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
Keep reading. It’s the history with the guy.
I think you underestimate super intelligent people generally have a lot more options in their lives. People with better cognitive abilities generally have higher skilled jobs with a high demand for what they do and also have the ability to adapt and conquer other skills. A person with average cognitive abilities is going to look for the most secure situation for them because they don’t have as many options. Not taking as many risks may be the more prudent option. Smart people can afford to take more risks because if they fail at plan a, plan b,c,d,e etc.. will eventually become lucrative or rewarding.
I work in an environment with a lot of people with average to below average intelligence. The ugly truth of the matter is for many of these people getting a middle management position is as high as they can possibly achieve. It sounds like you’re living a great life and you should be proud of your accomplishments, but I think you should also count your blessings for your superior cognitive abilities. Not all of us have that to fall back on. It’s a heck of a security blanket.
BTW. The 2 smartest people I know. One is a Neurologist who’s now getting a masters in business and the other is unemployed unable to hold down a job and surviving on disability. A lot of range with you smarty pantses.
Intelligence gives one options at the start. Hard work and persistence keeps the options available and new options coming.
If I had to choose between being recognized for high intelligence and having the ability to make people laugh, I would choose the latter in a half a heartbeat. In three score years, I have learned that what makes life worth living is not gathering assets, but giving them to others. We cannot give away our intelligence, but we can our mirth.
Don’t you think there’s a synergy in that. The options for smart people just keep getting better and more interesting. Smart person works hard as a medical researcher and gets the option for doing research they find interesting. Average person works hard at a grocery store and gets the option of being a department manager. Not quite as stimulating or lucrative. Great incentives can be a great motivator.
I’m wondering if there’s not, in the technological real world of today, some form of inverse function at work where those of maybe not the highest IQ percentiles, and having fewer options, have a better concept than the high IQ persons of the personal effort required for success.
I’d choose intelligence. Memorize a few good jokes (the dirtier the better) and you’ll become the life of the party.
Sure, but the point is that having those options does nothing for the guys who don’t work hard and persevere. They don’t give you medical researcher jobs based on IQ alone. If they did, I would have one. Or a job at NASA as an enginerd. But I didn’t pursue those paths. I did not work in either of those directions. And those who have them do work and work hard to get where they are. At my current age, I still have the intelligence and aptitude that I could switch directions, so I sort of have those options as well as the others I have. But I do work hard.
I know a guy who is relatively intelligent. He used to be a computer programmer. The particular language he was using went obsolete, and so did he. His one hobby is watching TV. He wasn’t studying new languages as they came out. When his job disappeared, he really didn’t look too hard. He went through the money he had. He went through money his parents left him. He sold off assets. Finally, he lost his home. A mutual friend said he could come live with him, as long as he looked for a job. He didn’t. He watched TV instead. He was kicked out and lost a friend. So, he stayed in shelters and wandered the streets for awhile until some social worker helped him get on disability. I’m not sure what the disability was. Is laziness a disability? What did intelligence get him? His initial job. What did he do with it from there? Not much. Intelligence without factors like hard work and perseverance won’t last long or do much.
That is part of what we have been saying all along in this thread. Things that come too easy are not appreciated. I had an immunology class in college. Appropriately, in the first two weeks of the quarter I was down with some communicable disease, so I missed getting the syllabus that had the reading schedule on it. I aced all the tests without ever looking at the book. At the end of the class as I handed in the final exam, I held up the book and asked the good doctor, “Were we supposed to do something with this?”
“Get out of here!” he replied. I’m not sure if he thought I was joking about not reading the book or just figured I had done well enough in the class without it. One thing is for certain, though. I didn’t go into immunology. Too easy. Not enough of a challenge. Differential equations? That was a fun class, but difficult? Nah. Engineering physics? Easy-peasy.
And that’s how I wound up as a poet. It was more of a challenge.
Part of this is policy. Standardized testing and subsidized student loans set up the intelligent with a greater chance of success.
For some, of course, the “soft landing” of college and grad-school proves to be a trap. likewise the sudden onset of adulthood spurs on others to develop the skills you mention. For most though those addition years are an opportunity to acquire knowledge, personal skills and social capital and otherwise set themselves in order before entering the job market.
One can’t coast all the way to success on IQ alone by any metric. But it will get you closer than ever before.
I gave you a like on that comment and I have no idea why!
LOVED the post. Not going to read through 60+ comments already here but I think you nailed it.
Let me add a couple things (apologies if others have already said some of this):
First, success and failure are not binary. A person of modest IQ will be better off if encouraged to try, even if success at the level of you, or me, or Bill Gates, or whoever, is likely to escape him despite his efforts. And the country is better off if everyone works to their potential, whatever it is.
Second, in my own life – and without diminishing the value of grit – I’ve found that passion matters. Caring about what you’ve chosen as a profession, and enjoying it, helps drive all those good qualities you list. You can exhibit them without the passion if you’re just determined and disciplined enough, but it’s easier and you’ll probably do it more consistently if you have some passion.
Last, to add to your example, I too am quite high-IQ and relatively successful at 55, though I know many people in my profession who are far more successful and who would tell you they are not as smart as I am and who would be would be right. But they have other qualities I lack or lack to their degree (some of which are on your list) that show themselves to be quite valuable over time. I think that up to a point, IQ is important, and beyond that, other qualities overtake it in importance.
