Slashdot Mirror
Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?
HughPickens.com writes David Robson has an interesting article at BBC on the relationship between high intelligence and happiness. "We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness," writes Robson. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson – lone stars, isolated even as they burn their brightest." As Ernest Hemingway wrote: "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." The first steps to studying the question were taken in 1926 when psychologist Lewis Terman decided to identify and study a group of gifted children. Terman selected 1,500 pupils with an IQ of 140 or more – 80 of whom had IQs above 170. Together, they became known as the "Termites", and the highs and lows of their lives are still being studied to this day. "As you might expect, many of the Termites did achieve wealth and fame – most notably Jess Oppenheimer, the writer of the classic 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy. Indeed, by the time his series aired on CBS, the Termites' average salary was twice that of the average white-collar job. But not all the group met Terman's expectations – there were many who pursued more "humble" professions such as police officers, seafarers, and typists. For this reason, Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated". Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average."
According to Robson, one possibility is that knowledge of your talents becomes something of a ball and chain. During the 1990s, the surviving Termites were asked to look back at the events in their 80-year lifespan. Rather than basking in their successes, many reported that they had been plagued by the sense that they had somehow failed to live up to their youthful expectations (PDF).
Well now, this should end up a wonderful thread full of angsty "geniuses" whining about how they can totally identify with the Termites because no one "gets" them.
That... That looks like English...
I surely wouldn't qualify as one of the 'termites' in the study, but there still things in my life I take to quickly. There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.
There is a big difference between having the ability to do something, having the need to do something, and having a want and drive to do something. That last one seems to get people much further then being at the very top in intelligence. It also provides a framework of interaction and social connection between peers, if it is truly a passion.
So maybe it takes being the best and brightest to be first chair violinist in a prestigious symphony, but being brilliant alone won't get you there. Meanwhile hundreds of others have a long and successful career they make out of their perseverance.
this is nothing new: i believe the same study was the basis of the famous book "Outliers", which is a fascinating study of what makes people successful. if i recall correctly, it's completely the opposite of what people expect: your genes *do* matter. your attitude *does* matter. your circumstances *do* matter. working hard *does* matter. and luck matters as well. but it's all of these things - luck, genetics, circumstances *and* hard work - that make for the ultimate success story. bill gates is one of the stories described. he had luck and opportunity - by being born at just the right time when personal computing was beginning - and circumstances - by going to one of the very very few schools in the USA that actually had a computer available (for me, that opportunity was when i was 8: i went to one of the very very few secondary schools in the UK that had a computer: a Pet 3032).
so, yeah - it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept. but, put simply, the statistics show that it's a combination of a whole *range* of factors, all of which contribute, that make up success. just "being intelligent" simply is not enough.
Some ten or fifteen years ago, Scientific American published an article about the positive correlation of "general intelligence" with virtually every measure of success in life.
Like earning enough money to be comfortable, having the emotional intelligence to have a successful marriage, etc.
They showed that "general intelligence" which is correlated with but not directly measured by things like SAT scores, was basically a ticket to (or highly correlated with) a good life, and even good health.
And the article was mighty persuasive.
--PeterM
It's not so much that others are idiots, it's that they actively resist any attempt at being enlightened. They rejoice in their stupidity.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
(See? I used per se, so I'm... oh never mind...)
Intelligence and being highly observant are great skills both in society and from an evolutionary/survivalist standpoint.
But in a society I've found it brings up two downsides:
Guilt, because your intelligence allows you to avoid pain or achieve a higher level of comfort in society. You weren't "superman" you just made rational choices based upon your understanding of how the system works and now your friends and family are suffering because they didn't and you want to help them which requires more energy and effort or you can't which means your intelligence has limits and all you can do is watch them suffer.
Stress and anxiety. Once you figure out that you can problem solve and improve your quality of life it's natural, like any athlete, to grow and push your boundaries. But intellectual pursuits aren't as cut and dried as physical ones - It's easy to know that you can only bench press 200lbs and that's what you need to work on - Less so when you're trying to solve problems like familial and social discord but nobody will listen or trying to improve your company's fortunes by making proper investment choices. More to the point, I'm an engineer and there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working, might not work AT ALL and the boss is breathing down your neck (oh and the company is on the line). There's plenty of days I've driven by a building crew and daydreamed about just running the earth mover or driving a dump truck.
In an Agrarian society - in a pre-industrialized world these issues just didn't come about for intellectualism - Partially because it wasn't as much of a survival skill. (And that's probably why steampunk is so romanticized today)
"We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness."
This I think comes from identifying 'genius' as someone with special ability but not a popular, cool ability. Exceptional athletes, musicians, and actors are just as much outliers as 'geniuses', but their talents are never liabilities, and only rarely does society genuinely encourage any humility on their part.
I can bang my head against a brick wall all I want, but all I will ever get out of it is a broken head.
The trick is to pick a battle you can win, and then buckle down and win it.
I've climbed high in my own life, but that is because my goals were achievable and I had the tools (both born with and the opportunities I needed) to succeed.
