and becuase smart people are usually quite at home with sympathy or empathy, can also pick up on the emotional content of a proposition as well. In political matters, even opposing arguments will usually have some merit, (barring absurd and nasty suggestions made by members of the BNP) and it's difficult to form an opinion in support of one side or another. It's the smart person's curse to be hopelessly able to see the other guy's point of view.

[E]

Scott,

I hear what you're saying, but in terms of decision making or opinions about policy I'm not sure I would equate 'wisdom' with intelligence and good information.

There is at least one other component (that is harder to describe) to good decision making that I'm convinced is real. There is something like a moral component to wisdom (and perhaps an emotional one as well.)

There have been a lot of smart people in history that were, well, evil. Not all of them were crazy or sociopaths... some of them were just mean. Not to bring out the tired metaphor for all things evil - but there were a lot of smart Nazis floating around in the '40s.

Additionally, we've all met people who were brilliant in terms of mental gymnastic ability who fit your Mensa group description to a tee. Intellect just can not be the only piece of this puzzle.

Nazis, evil scientists with large heads and floundering smart people who seem a bit like Gilligan aside, I'm still not sure even virtuous, well informed intelligence is a guarantee for success.

I think Carter was and is a genuinely good man. Habitat for Humanity is a nice move on pretty much anybody's scorecard. There was something about him that made him less effective as a leader than Reagan and I think most people would agree, even if they disliked Reagan and what he stood for related to policy stuff.

Is it possible that there is another quality of personality or reasoning that is something of a key ingredient in this regard? Or perhaps a balanced combination of several factors that really hit the sweet spot somehow?

I don't know what that would be.

[Pete R.]

Smart people usually screw things up for everyone. The only thing worse is smart people with good intentions. People need to be free and stupid. You seem to be defining “smart people” as people with whom you already agree, but who have some official recognition as experts.

[XjeaxaxX]

I think you were on to something when you referenced the military studies. Holding a degree in Physics, I'm assuming I'm smarter than you. I'm also better looking. Thus, you and the rest of America should defer all of your voting decisions to me. Trust me to do the right thing... because I'll do whatever Oprah tells me.

[rick]

IQ does not equal Common Sense. Common Sense is the ability to see things how they really are in relation to everything else. IQ is mostly book smarts and a sharp #2 pencil.

Many High IQ'ers are truely dumbasses when it comes to functioning in the real world. Most of them are in Congress and Hollywood. It's safer that way. We can keep an eye on them.

[St. Chris]

I joined Mensa when I was 12 or 13 and stayed in for ten years. It gave me something I needed and couldn't get anywhere else: people willing and able to discuss anything with me. You're right, Scott, it's refreshing to spend time with people to whom you don't have to double-explain anything. I felt like I had found my tribe. As a "gifted" teenager with limited social skill -- something most Mensans deeply understand and happily accommodate -- I couldn't get enough.

But then I found my social bearings in college, gathered a group of bright friends, and found that Mensa no longer did anything for me. In fact, it started to grate. The world is full of flakes, and Mensa is just a slice of the world -- but Mensaflakes are accustomed to regularly spilling their brains out to other Mensans, who (more than the rest of the world, on average, in my experience) tend to give a fair listen. I got tired of fairly listening. There's a distressing load of nonsense in the brain of many a Mensan. I stopped going to meetings and eventually canceled my membership.

I wholeheartedly recommend Mensa to bright teenagers who feel outcast because of their intelligence, and to anyone who's tired of re-explaining everything to everyone. It's liberating, at least for a while. But it may not be where you want to stay.

[gr8hands]

Scott,

Your experience with Mensa matches my own. It was a pathetic group of losers who appeared desperate to win "points" of one-upmanship in a "social" (I use that term loosely) setting. None of them had actually APPLIED their high scores to solve actual problems or done anything with their lives. Speaking of autofellating . . .

I suggest you directly contact several "think tanks" with opposing views. They will be more than happy to innundate you with literature supportive of their view. They will all claim to be smarter than you, more informed than you, and able to give you the guidance you need. (mostly just more autofellating . . .)

GetErDone, you amaze me by saying you declared bankruptcy and IMMEDIATELY follow it up with the words "but never once asked the govt to help me out" -- don't you realize that bankruptcy is getting the government to bail you out?! (The legal system is part of the government.) I find it so funny that in a post about Mensa, you would do that.