I’ve seen most of your children, albeit for a couple of short visits, and I would say that they embody the Dr. Bastiat School of Personal Developmental Success!
I greatly appreciate this point, @catorand. Passion is so important to enthusiasm, commitment, learning and drive. It has made those things I love to do almost effortless, at times, because I so enjoy them!
I have no idea what my IQ is, and don’t really care. I was fairly successful over my time in the working world, but I made my mark by being the guy who usually said, “Hey, did you notice …?” Usually, no one else had noticed, and I had to explain. One of those odd insights was initially rejected. KY redneck stubbornness made me push a bit harder, and that idea was implemented and became the standard in my area fifteen years on.
People get comfortable with patterns and their thoughts conform to the patterns. I always had so much trouble seeing the standard pattern that I imposed my own patterns. Sometimes the results were good. Is that intelligence, creativity, or just luck?
I was going to comment on that. Motivation is a huge driver in learning.
Probably all of the above! Lucky you!
The world is full of tragedies of smart promising people not reaching their full potential. Not disputing the importance of discipline and perseverance. At least this guy had a shot at a satisfying and lucrative life and he blew it. Many would kill for these opportunities but they don’t have the cognitive tools to achieve them. Part of this might be a lack of gratitude. Stealing this analogy from ‘Good Will Hunting” but many have been given a lottery ticket in life and not cashing it in.
Don’t.
Intelligence is not over-rated, but the emphasis on intelligence being the one factor that makes Person A better than Person B is. I believe most on the left falls into this trap, especially the leadership.
Many moons ago, I attended a get together of fellow writers in Alpharetta, Georgia. One of the young men there was a smart, lefty intellectual. In one discussion, he went off on this esoteric diatribe about this and that concerning intellectual thinking. Even with a physics undergraduate degree and a graduate nuclear engineering degree, I couldn’t make heads or tails of his argument, much less the reasoning behind it. I decided to introduce some humor, so I fell back on an old standard I’ve mentioned on Ricochet before:
Stad: You know what the definition of an intellectual is?
Intellectual Dude: No, what?
Stad: Someone educated beyond his intelligence.
The rest of the attendees (all women) laughed, but the I-Dude sat there scowling. I didn’t mean it, but I believe he took the joke personally, which in a way proved my point. One thing I learned early on was while I might be intelligent, there was always someone out there who was more intelligent in another area.
For example, my future son-in-law catches bigger fish than I ever have or ever will . . .
This raises an interesting question: Are enthusiasm, discipline, or commitment motived by passion really virtues?
I’m relentlessly hard-working — and even obsessive — about things I find interesting. Is this a virtue? I don’t think so. Because I’m lackadaisical about all else. (It certainly doesn’t help that my interests align with no job position in the known universe.)
Yes.
The thing is, we can’t really judge that. Insufficient data. Maybe a person is working on a very different life lesson than survival or ambition. We can’t judge how successful a given life is, just that it might not be how we would prefer to live or that it doesn’t seem to be a lesson we are eager to learn or already have learned.
Not many people can explain something complex and put it in laymen’s terms.
Time to create your own job.
I wish.
Any tips on monetizing something the market doesn’t care a whit about?
Did one of us call them virtues? I think virtues are something we strive to fulfill, whereas these are qualities, not necessarily virtues . . . I think . . .
A gun might be helpful.
People on the Left are always touting intelligence and higher education as the cure-alls for society’s ills. People on the right generally tout character building and ethical behavior for creating a healthy society.
I think that this is what most people do, particularly on the Left, and it is a disaster.
Perhaps part of the problem is that one needs to have a fairly high IQ to understand why. :)
Look at how you posit the question: Which one matters — natural ability or individual effort? Why would you think that you have to pick one? The obvious answer is “both matter.”
Everyone is not equal, in either intelligence or other physical, mental, or psychological traits. This often makes a big difference in life outcomes. However, life outcomes are not completely controlled by such characteristics or traits. Individual effort is very important, and it is extremely rare for someone to succeed at a very high level without a combination of both exceptional innate endowment and unusual dedication (and often luck, too).
Kids are often told stupid things like “you can do anything!” No, you can’t. I understand that we need to encourage kids, but I’m concerned that this encouragement is not tempered by a solid dose of realism at the appropriate time (which would probably be around high school).
The path to disaster from your initial proposal — that we presume that everyone is equal — is simple. This hypothesis implies that outcomes should be equal. If they are not, then someone was mistreated. So failure becomes equated with injustice, and the successful are at fault.
I agree that people don’t like the idea that there is wide variation in natural ability, whether relating to intelligence or other abilities. People want to be special, and they want to be high in whatever hierarchy exists. Christian religious faith used to provide an alternative basis for the individual to believe himself special, but few believe this any more.
Here’s the good news. I think that about 80-85% of the population can have a quite successful, rewarding, and satisfying life with some reasonably hard work and avoidance of obvious pitfalls (such as substance abuse, dropping out of school, and dysfunctional family structures). This is where public policy should be focused.
Dealing with the remaining 15-20% is difficult. They are going to need help, and we need to be realistic about their lack of capability, but they also need to be encouraged to do all that they can.
I’ve sold poetry, haven’t I?