Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Intelligence Is Over-Rated
TRIGGER WARNING: There are parts of this essay in which I sound like an arrogant twit. This is not my intention, and I’m just trying to make a point. In order to make this point, I refer to my life as an example, because that’s what I’m familiar with. So read on if you like, and I hope you’ll see my point by the end, if you’ll bear with me. But if you roll your eyes and scroll on to other stuff in the third paragraph or so, I’ll understand…
I’ve done well in life, financially and professionally. I’ll skip the details so I don’t sound like an arrogant twit (Dang! Too late!), but we lost our hog farm when I was 16, and now, by the age of 50, I live in a fancy house on a golf course in Hilton Head. I’m very good at a very important job, and I help a lot of people. I also have three very successful kids. A family friend (“Bob”) complimented one of my kids recently, saying that we were all really, really smart. This immediately offended me, which seemed odd. It’s a nice thing to say. And I would have thanked him if I had been there. But I think that his view of intelligence is problematic. Common, but problematic.
My kids and I do have unusually high IQ’s – well above genius level. And I’m sure that helps, of course. So he was being complimentary, and he was not incorrect. But here is what bothered me about Bob’s compliment:
There are a lot of reasons for my success, such as:
- Ambition
- Unwillingness to accept “pretty good”
- Ability to ignore apparent limitations
- A vision of, and desire for, a better life
- A tendency to ignore naysayers
- Toughness
- Things go wrong. There are always setbacks, which can seem catastrophic at the time. Some people get back up and keep going, and others don’t.
- Creativity
- Finding better ways to do things
- Willingness to abandon more established ways of doing things
- Willingness to take responsibility for nearly everything
- If something goes wrong, I make it my problem, and I fix it, regardless of whose fault it is.
- Work habits
- The ability to work hard every day, even if no immediate reward is apparent
- Risk-taking
- Willingness to gamble, rather than falling back on the sure thing
- Figuring out which risks are worth taking, and which ones are not
- Ability to plan and estimate risk
- What exactly are my options here?
- How can I increase my odds of success with this plan?
- If something goes wrong, what is my plan B? Plan C? D? E? F?
- Ability to handle failure
- If you’re ambitious, and you take chances, you’re going to fail sometimes.
- Many people are crippled by these failures, or even by the possibility of failure.
I could obviously go on and on, and you could add more entries yourself that have helped you in your life, but my point is that of all these things that led to my success, I haven’t mentioned intelligence yet. If I kept going down this list far enough, I’m sure it would show up at some point, but it’s not near the top. And I suspect that this would be true of many successful people. At least, that’s how I see it.
But Bob thinks I’ve been successful because I’m smart. I was born with a high IQ, so of course, I make a lot of money. I think that’s just baloney, it’s destructive baloney. Bob can take comfort in this thought: “Dr. Bastiat makes more money than me, but that’s just because he was born with that magic brain of his. It’s not my fault.”
This deflection of responsibility is unhelpful for an individual, but when it is converted into government policy via affirmative action or whatever, it becomes enormously destructive for large numbers of people. Don’t tell little girls that men make more money than women, and that it’s not fair. Tell her that if she wants to earn more money than men, she needs to get to work. Don’t hold her back by telling her that her success, or lack thereof, is not in her control. What a horrible thing to do to somebody.
This brings up another problem I have with all this – the use of money to measure success in life. It’s a tempting metric, partially because it’s easy to measure. But there is a lot more to success in life besides money. Most of the people whose success I admire the most are not wealthy. But that’s another post…
Anyway, the efforts of leftists to view people as members of groups, rather than as individuals free to choose their own path, suppresses ambition and discourages risk-taking. You’re encouraging people to accept mediocrity. And many of them will.
But here’s the problem: Despite my protests to the contrary, it appears that IQ really is a good predictor of success in life. I rush to point out that this works better in large groups of people than it does in individuals, but if you group people by IQ, that is a good way to predict success in life among those groups. Modern psychology has come up with all sorts of ways to stratify those most likely to succeed, and nothing has ever worked as well as IQ. I don’t know enough about the data to make a good case for this, but Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray, Stefan Molyneux, and many others have reached this conclusion after much research.
If they’re right, I find that extremely problematic.
I was very careful with this when I raised my kids. When they did well on a test, I NEVER said, “You’re so smart!” Instead I said, “Nice work!” I was more scared of laziness and complacency than I was of lack of ability. If they failed at something, I always suggested they either take a different approach or work harder, even if I knew that they just couldn’t do it. I NEVER told them that they couldn’t do ANYTHING, even though there were (of course) lots of things they just couldn’t do. Let them fail. But don’t let them not try. I’ve focused on this, relentlessly, since before they could walk. I wanted them to find their own limitations. I didn’t want anyone to tell them what those limitations were. They’d figure it out over time.
My three kids are very different from one another. But they are all tough. And now they’re happy, well-adjusted young adults doing quite well, thank you.