[RSaunders]

Consider the following saying from Law School, "When the law favors your case, tell the jury the law. When some facts favor your case, tell the jury those facts. When sentiment favors your case, appeal to the jury's feelings. When neither the law nor the facts nor sentiment favors your case, tell the jury something else is important." The role of an advocate is to increase opinion for their side.

In politics, and jury trials, we use a subset of adults as a surrogate for the public as a whole. In politics, the subset is self selecting, in theory all adults can vote. Elections are few and far apart, with representative government as the technique for insulating the public from the thousands of decisions necessary to govern. In a jury, the subset is random, so that we can insulate the public from thousands of cases through taking turns.

Why not only let smart people vote, or serve on juries? Because smart people might know a lot about the facts or the law. However, they are no more sentimental than the average person. Your Mensa experience might demonstrate this.

In our society, feelings are important. That's why we worry about justice and fairness so much. That's why religious considerations influence biology classes, ignoring scientific evidence. That's why businesses spend money clouding the facts of global warming, ignoring the scientific evidence. The smartest people in our society are scientists, not ministers or lobbyists. But most people accept an appeal to their feelings, of which they feel sure, over an appeal to their reason, which isn't very reliable in their experience. Sure, the smartest people put high value on reason, but they are a Mensa-sized, unimportant, minority.

[Penny]

I too think it would help to get the opinions of someone smarter than me... however, I think now we need a way to test intelligence combined with good ol' common sense.

Wouldn't the world be better off with someone who was smart and able to apply it to resolving issues.

[just me]

IQ tests are a falicy, they only measure the ability to assimalate information. That ability changes as we get older. That is you can test at 140 when you're 12 and at 40 you will most likely test at 135. Lots of things affect this such as age, stress, enviorment and disease for example and IQ tests don't take that into consideration. They don't take into consideration that dyslexic and ADHD people usually fall into the top 2% but almost always fail at taking tests. So they are not only biased but they are a sham.

And as far as degrees go well, all they tell you is that they passed the class, not if the got an A or D. If they learned the information or cheated off their neighbor. It doesn't even tell you if they are good at the job. Simply that they passed the class.

Any child with a high intrest in math can be the next Bobby Fischer if trained from childhood to be only that just like Bobby and they will be crazy and unable to function in society just like Bobby.

[Karen]

Emotional Intelligence is much better than the Mensa kind of intelligence for predicting success in life. There isn't yet firm agreement on exactly what constitutes emotional intelligence - however it broadly consists of
1. the self-awareness to recognise your own emotions and use them as information
2. the ability to manage your emotions e.g. turn a negative mood into a positive one if it is more useful to you
3. the ability to empathise with others
4. the ability to affect their emotions of other people e.g. help them become more positive.

The good news is that unlike IQ, EQ can be developed by undertaking personal development work and even happens naturally - we call it maturing.

So this explains the Mensa phenonemon - lots of IQ, low EQ. The people with high EQ have relationships and even if they are Mensa qualified are too busy to go to meetings.

Politicians ideally need both - Bush probably has high EQ but low IQ and we've seen what that led to. Clinton is high in both AND has nice hair.

By the way I can recommend Blink by Malcolm Gladwell to those of you who aer wondering WHY politicians with nothing else going for them except their looks get elected.

[Whitewood]

Measuring IQ is the sum of measuring eloquence, math calculating, pattern recognizition. If you score high, congratulations, you are a certified smart guy.

I once heard that intelligence is equivalent with your ability to discuss in the most diverse subject. The deeper your knowledge on each subject you discuss, you more intelligent you seem. Too bad there is not any kind of measurement technique on intelligence.

Smart is how people perceive you. Coworkers can perceive you as incredibly smart because you know how to solve every problem in a fast and effective way. At the same time the cashier teller can perceive you as a dumb guy because you bought two six-packs while this week it's three for two...

Most people perceive country leaders as smart (and charismatic). Otherwise chances for them to be voted at all would be very slim.
Do they make good decisions? Smart people sometimes do, sometimes don't. Intelligent people usually do because they have a broader horizon and tend to take more into account when decision making.
I believe country people usually are intelligent people. And I actually refuse to believe they would make decisions ill-informed. So basically what I just said it doesn't matter who you vote for (if you're voting for the smart guy).
So why do I vote? Because the people I vote for are representing *me*. I don't want to go into politics. But the guys / galls who are making decisions better take my wishes and desires into account. That's what my vote is about. That's the basis of democracy.

