DNA tests can predict intelligence

Moby

economic wrote: »

You would be surprised how there really are not that many people who give a !!!!!! about your feelings.

No that's very negative and is not the sort of attitude that leads to success or happiness.
There is a two way process going on and in jobs where team work is crucial it's even more complicated. The expression of empathy, having good listening skills, open body language, give and take etc. will take you far and it's important because far more significant than having a high IQ one of the best predictors for success at work and more generally a happy life is a good relationship with colleagues, partner and/or friends.

Good quality relationships in fact are crucial to happiness outcomes in life generally and have a significant corellation with success as well. Read down the retirement threads on these forums and you'll see that again and again.People retiring after having had successful careers are having to cope with a loss of status or purpose. What's going to get them through the change in their life is not their IQ but the quality of their relationships.

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/emotional-intelligence-why-important.html

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Why-Emotional-Intelligence-is-More-Important-Than-IQ

How it applies in business:-
http://www.netfortris.com/blog/emotional-intelligence

economic

Moby wrote: »

No that's very negative and is not the sort of attitude that leads to success or happiness.
There is a two way process going on and in jobs where team work is crucial it's even more complicated. The expression of empathy, having good listening skills, open body language, give and take etc. will take you far and it's important because far more significant than having a high IQ one of the best predictors for success at work and more generally a happy life is a good relationship with colleagues, partner and/or friends.

Good quality relationships in fact are crucial to happiness outcomes in life generally and have a significant corellation with success as well. Read down the retirement threads on these forums and you'll see that again and again.People retiring after having had successful careers are having to cope with a loss of status or purpose. What's going to get them through the change in their life is not their IQ but the quality of their relationships.

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/emotional-intelligence-why-important.html

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Why-Emotional-Intelligence-is-More-Important-Than-IQ

How it applies in business:-
http://www.netfortris.com/blog/emotional-intelligence

All completely irrelevant to what i meant. People are "nice" at work because its in their best interest to be nice. The moment you lose your job, your colleagues will forget about you within a few days after gossiping why you lost your job.

The fact is the number 1 most important factor of getting a job and staying in a job is being able to do the job and showing you can do it and are good at so much so that you wont be replaced by someone better/cheaper.

For jobs that are decent paying (i.e. high skilled jobs) IQ does matter up to a certain extent. I would argue if you have a 100 IQ, you are going to be easily out-competed by others who are smarter then you and therefore can do the job better then you.

Acting "nice" in a company with others is easy. People can act very well and its your incentive to act "nice" towards others so that you stand a good chance of being promoted or just staying in a team. But please don't kid yourself that colleagues really care about you - they really don't. On the contrary they prefer you run over by a bus so that your colleagues get promoted faster then you do.

And all the above is completely different to relationships with family and loved ones and friends. Which has very little to do with financial success.

System

The strange thing about IQ is how it doesn't actually match up to one's own personal observations.
The average IQ is supposed to be 100. People who actually do have an IQ of 100 are petty thick. Then consider that half the population will be even thicker. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

Or is the answer that everyone instinctively only interacts with others of their own level, so of course it follows that everyone else will seem just like us, and we simply don't see the others?

economic

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The strange thing about IQ is how it doesn't actually match up to one's own personal observations.
The average IQ is supposed to be 100. People who actually do have an IQ of 100 are petty thick. Then consider that half the population will be even thicker. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

Or is the answer that everyone instinctively only interacts with others of their own level, so of course it follows that everyone else will seem just like us, and we simply don't see the others?

It does make sense. and its all relative. to you and to me a 100 iq person is pretty thick. but to someone who is 95 iq, a 100 iq person is quite smart.

Sir_Robin

It is worth differentiating between intelligence and wisdom imo. Inteliigence is potential whilst wisdom is realised potential. I'd value wisdom much more.

Working in a highly technical field I know very intelligent people can be lazy, have difficulty relateing to others, be arrogant and incompetent just like everyone else. What's important is that you know your job and do it well and in that regard: tenacity, enthusiasm, willingness to learn, professionalism and other characteristics are bigger factors than intelligence.

I don't really think IQ is all that useful a measure and if it can indeed be predicted then I worry it could be abused to discriminate against people.

GreatApe

The good thing that comes out of IQ research imo is the understanding that about 2% of the population are mentally !!!!!! or very close to it and another 8% can only really do the most basic of tasks.