Life is hard. It’s harder if you’re a wimp. Wimps are never happy.
———-
Many leftists view this as a central contradiction in conservative thought. We promote individualism and personal responsibility. We dislike policies that try to produce equality of outcomes – we prefer equality of opportunity. Meanwhile, we acknowledge that not everyone has equal abilities. Thus, we acknowledge that some will succeed, and some will fail.
Leftists use this argument to suggest that conservatives are cold-hearted, uncaring, or even evil.
But conservatives, of course, disagree. You can’t have success without risking failure. You can’t win if you’re not willing to lose. Success is contagious. A rising tide lifts all boats. You can’t cure poverty by giving money to poor people. Poor people are not better off if rich people become less rich.
But all of these points require an honest effort to grasp them. It’s easier to just say, “Rich people are just the winners of life’s lottery. If you don’t succeed, it’s not your fault. Do you want a better life? Just vote for me, and I’ll take care of it.” That will win elections.
This argument is one of many at which conservatives are at a natural disadvantage, even if they are right.
So when Bob says that I succeed simply because I won the IQ lottery at birth, I bristle at this apparent compliment. Part of my discomfort rises from the fact that he may have a point. But even if that point is partially true, I think we should actively ignore it. You can’t control your natural gifts, but you can control your effort and a lot of other things. Worry about what you can control. And forget the rest. Are Jordan Peterson et al correct about the importance of IQ? Maybe, but who cares? Screw it. Get to work.
So I suggest that we ignore natural ability – start with the presumption that everyone is equal. Especially in matters of public policy. By emphasizing IQ etc, we de-emphasize individual decision making, ambition, risk-taking, and so on. And that’s what matters. Natural ability is just not as important as we make it out to be.
Or is it? What do you think?
———-
NOTE: Again, I apologize for sounding arrogant in this essay. I almost didn’t post it because of this. Those of you who know me know that this is not my style.
I also hesitated to use myself as an example, because I’m inviting personal attacks, which miss the point of the essay.
But without explaining why Bob’s compliment offended me, and without explaining why I think intelligence is not the primary determinant of my success, this essay made very little sense. So thank you for bearing with me.
Published in General
Doesn’t matter what he does. He can’t hide that brilliance, can he?
All eight of your factors are valid. And it is true that I.Q. only really accounts for about 40% of one’s socio-economic success in life. Other factors do matter. (Though none so much as I.Q.)
However, you are neglecting the impact I.Q. has on your eight factors, particularly in regards to what is called one’s time horizon. Intelligence directly impacts one’s ability to predict and/or plan for the consequences of one’s actions, and especially on one’s ability to refrain from destructive actions. Other approaches to raising children also help condition them in this way, but it often takes at least one parent with the intelligence to understand the need to do so.
I’m sorry if this busts (part of) your premise.
Perhaps a better compliment would be “Boy, you are really successful for a dumb yokel.”
Here is some food for thought:
Perhaps people with those good work habits and helpful attitudes are able to raise their IQ’s during their lifetime, thus skewing the statistics that show high IQ people are more successful(?)
I read The Bell Curve by Murray and Hernstein. In it, they posit that IQ is absolutely unchangeable throughout a person’s life. I have always questioned that finding, because when I see the typical questions on IQ tests, I always feel that these types of questions can be learned and studied for, thus a person can improve his test score through proper study. Language skills and mathematical skills seem to me to be the most easily learned (though some people never improve because they simply hate these subjects). Pure abstract pattern recognition seems to be the hardest, but not impossible at which to raise one’s skills.
What you describe is the results of an IQ test, that is an attempt to measure a person’s intelligence expressed as IQ. Would it not be reasonable to say that the test results could change whereas the intelligence level of the person has not changed?
Thanks, Phil. Thanks a lot.
Like time and space.
I’m assuming that if the tests are indeed measuring intelligence, and your scores go up on a later test, then your intelligence must have gone up too. No?
I would question that assumption, the tests may actually be just a rough approximation of some unchanging intelligence level being measured. No?
I think this is true for traits other than intelligence, for example talents such as athletics and music. I’ve always thought that there are probably way more people that have the talent to be Olympic athletes than there actually are, but to get there requires more than talent, you need the drive, which I think is harder to come by than the talent. Same probably for world class musicians.
They have been refining the tests for a very long time, and while it may have been common to have IQ tests that were culturally-centered, for instance, in the past, most of the good tests and questions these days really do measure innate characteristics.
It makes sense, that as a result of cultural bias in testing being acknowledged, efforts would take place to eliminate such bias and strive to measure innate characteristics. If then, there is an experience where an individual takes such tests more than once and gets different results, would you want to say that the test are now so perfected that one must conclude intelligence has changed?
Depends on many factors. Are they really modern, professional tests? What is the accuracy of the tests? Were they taken under similar health conditions? Did the individual not get his morning coffee the day of one of the tests? In other words, was there anything impeding performance? Were the tests created about the same year? Were the tests calibrated to the same standard deviation?