[Andrew]

The important part of smart and well informed is the well informed part. As you mentioned, you can be an utter genius, and a failure at the same time, but well informed also at the very least implies enough devotion to BE well informed.

Just as importantly, there does have to be some crowd control on these sorts of things. I don't want the lady who wrote "It's My Cube!" posting her crappy opinion on anything.

How about we stick to well RESPECTED opinions. Respect usually comes from results or charisma, and in most cases, both. I can live with that as a reliable test of credentials.

If that isn't good enough, well then maybe you are an elitist.

-Andrew

[phunkdevoid]

I agree on your thoughts on gaining well informed people's opinions, but I think you're relying on smart people too much. Just because someone is smart (determined by IQ, education, ability to reason, argue and deduce, or whatever) should not increase their opinons weight, as smart people can still be morally vacous parasites, interested only in themselves (just look at lawyers). It seems you think smart people will always act in the best interest of everyone (as they are so smart), but intelligence does not breed morality. 'Stupid' people still need a voice, or surely their concerns will go unheard.

[Fillet O Fish the Dragon Master]

First of all, don't read this because I am more stupid than you.

You know, those greek guys who invented democracy were a sweet bunch: give the impression to all those losers than they actually can give their (uninformed) opinion in the form of a vote, but let the cunning machievelical types who want to run the show form the political parties.

Maybe the islamic critics of western democracy are right: democracy is just a thinly disguised form of tyranny and manipulation.

Dogbert for president!

[interesting observation]

Based on the two "mensa" members who have made comments, I have learned two things:

1. The Mensa IQ test, or any IQ test for that matter, does not measure "common sense" or "wisdom".
2. The Mensa IQ exam apparently has an "intelect (sic)" section, but it must not have a spelling, writing, or even "expressing yourself clearly" section.

[Noel]

I think you should distinguish between smart and well informed. Your smart, but you also self certify that you are uninformed on the matters of voting. Perhaps the discussion should be about well informed unintelligent people's decisions vs informed intelligent people's decisions.

[Peter]

What is IQ? It seems to me, a non-contender for Mensahood, that all IQ tests actually measure are the prejudices of the person who sets the questions. Yes, you want a person extremely practised in matters grey to look at your lobes, but don't assume the same person will leave you with a functioning computer or automobile. In this complex world, we all have our areas of competence and abysmal ignorance. So when it comes to large and complex aspects of government policy, your guess is as good as anyone else's - you may as well vote - or not. Good hair might be as good a guide as any, but I'd prefer to know how our political candidates treat staff in hotels and restaurants.

[redblue]

From my own experience:

1. Being smart in X number of things has nothing to do with with being totally dumb in other Y number of things.
2. Even if you are smart in X kind of way some of the time, it does not preclude you being totally dumb at other times on that very same thing (e.g. courtship -> divorce).

[octal]

Maybe you could change "smart people" with "informed people", I mean, I'm on that 2% too and I've been in other high-IQ associations, and I've seen people that knows a lot of politics and people that couldn't care less, just like the rest of the people I've met outside these organizations. ¿What good can do an intelligent uninformed guy (like you say you are) and why a well informed one, one that actually cares about politics and who is well informed can't choose better?

Another think I have about Mensa and your experience, having a high IQ uses to bring in the pack some social problems, product of having grown up with a more mature mind than expected at your age, and I think succesfull intelligent people doesn't use to care to go to that kind of events. Another thing is that if for trully intelligent people, success can be measured by income, or they are more interested in other things.

[Michel Landry]

First of all let me say how much I enjoy reading your blogs so far. I tend to think that a great deal of your points are remarkably insightful.

Secondly it is always interesting to me how everyone seems to have the answers, even though the ones who actually research this sort of thing are usually more ready to admit they dont know as much as we all think we do.

There is a bit of an overview here for your easy perusal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq

There are more complete overviews available online but they are much longer.

The thing is that the relation between IQ and success is much more complicated than it seems. For example, you have not defined what constitutes success. Is it financial success? If that is the case I would suggest that moral flexibility and an overriding desire to accumulate wealth is much more important than IQ overall.

