In a recent post, I argued that Ted Kaczynski likely had a much lower IQ than you’ld expect from a precocious Harvard educated tenured STEM professor because he ended up living dirt poor without running water and electricity. However in the comment section, blogger Alcoholicwisdom stated:
I think the fact that with such a high IQ, he chose to live that unusual life, should actually inflate his IQ estimate rather than depressing it. But this is more of a feeling rather than science…
This is an interesting perspective, because a member of the Prometheus society once told me that there was an optimum IQ for conventional success (about 130) and that people who deviate too far from it (in either direction) tend to be at risk for failure by society’s standards. I’ve always been skeptical of this view, but there’s some evidence to support it, such as the fact that Christoper Langan, declared the smartest man in America, worked as a bar bouncer and ultra-high IQ blogger Rick Rosner repeated the 12th grade over and over again. So it can be hard for normal people to relate to the complex motivations of the profoundly gifted. Just as no normal person would consider it rational to choose to repeat the 12th grade four times as the hyper-gifted Rick Rosner did, perhaps Ted Kaczinsky’s odd choice to give up a prestigious gig in academia to live in extreme poverty might also reflect ultra high IQ logic that few are smart enough to understand.
The problem is that Kaczynski’s test scores on the WAIS-R, while extremely high, were much closer to the putative optimum IQ of 130 than the putative high risk zone (IQ 150+). However, it’s rumored that Kaczynski scored somewhere around 170 on a childhood IQ test, however such scores must be interpreted with great caution because childhood IQ’s from the era were often obtained on tests with old norms using the old mental age/chronological age formula for calculating IQ which can give ludicrously high results at certain ages.
What about Kaczynski’s SAT scores? He was one of the best math students in the country so I think it’s safe to say he had the math talent of a perfect 800+ math score on the old, more difficult SAT. What about his Verbal score? On the WAIS-R he obtained a Verbal IQ of 138, but the test was 15 years old at the time he was tested and Verbal norms are said to expire at a rate of 0.2 IQ points a year, so let’s downgrade his Verbal IQ to 135. According to a chart by the Prometheus society (see section 8.3.3 of this link), a WAIS IQ of 135 equates to an old SAT verbal of 640. Adding this to his estimated Math SAT of 800+ gives a combined score of 1440, which according to the same chart, equates to an IQ around 145. Considering the likely ceiling bumping on the Math section, one could make a credible case for an IQ around 150.
Also Grigori Perelman the math genius that solved one of the millenium math problems worth 1 million refused the prize money and quit academia to live in poverty and squalor (presumably he is still doing math). Arguably the worlds greatest or second greatest mathematician living and practicing mathematician after Terence Tao.
I would say take IQ test scores with a grain of salt, from my point of view Rick Rosner and Christopher Langan are frauds who are simply good at IQ tests. Both of them have not achieved anything significant other than doing well on IQ tests.
They both claim to have gotten perfect SAT scores but there is no concrete evidence of this, I especially find this hard to believe especially considering how rare a perfect SAT score was on the old SAT and find it surprising that Langan was not able to get a scholarship with perfect SAT scores.
There are plenty of computer programs that currently exist that are capable of scoring 150+ consistently on IQ tests.
A quick look at some of the sample questions on the WAIS shows that most of the questions are brainteaser type questions that could easily be gamed with practice or by simply knowing the principle of what the question is asking for.
Scoring well on the IQ test is similar to being able to do crossword puzzles or a sudoku puzzle. Smarter people will have a slight advantage over dumber people on crossword puzzles. A retarded person would perform extremely poorly. As for the high end it will be completely useless at the since it would most likely be composed primarily of people that are obsessed with crossword puzzles/language/test taking fanatics/savants. While a “real” genius might have a slight advantage it would not be able to overcome the crystalized intelligence of the other groups.
Also Grigori Perelman the math genius that solved one of the millenium math problems worth 1 million refused the prize money and quit academia to live in poverty and squalor (presumably he is still doing math).