This last is a big one. The standard that is normally used is that average IQ is 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Thus the 95% normal (the middle four sigma) runs between 70 and 130. But some tests are calibrated to a standard deviation of 16 or 24.
Going back to the question before that, the tests are re-normalized every few years due to the Flynn Effect. So, an older test will be normalized to people of its era, and would tend to show a higher score than a modern test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yLIdBikmI
Although the claim is that IQ test results are generally unchangeable throughout one’s lifetime, I have seen dramatic, unexplained differences – both increases and decreases.
The best comparisons from one to another would be the same test, say with a two to three year interval between administrations. We would not look for the same, exact number, but a score within a range of scores in which we would have a 90 to 95 percent confidence that the score would be. For example, if your full scale IQ was 100 (in the average range), I could be 95% confident that if tested again, using the same test, your score would be within the range of 90 to 109. If you score a 90, that doesn’t mean your IQ dropped 10 points. It just means that given the variability within test conditions, you are still scoring in the average range.
Each standardized IQ test measures some of the same concepts, but in different ways, or entirely different groups of concepts. For example, one test I use very often measures verbal comprehension, fluid reasoning, visual spatial processing, processing speed, and working memory. Another one I use, generally with limited English language learners, measures processing speed, working memory, and perceptual reasoning – but no verbal content. A third one measures visual spatial processing, working memory, short-term memory, fluid reasoning, and verbal comprehension, but does not directly measure processing speed.
Even though IQ tests are the bread and butter of my profession, I can easily become frustrated with the demands of the test or the way the scores are calculated. For example, processing speed is measured using paper-pencil tasks. I don’t believe the tests have kept up with the technological prowess that students now possess, to the detriment of the required drawing of unfamiliar shapes. So a kid who might be lightning fast on a keyboard slows down with this type of task, and then we make all kinds of assumptions based on that score.
Overall, I just think we need to be very careful when discussing particular IQ scores. IQ tests are very limited in scope. One number rarely describes what a person can and cannot do.
The Flynn Effect supposedly showed that IQ’s around the World have been steadily increasing over time. Now researchers are telling us that IQ’s have been decreasing in the last 40 years!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html
I apologize for the link to CNN. Due to the IQ decrease, I was not smart enough to find a more reliable source.
Your factors look right to me. Work Ethic strikes me as the most important of them. The genius who flunks out of the elite university from which he thought he was destined to graduate magna cum laude ends up dealing cards at a blackjack table or working at Starbucks because of a poor ethic is almost a cliche. My nephew works for Zimmer, the prosthetics maker, and recounts that their HR people look for applicants with a farming background. Why? They know how to work.
But not yet in the US, if I remember rightly.
Are you sure? Have you seen the latest group of Presidential Candidates?
It is not my intent to be cruel, but I would bet each and every one of them, at least the ones we have heard of, has an above average IQ. Sorry if that dispels your illusion as to what average is. (Hint: Ricochet’s average is not the average of the general populace. After all, we have @drbastiat to skew our averages.)
So, IQ test results for individuals are suspect. But wouldn’t that effect get lost when looking at test results for groups?
Which gets us back to the Bell Curve thesis that when it comes to IQ, as a group Asians > Whites> Blacks.
My favorite movie is “Airplane!”
As was noted above, intelligence is correlated with many questionable beliefs, as intelligent people are able to rationalize. “Too dumb to fool” really is a thing, and the current presidential candidates unfortunately are too smart to be too dumb to fool.
Intelligence is a tool. That’s all it is. It’s only one of many we have at our disposal to achieve our purpose.
This is rubbish.
I have seen, in my own children, intelligence (in a wide range of measurable ways) leap or lag with other developmental markers.
An excellent post, thank you!
Good judgement, persistence, and consideration for other people are, for me, key ingredients.
I would stress that there are, in fact, an infinite spectrum of kinds of intelligence- from linguistic to logical or computational or dress sense to emotional empathy…
MENSA is full of underachievers.
As someone once said, “People who think money can buy happiness have never had much of either one.”
That outline could be spun into a self-help book. It reminded me of Gorilla Mindset by Mike Cernovich. He makes some of the same points.
I think you’re a bit touchy, Dr. Bastiat.
First, I don’t know why a compliment that your kids are smart implies anything at all to do with his presumption that this will make them successful. I think you took a leap of logic there, unless there’s another part of the conversation you didn’t relate.
Second, I don’t know anyone who thinks that being smart is the only thing required to be successful. You also have to have good people skills, among other things. A genius who can’t get along with others is not going to succeed in many areas of life.
The first problem is defining “successful.” It can mean make a lot of money, or it can mean being influential, or it could mean any number of other things.
To be complimented on being intelligent is a good thing, not bad, and even if an implication of success is made, it’s still a good thing. Would you rather be intelligent or have a stick poked in your eye? I’ll take intelligent every time.