But that only applies if wealth is your yardstick for success, a very North American pursuit. Dont get me wrong, I do like money but I wonder how many very wealthy people are that happy about it. Here is a Forbes article on the subject I rather liked.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/forbes/P95294.asp

From a Darwinian point of view IQ is only important when it allows you to fit in the environment and that has a lot to do with education, prior wealth and where you were born. Basically where you start has a lot to do with where you end up. A genius from the Kalahari desert taken to a Manhattan boardroom would fare no better than Donald Trump dropped off in the same desert. Add to that the fact that stupid people reproduce as well if not better than smart people, one could ask whether IQ is a significant advantage to our evolution.

In the political arena, it would seem to me that this is a situation where the values of the person would largely inform the decisions rather that IQ. For example, is it better to have more money or happier people? Is war always evil or a nescessary tool that all societies end up having to use? Is the suffering of people in other countries our responsability or should we tend to our own backyard? Is religion important or just a nice crutch? I think you can see the pattern there.

At any rate, I think having a high IQ is nice. That is about all that can be said about it.

[Jim]

Having taken IQ tests, I could qualify for Mensa.

However, I could also qualify for the Procrastinator's Society of America, if I ever got around to sending in the application....

Seriously, what you have just described is my sister-in-law's husband. He is too smart to finish school, and too smart to hold a job. And now they have lost their house.

[Gabe]

Kerry vs. Bush Jr. hair is arguable. But come on. Carter vs. Ford? No contest. And Carter lost out Reagan, king of hair, who handily beat Mondale by 80 pompadours. Bush Sr. and Dukakis is a bit of a wash (but I'd say the eyebrows were distracting, along with a booming economy). But Bush Sr. didn't stand a chance against Clinton's coif. Dole, forget about it. Bush Jr. edges out Gore by a hair.

But yeah, Edwards. Had he ran in the top spot, he would have taken it easy.

[Ben]

Many posters are advising you not to confuse book-smarts with common sense. Good advice, but don't confuse wisdom with intelligence either (you use the terms almost interchangably).

More to the point, to deem Mensa a "genius" organization is an oversimplification. More accurately, Mensa is a group which admits those with nothing better to do, who ALSO happen to score in the top 2% on various standardized tests. It therefore can't help but be a disappointment once you actually get to the meetings. (I'd rather hang with a group of average-witted losers; it'd seem like less of a waste, and you could probably get them to do silly things while videotaping them...)

Intelligence per se is overrated, not to mention poorly defined. That doesn't mean that Joe Lunchbox makes better decisions than Stephen Hawking, but don't be surprised if he picks better marriage partners... Just being good with numbers and facts and puzzles doesn't inevitably make you someone worth listening to about every subject. And people who have both traditional smarts AND a measure of wisdom, common sense or call-it-what-you-will, probably have a lot more worthwhile things to do than show up to a metting in a lowly bank teller's apartment on a weekend evening.

[MadDog]

Isn't the key to all this to try and achieve balance? Perhaps if we elect our leaders using a system that allows both "smart well-informed" people, and "superstitious simpletons" to influence the outcome, we might end up choosing the right people.

Hey, wait a minute, isn't that the system we already have?

[Mason]

Talk about irony... I took a mensa-approved IQ test back in high school and scored in the top 2%, but I didn't join. I had this terrible fear that it would be a bunch of stuck-up losers with no real interest in anything except congratulating themselves on how much better they were than everyone else, so I passed.

Then I went to college and became a stuck-up loser with no real interest in anything except congratulating myself on how much better I am than everyone else, but now I don't live within driving distance of a mensa branch.

*Sigh*

[Neil]

Points to concede to put my suggestion in context:

(1) Ok, so there is no steadfast line below which people are dumb, and above which people are smart.

(2) Ok, so being smarter does not necessarily mean that your vote is better informed.

However, (1) can be taken into account with a sliding scale, and (2) can be taken into account by admitting that although there is not a steadfast linear relationship in every case, there IS a tendancy towards it. However slight that tendancy is, it will be effective to some degree when we are talking about such a large number of people.

Therefore I suggest: weight each persons vote by their IQ.

It really is that simple.

If people think that IQ tests are a matter of practise - then let them practise.

If people complain that being smarter doesn't necessarily mean you are better informed, then point out that it does meant you are MORE LIKELY to be better informed, and to understand the issues. Maybe throw in a few "politcal awareness" questions, just to weed out the folk with their minds in teh clouds. (Be careful to keep them neutral though - the wording would have to be approved by both parties.)