I can understand choosing to live in poverty and squalor if your passion is to do math all day, but turning down a million dollar prize? Very hard to see the logic in that, because at the very least you could use the money to help a cause you care about, even if you had no materialistic needs.
I would say take IQ test scores with a grain of salt, from my point of view Rick Rosner and Christopher Langan are frauds who are simply good at IQ tests. Both of them have not achieved anything significant other than doing well on IQ tests.
But accomplishments require a lot more than just intelligence. They also require drive, hard work, luck, opportunity, special skills, the right interests, etc. Statistically we should expect some profoundly gifted underachievers.
A quick look at some of the sample questions on the WAIS shows that most of the questions are brainteaser type questions that could easily be gamed with practice or by simply knowing the principle of what the question is asking for.
True, but the WAIS is not designed to be studied or practiced for. The scores are not used for college admission or job hiring so few people would bother
>I can understand choosing to live in poverty and squalor if your passion is to do math all day, but turning down a million dollar prize? Very hard to see the logic in that, because at the very least you could use the money to help a cause you care about, even if you had no materialistic needs.
Many extremely intelligent people could easily make more money out of academia. Steve Hsu could easily join wallstreet and make more than he is making now. He turned down the prize to make a statement to the mathematical community. Apparently he is no longer living in Squalor and is working on nanotechnology.
>But accomplishments require a lot more than just intelligence. They also require drive, hard work, luck, opportunity, special skills, the right interests, etc. Statistically we should expect some profoundly gifted underachievers.
Lets do a IQ to Physical ability comparison to make this easier to udnerstand
Lets say you measured a variety of things such as bone density, reaction time, height, lung capacity, muscle to body mass ratio, eyesight etc….
And with all these numbers you changed them into a “Physical Quotient” score.
On average people with better “Physical Quotient” scores will perform better on various random sports than someone with a lower physical quotient.
You would also expect for someone with extremely high physical quotient to look similar to Hafthor bjornsson.
You could somehow substitute weightlifting for intellectual achivements
While success in say something like weight lifting depends on other “non physical quotient” factors such as willpower and technique. Even at a minimum a person that is 6’9″ with all of Hafthor’s muscles should be able to move 100lbs with little to no effort or technique exerted. For someone that large with that amount of muscle moving 100lbs is like moving a feather.
Likewise this applies to people that are truly intelligent. They can easily skip every math class, flip through a book for half an hour and walk out of the test with the highest score in the class (college level math course) even if they don’t study they can easily get a passing grade. The same applies to the SAT, most of the people that get perfect scores spend very little time studying for the SAT, they simply took a couple of practice SAT’s scored extremely well on it and thus never bothered to study for the real thing.
Which is why I find it extremely difficult to see how Langan and rick rosner could be so unaccomplished. Especially when people with 90 IQ’s have no problem getting a college degree. And for their so called claims of perfect SAT scores, if they really did have the scores that they claimed why did they attend and then drop out of third tier toilet universities and why weren’t they offered scholarships?
—————————————————————-
>True, but the WAIS is not designed to be studied or practiced for. The scores are not used for college admission or job hiring so few people would bother
And there are some people who inadvertently study or practice for IQ tests without realizing it just like how playing a lot of scrabble will probably make you better at wheel of fortune or crossword puzzles.
>few people with bother
People do a lot of pointless things that have no tangible benefits that require a lot of effort such as writing a poem on a grain of rice etc….
Godslayer ,
I think your analogy with physical quotients is quite good, though it might be more analogous if you considered a broader range of sports than just weight lifting.
But we don’t really need analogies because we know that IQ & academic success correlate 0.65 in the general population so we should expect Langan, whose Mega score is +5.94 SD to be 0.65(5.94 SD) = +3.86 SD in academic success (one in 10,000 level) with a 95% confidence interval of +2.34 SD to +5.38 SD.
