Clever Fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart

[doublehelix]

This is something everyone should read and really process. It seems a lot of people forget these kind of things. We were just talking about this a few weeks ago on another thread too. Enjoy the read, it's worth it. They do mention Bush and Obama but only to point at high profile cases.

Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart

* 02 November 2009 by Michael Bond
IS GEORGE W. BUSH stupid? It's a question that occupied a good many minds of all political persuasions during his turbulent eight-year presidency. The strict answer is no. Bush's IQ score is estimated to be above 120, which suggests an intelligence in the top 10 per cent of the population. But this, surely, does not tell the whole story. Even those sympathetic to the former president have acknowledged that as a thinker and decision-maker he is not all there. Even his loyal speechwriter David Frum called him glib, incurious and "as a result ill-informed". The political pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough accused him of lacking intellectual depth, claiming that compared with other US presidents whose intellect had been questioned, Bush junior was "in a league by himself". Bush himself has described his thinking style as "not very analytical".

How can someone with a high IQ have these kinds of intellectual deficiencies? Put another way, how can a "smart" person act foolishly? Keith Stanovich, professor of human development and applied psychology at the University of Toronto, Canada, has grappled with this apparent incongruity for 15 years. He says it applies to more people than you might think. To Stanovich, however, there is nothing incongruous about it. IQ tests are very good at measuring certain mental faculties, he says, including logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and working-memory capacity - how much information you can hold in mind.

But the tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray.

This is the kind of rational thinking we are compelled to do every day, whether deciding which foods to eat, where to invest money, or how to deal with a difficult client at work. We need to be good at rational thinking to navigate our way around an increasingly complex world. And yet, says Stanovich, IQ tests - still the predominant measure of people's cognitive abilities - do not effectively tap into it. "IQ tests measure an important domain of cognitive functioning and they are moderately good at predicting academic and work success. But they are incomplete. They fall short of the full panoply of skills that would come under the rubric of 'good thinking'."

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=1

[Bon]

IQ tests are carried for what? I think I would get under 50 if the test is hard - you see I don't even know what IQ tests are for!

Watch this and decide yourself how the experts think,
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/147#watchonline

I think IQ test can predict the potential of a person depends on his/her performance. But IQ tests do not cover the scope of knowledge, general awareness of everything (past and now), experience, interests, problem solving that directly related to real life issues, you name it. So IQ tests cannot give the real information about intellectuality of a person.
You see Knowledge is Power.

So you got to check what a certain test is about and whether it is qualified for what it is aiming. An IQ test can be just crap. Well, who were those designed these tests? How much did they know about everything? Especially us humankind with different abilities - not what IQ tests cover.

I don't want to say IQ tests are wrong but expectation from IQ test results are wrong exactly. I should say the interpretation of test result.

Look a good chess [*]IQ[*] Test player cannot qualify to be a general to defeat an enemy threatening you country. Then you have to check the qualifications, performances, track records, etc. Only after that you give the job. I should recommend a good job interviewer for this.

Well, Mike Tyson didn't need IQ test to get into the ring.

[Checked_Out]

In regard to the following, paragraph from the above article Stanovich needs to rethink his answer or his qualifier.

But I doubt we will ever know if he does. So I don't have a way to verify if his following conclusion is correct.

"What this means, says Stanovich, is that "intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do"."

To begin I understand why Stanovich thinks "yes" is the correct answer.
And I understand why "the vast majority of people" choose "can not be determined" which IS the correct answer. However most choose this answer due to incorrect reasoning.

The reason "can not be determined" is the correct answer, is the same as why Stanovich believes "yes" is correct.

From the above article.

For example, consider the following problem. Jack is looking at Anne, and Anne is looking at George; Jack is married, George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? If asked to choose between yes, no, or cannot be determined, the vast majority of people go for the third option - incorrectly. If told to reason through all the options, though, those of high IQ are more likely to arrive at the right answer (which is "yes": we don't know Anne's marital status, but either way a married person would be looking at an unmarried one). What this means, says Stanovich, is that "intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do".

The qualifier test utilized to by Stanovich for the above question:

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
-------------------------------------First Leg / Second Leg-------------------
Direction person is looking Jack ----> Anne ---> George
Jack --> Married = JM
George ---> Unmarried =GU

Unknown --> Status of Anne
AM= Married
AU= Unmarried

====================

Question with Anne Married
_1st__ / 2nd
JM--->AM--->GU

Qualifier test:

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person

First Leg = No
Second Leg = Yes

====================

Question with Anne Unmarried
_1st__ / 2nd
JM--->AU--->GU

Qualifier test:

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

First Leg = Yes
Second Leg = No

Stanovich utilizes the following logic to support his answer of "yes.":

we don't know Anne's marital status, but either way a married person would be looking at an unmarried one.