I'm also in that 2%, I know exactly your pain. As a result I didn't bother joining MENSA, or any of the others. (Those real high-IQ clubs, like 6-sigma and the like, are so far gone that the only people who can write and mark the tests are the other two members of the same club. Stupid.)

That's my two sense. (Ha ha.)

[Scott Graves]

I think the issue you are realy grasping with is how to make government the absolute best it can be. How can we seek out and encourage the best people to serve in government and how can we make sure they represent the people of the nation.

The problem is you can't do that. It's imposible to make a government that is efficent and effective, that serves all our intrests and is made up of the finest people who represent our wishes and ideology perfectly. Democracy and efficency simply do not go togather.

I always like the pizza analogy. If you want to understand why Democracy is such a messy procedure that comes out with such imperfect results just think about every time you have ever ordered pizza with a large group. It's the same basic problem. You have the anchovieists who are a small minority but demand representation on the pie, you have classicists who want only cheese and pepperoni, and you always have that wacko who wants pineapple on it somehow. In the end, unless some powerful pizza dictator arises and makes the choices for everyone or the group is comprised of all one type of pizzaists, a compromise is reached and the pizza is ok but certainly not perfect for everyone. And the anchovieists are left out once again but still have to pony up for their part of the pie. Curse you pizza purists who opress those who love the salty fish!!! But I digress...

If you want efficent and logical government perhaps you should think about supporting a coup of scientists. They could set up a dictatorial panel from each of the hard science feilds that would make all the decisions using scientific methods and insure that everything is done in the most logical method.

Unfortunately no one will like logical efficent government. They all want to get something for nothing and want to get the cops to beat up their nighbors for dropping property values in the neighborhood. So I fear your Benevolent Tyrany of Science will be counter couped by the Selfish Tyrany of the Majority and we will be back where we are now.

[Greg]

You wrote: "But I still want to know the opinions of people who are smarter than me and know more about the issues than I do." A person smarter than you would have known to be grammatically correct, it would read: "But I still want to know the opinions of people who are smarter than I and know more about the issues than I do."

[CatMoran]

The first and last Mensa meeting I attending had a guest speaker. His presentation was on 'how to redecorate your living room for $5k* or less'.

* - In 1985 dollars.

Between that and the unsocialized dork who kept hitting on me, I couldn't run away fast enough.

Moral of the story: a person's IQ isn't as important as what they choose to learn about.

[Jocky]

Get ErDone Says
Hey, if you're bent on living in America, then become an American - the early settlers and immigrants did - and they didn't go begging for favors and this or that
------------------------------------------------------
I believe the early settlers and immigrants didn't become american, but stayed European, otherwise you would all have given up your clothes and started dancing around the totem poles and shooting the Iraqis with bows and arrows about now, being lead by Chief "Thick as Pigsh!t".

[Shadowfalcon]

Some people are academic and some have common sense. There are a few who have both and a few without either, (George Bush Jr being a prime example of the latter).

[Patrick Hillman]

I had a similar experience with Mensa -- blogged about it back in March. It's in the 3rd or 4th graph of this post:

http://bsuwg.blogspot.com/2006/03/horror-of-horrors.html

(...which, incidentally, was part one of my story about getting caught up in a "Soul Train.")

[JayBob]

If you're in Sacramento tonight (12/14), the Sacramensans are having a dine-in at Los Jarritos on Broadway at 6:00. Good, cheap, food. We'll be easy to spot.

[Jenni]

So, does this mean you qualified for MENSA? Because, if so, you should be voting! ;-) Really, though, I think that A LOT of political questions are viewed as moral by at least one side. Abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, universal health care, euthanasia, and even tax hikes (you should listen to an ultra-conservative talk about "stealing" by the government, drifting toward socialism, and the Boston Tea Party being over a 5% tax!). It takes intelligence to think through the issue, but not necessarily to form a conviction. I just learned last week that stem cell research is done on leftover in-vitro embryos. Amazing how many people I've heard ranting against killing these babies, and no one ever mentioned that the babies were going to die anyway! Kind of like being an organ donor, isn't it?