So you’re right; statistically at the very least we should expect Langan to be +2.34 SD in academic success (top 1%; i.e. having a PhD from an average school or a BA from an elite school)
So his biography is quite anomalous ; this could be because the Mega Test is only a rough measure of IQ given that it’s not given under controlled conditions. Or it could be that correlations between IQ & conventional success start breaking down above 150. You yourself mentioned geniuses who rebel against financial success so the same may apply to academic success. Just speculating.
Rick Rosner and Chris Langan both take high range IQ tests. These tests are untimed with difficult questions. They are more reliable because it does not depend on your mood that day, or your speed.
High range IQ tests are more reliable than SAT scores or WAIS or other standardized tests. These tests are no way close to crossword or sudoku. The questions of a high range IQ tests are so difficult that, even if you sit for years, you will not be able to solve that question/item without high intelligence. And the beauty is that they do not require knowledge.
Chris langan has a theory of everything which is called CTMU:
I do not agree with the theory, but this type of work is very unique and rare.
Rick Rosner has also similar theories and interests.
Therefore, they are both interested in the most important questions of reality. this alone proves their intelligence.
Could you please tell me which computer program scores 150 in which Iq test?
Academics is too boring for many of the highest intelligence people, and some of them are even actively against academics.
Most intelligent people are so rare that it is difficult to have an opinion or judgment about them due to lack of experience with them.
Alcoholicwisdom,
Good points. Some have argued that Langan is not recognized as a Genius because so few people are intelligent enough to even understand his CTMU theory, let alone appreciate it.
@pumpkinp
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-nobel-prize-medicine-20141006-story.html
London cab drivers hippocampus studies can get nobel prize.
You should prove `effect’ brain size is `g’. And you will get nobel prize. If not, you will get $10k from me.
IC,
I think brain size is a big part of g, but I think there’s a lot more to g than just brain size. Other big factors are brain speed, insulation of brain connections, metabolization of glucose in the brain etc
Hearing Bill Gates speak makes one realize money wasn’t the number one motivator in his life versus hearing Donald Trump or Sheldon Adelson or Donald Sterling speak.
Whether a high iq individual succeeds or fails monetarily, money doesn’t seem to be the number one motivation. Instead, curiosity in abstract things take precedence. Ted Kaczynski was easily one of the top 10 brains in math.
The link between IQ and income seems to be broken around 120 iq. At that point one can see nurses, teachers, master electricians and other skilled but less intuitive jobs have incomes that exceed certain high iq jobs like professors. After a certain iq, conscientiousness and practicality start to increasingly matter and determine whether a person at a high iq level will succeed or crash. The same applies to how the sanity of such an individual.
I agree that extremely smart people would be less obsessed with making money, partly because it’s a pretty primitive, concrete & one-dimensional motive. On the other hand, I think it’s pretty naive, uncreative & unrealistic to not appreciate the incredible importance & usefulness of having copious wealth.
Brilliant people might not be much richer than merely bright people, but billionaires seem way smarter than millionaires. & decabillionaires seem even smarter than billionaires .
Physicist Steve Hsu did an a great analysis of the 3 richest men in the world & concluded that every single one of them was above IQ 135:
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2009/11/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich.html?m=1
Terman claimed to have put to rest the “too smart” theory. But he wasn’t a disinterested observer.
The truth is that IQ by itself is the best predictor for a lot of things, but it’s still not very good.
And SLDR means that those with highest IQs may not be a talented in any one area as many well below them on the IQ scale. IQ is a mean of subtests usually, but even if it were the first principal component, the same would be true. That is, it’s possible to have a very high IQ and yet not even be capable of, let a lone interested enough to, become a grandmaster chess player or a physics professor or whatever.
And SLDR means that those with highest IQs may not be a talented in any one area as many well below them on the IQ scale.
I’m quite skeptical of SLODR (I think it’s largely an artifact of ceiling bumping on different IQ subtests & some studies show heritability actually INCREASES at high IQ levels, contrary to what SLODR would predict) however most actual IQ experts (including Jensen) would agree with you that SLODR is real..
