In all this discussion of relationship between IQ and wealth, isn't there a presumption that wealth is inherently good and more is better? What we learn from many different sources is that once people out of poverty, that increased wealth has small to no effect on subjective well-being. Might it be the case that higher IQ persons are able to figure out this lack of relationship and decide to 'spend their IQ' on other pursuits rather than making money?
-- Paul Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA On 10/7/09 3:00 AM, "Allen Esterson" <[email protected]> wrote: > ���Beth Benoit wrote of Malcolm Gladwell's *Outliers* that: >> On p. 79, he writes: "In general, the higher your [IQ] score, >> the more education you'll get, the more money you're likely >> to make, and - believe it or not – the longer you'll live. But >> there's a catch. The relationship between success and IQ works >> only up to a point. Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere >> around 120, having additional IQ points doesn't seem to translate >> into any measurable real-world advantage." > > This may be a side issue, but a highly intelligent academic friend of > mine who has been a lifelong expert on Wittegenstein has had what I'm > sure he regards as a very satisfying career with modest financial > re > ward. Does this count as "real world" success? > > Beth also quotes Gladwell citing Liam Hudson on Nobel Prize winners: >> "A mature scientist with an adult IQ of 130 is as likely >> to win a Nobel Prize as is one whose IQ is 180.' " > > Two points on this. I wonder what evidence Hudson provides for this > statement. I wouldn't have thought that knowledge of the IQs of the > great majority of Nobel Prize winners was available. A cursory Google > search of "Nobel Prize winners" + IQ doesn't bring anything up. > > Nevertheless, my view is that Hudson's assertion may well be the case, > but that if so it is probably less significant than he (and Gladwell) > seems to think. In the physical sciences ther > e is a world of difference > between the Nobel achievements of a Heisenberg or Dirac, which involve > the fundamental foundations of theoretical physics, and more > straightforward work on a limited topic that more frequently leads to a > Nobel Prize. However satisfying for the recipient, the Nobel Prize is > not by any means a direct measure of *extraordinary* intellectual > inspiration or achievement. It is only to be expected that a moderately > high IQ combined with a capacity for hard work and dedication to a > particular topic may suffice for obtaining a Nobel Prize. I think it is > highly likely that the work of the great majority of Nobel Prize > winners in the physical sciences since WW2 remains unk > nown to most > scientists, unlike that of people of the calibre of the aforementioned. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
