Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart (New Scientist)

[DrewWilson]

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'."

More...

I think the term "obvious" is an understatement. A high IQ doesn't mean your smart.

[mountain_rage]

A high I.Q. means you are capable of undertaking various skills with greater ease and more precision than others. But it does not measure, as the study pointed out, someones knowledge. In order to make good decisions, you need a vast amount, and good quality knowledge. If all you have is a bunch of false, misleading, or incorrect knowledge the decisions you will make will be wrong. So I.Q. generally does help someone be smarter, so long as they are not handicapped in other regards.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Also, if you are apt to allow you're attitude and world view dominate how you assess information, you are hindering your ability to think logically and rationally.

Cynicism is not skepticism.

[kippies]

I see this as a width versus depth kind of thing

You can have a great depth of knowledge on the activities that allow you to score highly on an IQ test and lack the width of knowledge that makes you a rounded person and a decent decision maker

the converse applies..

Robert Heinlein predicted this and stated that the people who would be deemed "intelligent" in his future (now) would be the librarians- those who commanded a breadth of knowledge

Bush is probably no smarter or stupider than any of us- its just his skills lie in a direction that is useless at this point in time. Having said that its academic as hes gone- but what of the great successor????

Thats right hes no better or worse than his predecessor, the LCD (lowest common denominator) applies

Like the man says- prosperity and economic boom or bust is cyclical- those in charge will take credit for or abdicate responsibility for it as the cycle continues

IMHO we are too small to make any great impact on the grand scheme of things and its about time we accepted that

[moneoa]

Originally Posted by kippies

You can have a great depth of knowledge on the activities that allow you to score highly on an IQ test and lack the width of knowledge that makes you a rounded person and a decent decision maker

To generalise, another way of putting it is "book" smarts vs. "street" smarts

[DrewWilson]

Like a lake. It can be ankle deep, but very wide or practically like a well and be hundreds of feet deep, but only a few feet wide (OK, that's stretching it a little by natural standard, but whatever) but which lake is larger?

[mountain_rage]

Originally Posted by DrewWilson

Like a lake. It can be ankle deep, but very wide or practically like a well and be hundreds of feet deep, but only a few feet wide (OK, that's stretching it a little by natural standard, but whatever) but which lake is larger?

Its a related rates problem. The only problem is that in nature you have a lot of surface variation so you would probably have to estimate the dimensions, unless you wish to measure the exact shape of the lake. A good way to solve this would be to use calculus. All you really need to measure a cross sectional length across, then create a formula for the circumference of a circle at any point along the length that estimates the depth at increasingly small slivers. Take the integral of the circle formula, multiply it by the length and divide by 2. By the time you figure out of the formula for the circumference at any point along the length you will say fuck it and just map out the rough geometry in a computer and let it figure it out. Its very likely you would want a computer for the solution, although it depends how different the two volumes are from each other, without dimensions you can't say which is more voluminous.

[moneoa]

Originally Posted by mountain_rage

Its a related rates problem, although in nature so you would probably have to estimate teh side unless you with to measure the exact shave of the lake. A good way would be to use calculus. All you really need to estimate in the length across, then create a formula for the circumference of a circle at any point along the length. Take the integral of the circle formula, multiply it by the length and divide by 2. By the time you figure out of the formula for the circumference at any point along the length you will say fuck it and just map out the rough geometry in a computer and let it figure it out. Its very likely you would want a computer for the solution, although it depends how obviously different the dimensions are, without dimensions you can't say.

I have never had a mathmatical description give me an acid trip until yours did just now

[mountain_rage]

Originally Posted by moneoa

I have never had a mathmatical description give me an acid trip until yours did just now

Wow I was tired when I wrote it. Its pretty messy.