However the way he utilizes the qualifier is incorrect.

The qualifier specifically states "Is a married person (C1) looking at an unmarried person (C2) ?"

The qualifier has 2 conditions that must be true to for the resulting answer to be Yes or True.
If either one of the 2 conditions are false then the resulting answer would be No or False.

Therefore:
The qualifier results in a Yes or True result twice.
The qualifier results in a No or False result twice.

A person who chose "No" would be just as correct as a person who chose "Yes."

And since we are unable to determine with any certainty what Anne's actual status is from the above information .
And since Anne can not hold the status of Married and Unmarried for the same instant in time.

Therefore, the MOST correct answer is ---> "can not be determined"

What can be determined from the above is why professors didn't like me during college.
JTH

[dougmanxx]

So Checked_out, coming from one of those people who would have merely glannced at this and said "undetermined", who is George looking at? Does he have his eyes closed? Is he blind? Gazing into space? Out the window? LOL. I love stuff like that, where one of the options is not constrained, the answer could be almost anything! I gues I'm just dumb.

So basically they had to take this long article to tell us intelligence does not equal common sense and wisdom? DUH!

[RamblinglyVeryBored]

Yep, Doug.

Something it seems a lot of people forget, especially on the internet.

[Checked_Out]

So Checked_out, coming from one of those people who would have merely glannced at this and said "undetermined", who is George looking at? Does he have his eyes closed? Is he blind? Gazing into space? Out the window? LOL. I love stuff like that, where one of the options is not constrained, the answer could be almost anything! I gues I'm just dumb.

So basically they had to take this long article to tell us intelligence does not equal common sense and wisdom? DUH!

Doug, You're right on track, and managed to prove Stanovich's conclusion without even knowing you were, or even trying. I’ll clarify in a moment. But first, you are exactly right, who cares who unmarried George is looking at, even if we gave him someone to fixate upon. From the standpoint of the question asked, “is a married person looking at an unmarried person”, it is irrelevant.. Take it a step further. Maybe Jack is "running around" with his sister-in-law Anne at a Swingers Club. Where the two come across Jack's brother George gazing into Anne's sister's eyes. And we ask the same question as above, and add a second question. Is George with Jack's wife. And the possible answers are the same. Yes, no, or can not be determined. The answer still doesn't change from "can not be determined." Anne is still the focus of both questions being asked. "Is a married person (George is unmarried) looking at an unmarried person", and "Is George with Jack's wife?" We don't know if Anne only has one sister, I didn't say. Besides the fact that Jack has at least two issues, he is running around on his wife, and no one is looking at him. What I was trying to convey in my first post is how someone who perceives them self as being intelligent can become myopic when they become focused on their desired outcome. And hopefully by pointing this out to them or telling them what to do. -->Avoid focusing only on result desired and be sure how you reach that result is valid. The person would avoid making the mistake . (Perform better). If Stanovich wouldn’t have focused only on which status of Anne, married or unmarried, provided a answer of Yes. Which is the answer he sought. He would have realized that each status also gave a corresponding No answer. And that his question was flawed. Apparently I made an error when I wrote my first post above. I thought the reader of my post would keep in mind what I had written at the beginning of that post, which is below.

Stanovich needs to rethink his answer or his qualifier.

But I doubt we will ever know if he does. So I don't have a way to verify if his following conclusion is correct.

"What this means, says Stanovich, is that "intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do."

I was trying to verify if the above statement by Stanovich is true.

I am saying he needs to take another look at his question and the related answer. --> I am telling him what to do.

And if Stanovich can see how these are flawed he (as an intelligent person) can perform better in the future.

Doug, you managed to prove Stanvovich's statement without even trying or knowing you were doing this. Something I didn't think would be possible since I doubted Stanovich would ever read what I had written and correct his error(s). You showed me how I can't assume a reader will keep in mind a previously stated purpose of an exercise. And how I should have restated the information from the top of the post again at the bottom. And by making this restatement I would have helped the reader focus on my comments as they were related to their purpose. To prove if the following statement by Stanovich was true. ---> "intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do."
You managed to prove Stanovich's conclusion Doug. Although you were completely unaware of this. You, indirectly told me what I needed to do, that I need to remind people of the purpose of a statement. And by doing this I would have communicated (performed) better.

Congratulations Doug.
JTH