Every single mental process strategy and mental ability no matter what they are equal to a measured IQ. Every single statement of a given individual is according to his IQ. Not only IQ is everything, but given how an individual performs in school, information technology, painting, understanding of politics, command of various office applications, conversation on no matter what, occupation, business or academia exactly by the number of his IQ (counterpart with higher or lower IQ perform accordingly to their exact number). Mathematics, chemistry, physics, everything exactly by a single number. We can continue far more: music composition and theory, foreign language acquisition, chess and strategic games, public speaking and debate. The quality of every single opinion is strictly derived from IQ (even with cognitive biases, fallacies, formal logical errors).
Talent and creativity are just trivial elements that have little to do with the “g factor” that rules it all.
All that matters are: similarities, digit span, letter-number-sequencing, block design, object assembly, symbol search. This is the finite value of your mental abilities testament. Testing and testing!
I have nothing against super smart people connecting, and meeting each other. IQ is definitely something to plays an enormously significant role, yet Mensa made a really huge fetish of IQ. Despite it being something vague and very statistical.
The concept of the g factor is the very ability to solve very general problems. There are extremely significant correlations between median average IQ and given professions (Schmidt Hunter 2004). The more prestigious and cognitively demanding the higher the median average arises. And there are also minimum requirements for each profession. Yes, we have elite lawyers with IQ 90, but there are just a few of them. The median is – predictably- very high.
This also applies to your performance in the job environment, your income, morbidity and mortality.
Pick up a random Mensa member and have him undergo batteries statistically related to the g factor but not causal to it. He may fail miserably.
Cloning an average man with an IQ of 130 and letting him make the whole population. While the population IQ would be so high, the skills would be specific to the cloned man. So IQ is something statistically distributed with skills different and various talents (which correlate with IQ) in the population. By the way, with IQ so “low”, there wouldn’t be anyone able to operate a nuclear power station or make an atomic bomb.
All of Hitler’s men had an IQ of 130 and everybody with an IQ of 130 could have been Hitler’s man. Totally wrong. While Hitler’s men IQ’s were most likely really high your high IQ cannot qualify you to be a good politician, manager, economist, scientist, banker and so on.
The g factor is something measurable but people with the same IQ (let’s say 130) differ in their skills and abilities. One can say there is something as talent (which is connected to IQ). But the desirable skills (being a good politician, scientist, economist) should be an inseparable part of the g factor concept (IQ). But they are not.
Not everyone with an IQ of 150+ discovered something but everybody who discovered something had an IQ of 150+.
“… if you have discussion groups (people) not arranged by their average IQ scores (of the particular discussion group); let’s say one with IQ 65, a second IQ 80, a third IQ 100, a fourth IQ of 125, you would be easily able to arrange the discussion groups accordingly by their IQ just by reading the content the people were writing in the discussions. (Arguments for atheism, Jan Bryxí 2023)
I read some books by a prominent psychometricist Alan S. Kaufman. I certainly don’t want to devalue his crystal clear contribution to the field by this enormously intelligent (both in IQ and a broader sense) gentleman. But my finding of what some Mensa members believe are kind of logic he advocated, even though he somehow deviated, just like this: “The individual Wechsler subtests, or the subtests that compose the KAIT or WJ III, do not reflect the essential ingredients of intelligence whose mastery implies some type of ultimate life achievement. They, like tasks developed by Binet and other test constructors, are more or less arbitrary samples of behavior. Teaching people how to solve similarities, assemble blocks to match abstract designs, or repeat digits backward will not make them smarter in any broad or generalizable way. What we are able to infer from the person’s success on the tasks and style of responding to them is important; the specific, unique aspect of intellect that each subtest measures is of minimal consequence. Limitations in the selection of tasks necessarily mean that one should be cautious in generalizing the results to circumstances that are from the one-on-one assessment of a finite number of skills and processing strategies. Intelligence tests should, therefore, be routinely supplemented by other formal and informal measures of cognitive, clinical, and neuropsychological functioning to facilitate the assessment of mental functioning as part of psychodiagnosis. The global IQ on any test, no matter how comprehensive, does not equal a person’s total capacity for intellectual accomplishment.” (Kaufman, Alan S.; Lichtenberger, Elizabeth (2006). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (3rd ed.). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley)
So IQ is definitively a major predictor, however, parts such as creativity, talents, latent inhibition, and other secondary mental processes that differ in everyone play a crucial role, no matter how highly they are connected to IQ.
So if you have a high IQ (and you easily can, because you have managed to read this so far), please don’t amplify your results and be cautious it is something statistical.
Leave a Reply