However your point is valid even without invoking SLODR. For example, let’s say the correlation between IQ and chess talent is 0.5. Someone who is +5 SD in IQ would be only 0.5(+5 SD) = +2.5 SD in chess talent, and if they didn’t practice and study the game, much less in actual chess performance.
It does bother me that the correlation between IQ and chess does not appear to be high at all…Chess to me always seemed like the ultimate measure of adaptability and strategic problem solving; the essence of Darwinian intelligence. A Promethean once speculated that Go would be more g loaded, partly because computers have had so much trouble mastering it.
@Pp – You presumably already know Grady M Towers The Outsiders essay on the Prometheus web site? I think that is an excellent summary of, and insight into, the situation.
In terms of conventional psychology, IQ is only one variable required for career success. The main other variable is the personality trait of conscientiousness. This combination leads to career succes (but also very low fertility, especially in women).
For creative genius, a different personality type is required which is high psychoticism (and low conscientiousness) – but there is a sweet spot with psychoticism – too much and you become a social misfit/ sociopath/ actually psychotic. Many of the people with ultra-high measured IQ are of this type (while the high – IQ high conscientiousness people often have never taken an IQ test, they just ace all of their examiations).
Almost all creative geniuses were pathological in some way – the well known geniuses were pathological in ways which happened to get social recognition and their names happen to be remembered in association with their dioscoveries; but there have been times in history with a lot of evidence of creative genius, but virtually no names remembers – eg the Middle Ages in Western Europe.
Bruce,
I find the personality trait psychoticism fascinating, but confusing, because apparently, if one is extremely high on psychoticism, one has psychosis, but if one is only moderately high, one is psychopathic. Why would these two traits be on the same continuum? A psychopath (roughly speaking) is someone who lacks compassion for others & feels no guilt, while a psychotic is someone who is delusional and out of touch with reality. I don’t know enough about either trait to speak with authority, but they seem like two distinct variables, rather than different degrees of the same personality type.
But I definitely agree with the larger point that the bizarre thinking style that makes one psychotic, when combined with high IQ, causes creativity, but I find the latent inhibition model to be a less confusing way of understanding the relationship. According to this theory, people with low latent inhibition have trouble ignoring irrelevant thoughts, and if they are bombarded by too many of them, they get confuse a lose contact with reality and become schizophrenic. But if their IQ (or perhaps specifically working memory) is sufficiently high to keep track and juggle all these irrelevant thoughts, they can combine them into something creative. Here’s a fascinating Harvard study on this topic which I’ve linked to many times:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html
@Pp – Well, the latent inhibition model was proposed by Hand Eysenck to explain his hypothetical personality trait of Psychoticism – so both ideas are different aspects of the same phenomenon (or at least their discoverer thought so).
I too was not happy with the trait of Psychoticism as Eysenck left it – although I think it was on the right lines – so I have tried to operationalize as a master trait it in a series of posts at my psychology blog:
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=psychoticism
I disagree with your assessment of the Stanford-Binet L-M and ratio IQs. What is ludicrous is not the ratio I.Q.s that this test gives, but the compression of I.Q. at the top end for extremely gifted persons effected by the modern deviation I.Q. tests that you prefer. Some psychologists believe that, for all its inadequacies due to its age, the old S-B remains the only test with enough “top” to catch and differentiate the extremely gifted.
Some psychologists believe that, for all its inadequacies due to its age, the old S-B remains the only test with enough “top” to catch and differentiate the extremely gifted.
Possibly. You would have to anchor both ratio and deviation IQs to some biological correlates of IQ like brain size and reaction time, and then see which type of IQ enjoyed a more linear relationship with said variables throughout the full range.
My suggestion, I believe. It’s a good one, too
Yes, you made a very similar point.
In strange brains and genius, he was said to have scored a 170 on a Stanford-Binet childhood IQ test (SD 16) administered by Ralph Meister.