Comments on: The Trouble with IQ

By: Colin Dovey

Colin Dovey — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:43:39 +0000

I was personally delighted to read this article as I have always contended, seemingly without support, that IQ is not only unimportant in the real world, but that the tests can be fudged. My personal IQ, I found out was 130 – a meaningless number because it has not made me a millionaire or even good in business. What IS important is EIQ, AND plain old Chutzpah. My contention is though, that we DO need to somehow measure a person’s ability if there are a number of candidates for a job OR if we need to unearth some HIDDEN, LATENT talent. That is where the Analysis of Handwriting comes in – WHY in heaven’s name do people go there WHOLE lives not finding out what wonderful things their brain is telling them? The handwriting (BRAINWRITING) is the sacred key. It can pick up potential suicide, depression, integrity, sales ability, health issues (heart being a significant one) – so my plaintive cry is (the misquote Shakespeare a bit): THE ANSWER is NOT in the STARS Horatio, but in YOUR Hands. Give it a try – you will not be sorry. The alternative? – you will NEVER know what they are telling you…….

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:57:34 +0000

“Gifted individuals face unique challenges. They don’t fit in. Can people develop normally without the company of their peers?

Perhaps this is a factor which actively works against success in later life. Perhaps the stereotype “geeks” and “nerds” aren’t displaying inherent character traits but the effects of social deprivation.”

It’s a tough world when you don’t have people around you with whom you can relate and understand. For a high-IQ person, it takes more effort than most people realize, to come down and talk at the level of the average person.

I say this, not with pride, but with something closer to sorrow. I don’t think I was born with the intent to be seen as a geek. But when the only people you can relate with are much older than you, and the only people who seem to understand you are your professors, life can be lonely.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:41:34 +0000

Hi Jordan!

A big hug from Spain. I know that smarter is not necessarily happier.

Cheers.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:28:48 +0000

My parents are of better than average intelligence, but nowhere near being exceptionally bright. This likely accounts for their unabashed pride in producing a child with a “peerless” IQ. I often argue with myself whether it is worth it. I went to college and law school for free, but never went to a class, never had a friend to talk to, and, despite reaching out to professors for friendship, couldn’t find anyone with whom I relate. I am told constantly that I should be grateful that I can do anything my heart desires. Meanwhile, no one wants to hire me, I have no “networking” skills, and the common reaction at my interviews is a contemptuous chuckle. I can assure you there is no “job” that requires a genius intellect, and no one wants to hear how easy school was for you. It is more likely the crutch you fall back on, when the paradigm shifts against you. I’m not even sure what exactly I enjoy about it besides that it is comfortable and all that I know.

By: Brad Remillard

Brad Remillard — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:28:13 +0000

IQ and EQ are best in balance. Like most things in life too much of anything isn’t good.

I have been in executive search for 27 years placing very senior level executives. What I find is a shift from IQ to EQ as one advances up the corporate ladder. In one’s early career IQ is dominant. As one advances and the technical knowledge of the position become less and less a part of the daily job and such things as leadership, motivation of others and ability to drive a team often in conflict to the goal are more important than raw intelligences. Not too say it doesn’t help, but EQ is more important at this level. I have also found the smaller the company the more the CEO’s EQ plays in the success of the company. I believe this is because someone with a strong EQ can get more out of a smaller number of people than someone who has a high IQ, but lacks EQ.

I find that most senior execs have enough IQ to get them to the level of senior exec, but not all have the EQ to not only sustain success at this level, but to bring together a cohesive team to bring about success.

By: I M Evans

I M Evans — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:31:47 +0000

We are always a product of our genes and our environment.
I like Noel Darlow’s suggestion that “nerds” may be suffering from social deprivation and wish to comment.

Both of my daughters are very intelligent but the school system did not challenge them. They were always uncomfortable around most of the other students because of being teased for being “smart”. (God forbid, if you were smart and overweight.) They also did not play sports which didn’t help because of the great importance put on the sports by the entire community.

My oldest daughter qualified to attend “Governor’s School ” and loved it because she discovered others like her. Unfortunately, it only lasted 8 weeks.