There are many who work hard in life but don't get much of anywhere.
That said, working hard is the only way to MAXIMIZE your opportunities and inborn potential. Praise your kids for their hard work, not their brains.
--PM
Exactly. Point a loaded gun at a playful dog and he'll be all excited by the new game.
Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.
As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph! I make a lot of graphs...
There are many obvious advantages to high IQ, if the genes related to it weren't also linked to major negatives then the process of evolution would have selected for them more effectively than it has.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
You're too lazy to look it up? Just because we can't define intelligence to 5 digits of precision doesn't mean it isn't a useful concept. We can still talk about a correlation between X and intelligence, as long as the correlation is strong enough that it will hold for any reasonable definition of intelligence.
You lose consciousness in under 5 seconds of fresh blood getting to the brain. Better eat quickly.
If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons. There _must_ be commensurate down-sides. Depression? Slower reflexes? Go fetch!
As it is, we just have the Flynn effect of average IQs rising about 1 pt per decade over the past century. That might [or not] be considered as fast evolutionary change.
Actually, studies show that the higher one's intelligence, the more they hold on to their positions, even if shown to be wrong. It is the idiot, that is more readily swayed, than the genius.
That's who demagogues rely on for their support.
There are upsides and downsides to _everything_.
The smarter you are, the more that fact hits you in the face every place you look. There actually are benefits to mankind from religion, not just costs. Same with Capitalism, science and whatever pet aspect of life you completely hate or love.
You're too lazy to look it up?
Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.
I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
There was plenty of motivation of the conquering Spaniards to demonize the culture that they were destroying
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false.
Wait, what? That's nonsense. Any kind clearly covers a lot of ground, and some North American native peoples clearly did live in some kind of harmony with nature. They didn't leave it untouched, but they did see themselves as stewards with a responsibility to maintain the land. Again, there's variation between peoples. On the plains they burned down forests to make room for bison. But in other places they set controlled burns which successfully maintained forests throughout thousands of years of continuous occupation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Says the US, with both feet in Hitler's toy box.
Well, we did import it at great expense, it would be a shame not to play in it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This study says "Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year...The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100."
Oh, also: Genius is simply raw potential. What someone does with that 'potential' is a different matter entirely.
As said long ago, "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." I am loathe to quote that weenie, Thomas A. Edison, but the idea of his quote is accurate. It is what you do with that potential that matters.
If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons.
Yours seems to be below the average, whatever number that is.
The IQ is standardized such that the fiftieth percentile has an IQ of 100. It's a definition, nothing more.
Giant ground sloth was present before those "with nature" humans you talk about, and died out shortly after. In fact, there's a list of about 50 animals that would have been good hunting or human competitors that died out once they go to North America.
You ideas about what they did are quite trite, and 100% wrong.
No, because there is all kinds of intelligence that is not measurable by IQ tests. For example, a huge chunk of our brains is the visual cortex, but for some reason people don't consider it a sign of intelligence to be able to be able to distinguish basic objects like apples or elephants, or to recognize spoken words (especially with background chatter), or to hold a meaningful conversation. Yet anyone who's tried to have a computer do it knows what a PITA it is. Speaking of computers, just about every math skill is done better by computers, but almost no one considers a computer intelligent.
So at the very least you have 1) raw brain/computing power 2) specialized skills 3) knowledge/data/programming which is rather like precalculated solutions.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I can relate to that. People who live more in the moment are happier, because the long view always involves decline, death, and dying. I'm petting and really enjoying my dog, and somewhere I'm thinking how I might have another eight years before I have a 120 pound problem who is pissing and shitting huge logs everywhere, who is going to be a royal bitch to dig a hole for one day. I'm having sex with my wife, and somewhere I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80. The big picture long view always seems to have a down side, and it's depressing.
I can relate to the expectations thing too. Everybody looks up to you, and a lot of them are jealous of you, and it makes it that much harder to choose an ordinary life. I'm a truck driver, and I like my profession fine, but I constantly feel a need to apologize for not owning the trucking company or being a professor or something; for not aiming higher in general. I've found a lot of people don't like me, because they don't think they're good enough for me for some reason, and yet I feel the same toward them. I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything. Too much knowledge can be crippling, instead of helpful. It's hard to invest in a business idea, knowing every conceivable way it might fail, and what all the odds are.
My mother was even more intelligent than I am, and she died young, of alcoholism. She was a miserable woman.
Intelligence is overrated. One side effect for me is that I can never enjoy the opiate of a nice handy sky daddy to make me feel less infinitesimal in the scheme of things. We evolved to see sky daddies in everything, and I have the same need in my brain as any other human, but there's nothing to plug into it. I haven't found the religion yet that wasn't just totally inconsistent and goofy.
The true burden lies in thinking a "high IQ" means you're better than other people. There are many valuable skills and talents which are not measured by an IQ test, including art, music, empathy, and so on.
