Our IQs have never been higher

[frostfire]

Ein gutes lesen.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart

James Flynn is worried about leaving the world to millennials. As a professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, he regularly meets bright students with enormous potential, only to find that many of them aren’t engaging with the complex past of the world around them.

“They have all these modern skills and yet they come out of university no different than the medieval peasant who is anchored in his own little world,” he tells me mid-way through our conversation. “Well, actually they are anchored in a much bigger world – the world of the present – but with no historical dimension.” The result, he thinks, is that we have overly simplistic views of current issues, leaving us open to manipulation by politicians and the media.

more in the article

[ddoering]

Perhaps they are not more intelligent. Perhaps we are teaching the test. Intelligence doesn't equal smart either.

[Requiem]

It's so hard to get all that pesky history stuff on a meme...

[GratefulCitizen]

It is true that IQ can limit the practical application of wisdom.
There are other factors that likely limit it more.

A lack of experience sets a serious limitation.
The greatest limitation is probably imposed by a lack of humility.

Participation trophies and unwarranted praise have consequences.

[Sohei]

I would rather a person with an abundance of common sense over a high IQ.

Some of the dumbest people I know are considered "smart."

[tonyz]

I would rather a person with an abundance of common sense over a high IQ.

Some of the dumbest people I know are considered "smart."

True. Some of the folks with the highest levels of formal "education" have the least amount of common sense. Street sense can sometimes be underrated by those with some powerful educations. However, sadly the combination of both is truly rare. And, unfortunately too often ego sometimes overrides both.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59RSLhdGWQM

[Flagg]

I'm a big fan of author Austin Kleon's book "Steal Like an Artist".

https://www.amazon.com/Steal-Like-Artist-Things-Creative-ebook/dp/B0074QGGK6/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0074QGGK6&pd_rd_r=WSA7QF90JP6KF6SQRK4G&pd_rd_w=E6tbj&pd_rd_wg=iMGCk&psc=1&refRID=WSA7QF90JP6KF6SQRK4G

The author's premise is that most everyone, everything that can be invented, has already been invented.

But awesome creativity and innovation still occurs daily all around us by largely applying Solution A that exists in country/company/community #1 to country/company/community #2.

Basically, and with few exceptions, "what's old is new again".

So if true, and I believe it to be, then a strong background/interest in history as well as international travel/living experience provides a real competitive advantage over a "digital native" who is only living "today" and "here".

[(1VB)compforce]

I think it's deeper than that. Every single member of SF, by definition as imposed by entrance requirements, is a member of the top 4% of the population by IQ (ASVAB is, or was, recognized as an IQ test by Mensa).

Raw IQ is measured by questions designed to have no context. Each question is self contained. IQ is a measure of the ability to learn. It is expressed as a score that is a percentage comparison to the general population. So a person with a 100 IQ is at the same statistical level as the average person. The tests are recognized as being biased towards english speaking, literate people.

I would suggest that the internet age has given the appearance of a rise in IQ due to an overall rise in literacy. The number of those that would have been recognized as having a high IQ...if they could read... has been shifted by access to the internet and by the rise in overall literacy levels to unprecedented levels. In other words, the number of people with high IQ's has gone up by stealing from the numbers of people that were formerly undereducated, but smart.

Thanks to various subsidies and an emphasis, some would say overemphasis, on college, professors at colleges are meeting groups of people that they would not have met in the past. These groups of people have, by definition, a wide range of IQ scores. I would think that the professors' observations are merely reflective of the larger populations to which they are exposed.

I would go further to say that academic intelligence (IQ, "book smart") and functional intelligence (common sense) are two sides of the same coin. The primary difference between the two being the lack of context in IQ versus the opposite overabundance of context in common sense. At the end of the day, a balance between the two is the ideal. How is that balance achieved? Through experience.

It is possible for the person with high IQ to gain context through experience as evidenced by the SF Soldier who is given the opportunity through identification of their high IQ characteristics, ability to learn and specific character traits. Once a member of the SF community, they are subjected to a wide and varied set of experiences that accelerate their exposure to context far and above the norm.

It is also possible for the person with common sense to gain on the IQ side through exposure to mass quantities of information and a better educational foundation allowing them to take advantage of this repository. In other words, the rise in literacy rates has enabled self education via the internet. Unrealized genius is a proverb. Perhaps we are simply realizing more of the genius that was already there.

I believe that the general malaise and lack of individual achievement in the millennial is being driven more by a culture that is shifting towards promotion of the group over the individual than by any shift in actual intelligence whether IQ or common sense.

my .02 and worth what you paid for it. It's late and I'm rambling...

[alelks]

I would rather a person with an abundance of common sense over a high IQ.

Some of the dumbest people I know are considered "smart."

You and me both!