She is studying to be a nurse so she can help people but lives alone with her two cats and prefers the company of those older than herself.

Social deprivation is definitely found in USA schools.

By: Glenn Barcelona

Glenn Barcelona — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:37:38 +0000

I was a catholic seminarian for three years. And as far as I know, not only the seminary there where I studied, but catholic seminaries all around the world gives preference to the smartest (academically), this results in weaknesses in other aspects long neglected. That is why most priest,or seminarians may be smart but only few are truly holy(or with integrity),. Because sexual or/and other non-academic skills are swept under the rug in the name of machine-like efficiency in academics. But things are slowly changing in our seminary as I heard recently, the psychology of each seminarian is also worked out , meaning, the other aspects of balanced living (like sex, and interpersonal skills etc..) are being considered not just pure academic intelligence alone. I understand priests needed to have above average intellectual skill to be able to combat various heresies, and also to be able to be a true and acceptable teacher of the people under their care. BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH,as Gardner’s and Goleman’s and the likes studied: WE ALSO NEED PRIEST WHO ARE ALSO SKILLED IN OTHER AREAS OF LIVING-like SOCIAL SKILLS and personal skills. Let us pray not just for priests, but also for other non-religious and maybe atheists BUT WITH HONESTY ENOUGH TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO OUR MULTI-INTELLIGENCES.

By: Noel Darlow

Noel Darlow — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:30:49 +0000

Perhaps we could we say that intelligence is the engine: the raw force which determines the maximum performance of which the machine is capable.

But one still has to steer…

..and it’s much harder to drive a very high performance car. Gifted individuals face unique challenges. They don’t fit in. Can people develop normally without the company of their peers?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:29:01 +0000

Adrian makes a good point. This discussion is pointless without defining the range. Let’s get real, a mentally retarded person is going to have a lot harder time “succeeding” in life (i.e. finding a well-paying job and creating wealth) than some guy with genius level IQ. Actually, I find it common sense that the higher the IQ, the higher the probability of success, because it lowers the effort required. Tell two people a surefire way of getting rich, and I will bet on the guy with the higher IQ (IF he also has a decent level of “emotional intelligence,” especially discipline and confidence). High IQ just means you have the tools necessary to do the job, but IQ is worthless without EQ, and to some extent, the opposite is true. There are plenty of “nerds” who can solve complex equations but can’t get a date, can’t get a promotion, etc. On the other hand, there are those who are less than bright who try their hearts out and never make it. Incidentally, I read once that somewhere around 128 is the “optimal” IQ, where most millionaires are found. But this study ignored the obvious fact that, as one would note from the bell curve, ~128 IQ individuals outnumber higher IQ individuals many times over. So one cannot conclude that there is a smaller proportion of higher IQ individuals succeeding, and the idea that higher IQ is a hindrance is obsurd. However, as many smart successful people will tell you, I do think there is a point where there importance of IQ starts to dwindle quickly. The law of diminishing returns must eventually kick in. After all, even if some higher paying jobs are very intellectually demanding at first, it seems like most people would be on an even playing field once they have have traversed the difficult learning curve. Of course, it depends on the job, but I’d say this is especially true in the business world. By the way, George W. Bush is hardly a good example of someone overcoming the obstacle of average IQ. I think to qualify for such praise, one would have to NOT have a rich guy, who happened to be the President, for a dad. There are very few examples of average people (and not born rich or to parents already leaders in their given field) who made it to the VERY top in any given field. Gates isn’t one, Buffett isn’t one, Bush isn’t, Trump definitely isn’t, etc. This is not to be used as an excuse, but this is how it is. Just my thoughts.

By: David Butler

David Butler — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:24:03 +0000

It’s interesting to see the correlation between IQ and job performance. However, I think that it is mistaken to equate “excellent job performance” with “success.” Being successful in one’s life is not necessarily about making lots of money or doing one’s day job well. Success can be measured by how well one is able to fulfill their life goals. Who is to say that setting up computers for people is not a satisfying and fulfilling life, even if it doesn’t pay very much? Many successful artists were poor their entire life.