The burden is the arrogance of presuming IQ means intelligence. It does not. It is simply one metric for measuring skillsets.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The danger when you have the intelligence to do anything you want to do in life is doing nothing. You hesitate to focus narrowly on one field of study because that means you'll have less time for all the others.
I won't say what my IQ is, but it's up there. My grades, especially in science courses, were practically perfect. People were expecting me to go into all kinds of careers, including medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc.. But, I'm interested in everything! Always have been. I chose a career that didn't need much thought so I could keep up with what was happening in science and technology. It's worked. How many 62 year olds do you know who build their own computers? Or just bought two new microscopes? Or diagnose their own problems before going to the doctor?
I know a lot of successful people. Most of them have very little time for fishing, hunting, camping, going to ball games, watching television, listening to music, playing with the children & grandchildren, or working in the garden. I have all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what it's all about?
Here is what you are missing -- helping others.
Most of the activities of my life have been trivially easy for decades. Helping others remains challenging.
If you really are "so smart", you are able to see what a disaster this world is today. Well, get busy changing it. You will be up against the most powerful, greedy, selfish & moneyed people on the face of the Earth. Challenge enough for me. What about you?
I come here for the love
That has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with outlook and perspective. Lets just say, I'm a pretty smart guy and the best piece of advice that I was ever given was to focus on the now. It is easy to foresee problems and possible scenarios and it is good to take measures to prevent the obvious. However, the sooner you realize that shit happens that you will never be able to plan for or there are simply various inevitable outcomes that will be sad and painful that you simply will not want to deal with, the sooner you will realize that there is just no point in worrying about them.
It has almost become a catchphrase for me, "Cross that bridge when you get to it." Focus on what can be dealt with now. Try to keep yourself in the best possible situation that you can and don't worry about what is around the corner until it is within sight to actually deal with it. Friends will come and go, loved ones will leave you, cars and tools will fail you when you need them the most, at some point your job will end, and eventually you will die. These are simple truths of life but if you spend even a second worrying about any of them before there is anything you can do about them, it is purely wasted energy that could be put to use tackling the problems that you do have.
I'm not saying it is easy to change the way you look at the world. It can take some work if not serious effort and it is easy to let yourself fall into ruts of depression and self-loathing. I know, I was there. That is nothing but perverse mental masturbation that does nothing but waste your energy and destroy what little happiness you can achieve. If you can learn to refocus yourself to only what you can affect, the happier and more productive you will become.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.
Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.
Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.
Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.
My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?
Tricky..
You're too lazy to look it up?
Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.
I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...
KIDS! please.. adhominems do not allow such a good point to be explored in the discussion so dial it down a notch or two!
I agree that we would need an open ended general definition for what intelligence is otherwise the argument becomes so subjective as to be philosophy and not science. I sometimes wonder if the view such as yours, that we would need to develop a general AI to understand intelligence is semantically, a step that may lead attempts at defining intelligence in a "Nuts and Bolts" way astray. By your very definition, in order to understand the thing, we have to create the thing we don't understand, which sounds like creating an infinite improbability engine.. or something.. Better example, it sounds like painting ourselves in to a corner by the notion that in order to create a widget we would need that widget as a preliminary step to building it, which is as I said painting ourselves into a corner mentally.
There has already been some interesting work along the lines of defining intelligence in a general sense mathematically and a few models exist that attempt to mimic how networks of neurons process information, (back propagation networks with feedback, Dr Jeff Hawkins's Memory prediction model paradigm , as described in his book On Intelligence and my personal favorite: Alex Wissner-Gross's work demonstrating the defining equation: F = T S which states that intelligence is a force which uses it's available energy to maximize its future freedom of action.) None of these definitions are complete but they do give us some interesting and insightful clues as to what the general characteristic intelligent entities should possess are.
1- Intelligent systems should be able to be intelligent independent of outward observable behavior (We can be intelligent just lying around thinking and not outwardly "Doing" anything.)
2- Intelligent systems should gather information in the form of patterns and sequences of patterns, be able to recall them from memory and recognize patterns or partial patterns it has seen before and based on this collection of memory and experience, be able to "Predict" what pieces of information are coming next based on past patterns. Perceptions of these patterns and sequences should therefore be immune to variation in terms of being viewed in different settings, from different angles, and in the presence of noise and conflicting data, incomplete patterns and most importantly be viewed with an awareness of time.
3- Intelligent systems should be able to use the benefits endowed by the characteristics of 1 and 2 in order to use it's available energy, assets and surroundings in order to maximize its future freedom of action , whether that freedom be, winning a game and continuing to play, ensuring it's own survival or the survival of other beings or assets under it's care or achieving a pre-defined objective in the presence of uncertainty.
Again I say that the definition is not complete, because there are certainly aspects that can be added to this that would better describe humans, higher mammals, or advanced autonomous computer systems behavior in such a way as to lead to better understanding of what is going on inside our skulls or that would lead to (in the case of computer, robotic and software systems ) design parameters. To say that we have "No idea" of what intelligence is, at this point in the game.. in 2015 is not entirely true as a lot of serious work is being ap