[Ascii King]

You don't need the opinions of the smart and well-informed. You just need the well-informed. Being well-informed is usually hard work, so most of us aren't (including me). Simply being well-informed makes the matter of intelligence irrelevant in all but the most extreme cases. You should still avoid the obviously dim-witted, but the average person would be fine if they were better informed.

I would not choose a brain surgeon who was brilliant, but had no experience in brain surgery. I would choose a brain surgeon who was about as smart as you and no smarter, but had lots of successful operations under their belt. If there's some sort of dirty pun in that last statement it is completely unintentional. My point is, though that intelligence doesn't matter. Just hard work to become well informed.

[Jason]

In the UK, there are periodic parliamentary cabinet reshuffles, meaning the career politician previously in charge of, for example, the entire massed armed services of the nation, then gets handed the job of being in charge of, say, education. At no stage is it ever explained why the qualities that recommended him or her for the previous job are appropriate for the next. It makes no sense whatever.

What we need is to do away with democracy altogether, and just appoint people who know what they're doing. Get soldiers to run the armies, teachers for schools, farmers for agriculture, economists for the economy and so on.

A good start would be to shoot on sight anyone who wants to be a politician. From there on, running government departments should be a matter of compulsory service, like jury duty. I'm just surprised nobody has tried it before.

[ThomsonsPier]

Those who join Mensa are generally those who are so insecure with regard to their own intelligence that they feel the need to join an organisation which constantly reminds them how clever they are.

Others of us are smart enough not to waste the membership fee.

[Craig Cockburn]

I joined Mensa once and other than a few organised events where there was an activity (as oppposed to just hanging out in the pub) I found it a rather boring organisation. This was in the UK, I guess the US isn't much different from what you say. You'll get on far better in life if you meet people who have been sucessful in business rather than sucessful in an IQ test 20 years ago.

[Niblik]

I think these two quotes from George Bernard Shaw are relevant:

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

[Midnight Skulker]

It's not about just being smart. It's being able to be skeptical and not being gullible. People are too easily decivied. You have to think for yourself and not follow the crowd.
Blind faith is the ememy of good decisions but then, what do you expect from moist robots?

[Jim]

You keep bringing up the hair thing, but Kerry has WAY better hair than Bush, and lost. I won't even get into Edwards vs. Cheney in that regard.

High-quality information/opinion would be great to have. But you can only get them if they are accessible to you, and the access is controlled by people who only want to promote certain viewpoints (CNN, etc).

You can find good information yourself on the net. There is a blog for every subject you could wish. Unlike this blog, they are chock full of insightful opinion, and most importantly, documented information.

But YOU have to track it down. The instant you rely on someone else to do the information-gathering, you are at the mercy of their biases. You cannot say "I want someone else to sum up all the world's complex issues for me, in an unbiased way."

[LA Clay]

Alas, I too am in that "upper 2%". What a bunch of morons. What I have found that in no way does "intelect" corralate with "wisdom". All through out my life I told I was not "living to my potential". Screw potential, I'd rather have results. My parents grew up during the depression, were hard working and average. I used the "conventional wisdom" of their work ethetics and my "intelect" to excell in whatever I wanted to do. Don't get me worng, sometimes I'm just plain lazy and don't do crap. But, in the end I have a happy life, good income and a great wife and kids. I found that being a "titan of industry" ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Hard working folk are better informed about what happens in politics, since they are usually the ones it's happening to.

[Miss Behavin]

I'm very thankful I didn't make it into Mensa. After reading this, I can now enjoy my menial job and peaceful life as the charming simpleton I was destined to be. :)

[rd]

" For what you need, for what
my soul of spartan five years old.."

[Jon]

My question is this: How do you decide who to class as a "smart person" as opposed to a dumb one?

Certainly just getting hold of a degree doesn't mean you are smart, and IQ tests aren't considered a very reliable test of intelligence, just that you are good at taking IQ tests.

Plus there is the issue that as soon as you say "These are the border lines for smartness", those that only just don't make the grade are going to kick up a mighty rumpuss.

Any suggestions?

[GetErDone]

Now I know this will get some elitist criticism (since we all are made from primodal goo) - but let's be honest that history pretty much proves that apart from God - "man simply cannot govern himself" very well....but hey, this democracy thing is the best we got going for right now.

Good, effective leaders - are those who best understand human nature and in dealing with world cultures, takes the time to understand those cultures - so misunderstandings and insults leading to wars do not happen.