To me this is a powerful argument for a welfare state seeing as at least some ten percent of the population can't just work harder or smarter they need support. Yes this should fine from their families but not all families are functional

economic

As time goes by IQ will become less and less relevant. Automation, technology, robotics, cheap healthcare are all coming. This means the need to save money is not needed as much as it has been before. Even now the utility of money is probably peaking or will peak over the next 5-10 years or so.

So fear not if you have a low IQ and are young. The future is bright.

Cakeguts

westernpromise wrote: »

My observation at university was that very smart people tend to be good at more than one thing. Someone who does nothing but mug up one subject can go quite far, but if it takes 100% of their mental capacity to be really good at maths or whatever, then they will have no time to be good at music or sculpture or something else. Really bright people get their Firsts without much effort while having time left over to be really good at something else too, such as arguing with people on the internet.

Really clever people find everything easy.

Our education system at the moment is biased against really clever people. GCSEs and their dreadful course work. Working hard on course work is not a substitute for intelligence. I got bored doing O levels and there was none of the mind bendingly boring useless easy time wasting course work that there is with GCSEs. I am not one of the very intelligent people who I have met.

GCSEs were designed for people with lower than average ability to do anything. All the highly intelligent people I have met have also been very well read. They read books about all sorts of subjects. When does someone doing all the stupid useless time filling course work on a GCSE course have time to read? The problem is the course work. Highly intelligent people will read a book instead they don't need to write any of it down. The sooner that our education system offers something for the really intelligent instead of the dumbed down system we have now the better for everyone. There are highly intelligent 6 year olds who can pass GCSEs what on earth do they do for the rest of the time? Anyone who has O levels would have passed GCSEs at age 11 or less.

We have people in this country who can get a first class honours degree from Oxford or Cambridge in a non music subject and still get to the standard on a musical instrument to pass an audition to play in a professional orchestra. Just learning the instrument takes time. They don't have to "work hard" at school work to get anywhere. It is an absolute scandal that we expect people like this to do course work in order to fill time on a GCSE course. I am convinced that the course work is only there to make the teaching easier and to fill in the time on the course otherwise everyone who can spell their name would pass GCSEs 2 months after starting the course. There are a lot of people who mistake "working hard" at school work for intelligence. Intelligent people don't look as if they are working hard it is all done inside the head.

Cakeguts

What I am beginning to notice is how stupid some of our school teachers are. I am not surprised you can now become a teacher with a qualification called a degree that is roughly the standard of 3 old O levels. It is a disaster because they can't teach children who don't fit the mould and they aren't intelligent enough to problem solve. When they discover someone who doesn't fit the mould they blame the student. The result of this is that the student leaves school thinking that they are a total failure. It is no good telling a student who is suffering from a severe mental illness that they should concentrate more in class. Some teachers can't tell the difference between students who are not very bright and students who are very bright but are not well. What they do is carry on teaching in their normal way and ignore the students who for some reason don't understand what they are teaching. This is not teaching. Teaching means getting all students to understand not just the ones who fit that teacher's idea of how a student learns. However with a degree the standard of 3 old O levels you can't really expect someone to be able to do this. They are just not intelligent enough to be able to problem solve. The result of this terrible teaching is adults with very low self esteem caused by having a mental illness and being told by thick teachers that it was their fault that they didn't understand.

You can tell an intelligent person by how they treat others. Thick people want to make everyone equal because they don't understand how much variation there is. It is one of those things where if someone can't understand a particular concept they can't see why anyone else can.

One of the concepts that shows up unintelligent people is the one where everyone who goes to university should get a graduate level job although there are only about 8% of jobs that need someone to have a degree. There seem to be a lot of people who can't get the basic concept that if there are only 8% of jobs that need a degree only 8% of graduates will get them and the other 92% will get jobs that don't need a degree so there is no point in those 92% going to university to get a better job because they will get the same job as they would have done straight after school but 3 years later.

GreatApe

Over schooling is the biggest self induced problem we have created.

Not only does it cost a kid £30k but they also lose £70k in lost income. That is £100k down.

Put that into a pension or a property returning just 5% annually and in 45 years when it's time to retire it is worth £900,000 in today's money. The true cost of educating a marginal kid is nearly £1 million!

What's worse is that since this generation is not biologically much different from their parents the great university expansion has not come from a mass expansion of potentially humanity furthering sciences but of nonsense like 20x as many photograph students than there even remotely exists a job that would need it.