Instead, we Americanos - tend to keep hitting others with a big stick and ask questions later- sure if we're hit first, we hit back and I for one cannot say whether toppling Saddam is a good thing or not, but the slandering and constant insults of other leaders do not help, even though people like the Iranian president who openly calls for the annihilation of a race is simply un-called for and he probably deserves a good fish slapping.

Some bullies need a good hammering, some need their toys taken away - sometimes it's better to just not come out and play.

Sadly, the world has become very complicated - and everyone seems to want to destroy America, even though we are the ones who give and give and give - and then get slammed for not giving enough.

If Nazi Germany was where we are, the world be all speaking German.

As for domestic issues - hey the farther we get away from our original moral values that this country was founded on and the more we cater to every SIG born under a rug, the more fragmented we become.

Hey, if you're bent on living in America, then become an American - the early settlers and immigrants did - and they didn't go begging for favors and this or that.

As for the voting majority - they should have to take a test to show their IQ is greater than a fruit-fly,but alas most of our citizens are dumber than a doorbell and are more interested on what's on Oprah, then any social issues...as long as govt promises that they'll have their needs taken care of and god knows their measly pittance of social security (while of course our congressman get full salary based pensions) - hey everything will be ok.

Hey, grow up - take responsibility for your life, get an education, work hard and stop relying on the great govt nipple for your needs. I've been working non-stop since I was 15,raised 4 kids, went through a divorce, claimed bankruptcy - but never once asked the govt to help me out - now I own my own business and work from home, have a nice home with a pool, go on vaca when I want - and I don't even have a former college education - if I can do it - so can you.

Bottom line: the moral character of our society has gone the way of Rome and so goes the nation. We got about 20 good years left, then we're toast.....time to find a nice island somewhere and let the haggling to the other neophytes.

[DanW]

Perhaps, the problem is there are no definite answers to many political questions. There are probably many possible solutions and ways to run a government, so it comes down to the best personality, that encourages the public, leads the government, and therefore does a better job.

Reagan/Carter comparison demonstrates this. Carter was the most trustworthy president, very intelligent, and one of the least effective presidents. Reagan was not the most intelligent or knowledgeable on much. But he new how to lead and inspire, and was one of our best presidents.

Consider Kennedy. He is considered by many to have been a great president. They completely ignore the facts that he got us into some of the biggest American fiascos of the 20th century: Vietnam War, the cold war, Bay of Pigs, nearly a nuclear confrontation, etc. Why? Because he was charming and a great speaker.

[JD]

I've noticed that an awful lot of "smart" people seem to have NO common sense. I think that's what you experienced at MENSA.

I remember a sci-fi short story where it was discovered that Jupiter had life -- a extremely mean, violent Zenophobic life form. The scientist studying Jupiter were worried what could happen if the life form was ever able to leave the planet.

It seemed that scientist had come up with a force field strong enough that a space ship using the field could safely explore Jupiter keeping the extreme pressure out while maintaining normal pressure in.

Fortunately, everyone relaxed because the scientist proved beyond all doubt that the force field could not be maintained for longer than a few milliseconds, thereby rendering the technology useless.

Then, a space ship shows up on Titan using exactly that force field. It seemed that while the scientist were proving it couldn't exist for long periods, the technicians were out making it work -- by simply turning the field off and on thousands of time a second which kept the equipment from burning out while still maintaining the internal pressure of the ship.

Ciao yo'all.

[Jocky]

I have to agree that IQ is not the same as common sense. My friend recently finished her masters in archaeology with a distinction, yet she believes that peahens give birth to chick peas. Also last week I told the joke in passing
"How do you keep an idiot in suspense?"
when I told her I would tell her tomorrow she was very upset and bugged me all day to find out the answer.

N.B.
For anyone out there who doesn't know how to keep an idiot in suspense I will post the answer tomorrow.

Remember
Book Smart does not equal Street Smart

[Jim Caruthers]

IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate with income. IQ correlates more with emotional intelligence than anything else. Read more here:

http://www.humanbeingcurious.com/page15/page37/page38/good%20and%20bad%20news%20about%20intelligence.html

[niCk(MemBeth)]

That explains everything.

You should read "The Pleasure of My Company" by Steve Martin, a novel about a Mensan who a huge loser and social outcast.

Intelligence and success are two different things. You're lucky you can do both at the same time.