# Would someone with an IQ of 161 have the theoretical ability to comfortably qualify..



## piece in quite (Aug 10, 2015)

...for any and every given job assuming they had an infinite life time to enrol on every single educational subject there is? as well as apprenticeships and internships? 

If they were to complete all education at every form at the highest level, assuming that that person has learned nothing new in 10 years, and another person with 161 IQ completed all educational courses to the highest level 10 years later at the current rate of progress, considering the rate of intellectual progress of mankind, how much more intelligent would the later person be than the prior? How could this be measured?

This thought has intrigued me today, can't stop imagining hyper-intellectual persons. The possibilities one could achieve if they knew all that was humanly possible are stunning, or at least I like to think so.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## JackSparroww (Dec 10, 2010)

I have an IQ of 189 and I hate you


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Stupid IQlets, I have an IQ of 217 and my disdain for you is so strong I literally sent you all my negative thoughts and you will commit suicide within the following hours.


----------



## piece in quite (Aug 10, 2015)

JackSparroww said:


> I have an IQ of 189 and I hate you


That is very impressive, however it is unfortunate that you have manifested significant distaste towards myself, though unfortunately that is to be expected of in this life.

I only wish that the next person you meet will be more satisfactory for you.


----------



## JackSparroww (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Achieving isn't the same as having high IQ, but the thoughts of hyper-studying person are fascinating. I see no purpose to learn everything like that, it's just too much, but would be really cool if there was person, who did that. I don't know why practically, but still it would be insane achievement. Probably super-student would just know more data about various topics and will be like a book. He would have a great power of accessing all that information relatively fast and would understand things in a different way. I could see how those people could contribute to science or invent something. If you compare this monster to person with 160 IQ difference will be here. High IQ humanoid will think more, but likely know less. Imagine two computers. One has huge hard drive but slow processor and another has fast processor, but small hard drive. This situation would be very similar. If lots of files are needed, then computer with big hard drive would be the right tool for the task. If lots of processing power will be needed, then hard drive space doesn't really matter and you would want a smarter person. But both must have no total deficiencies, like fast processor computer should have at least small hard drive to be good at anything and computer with huge hard drive should have at least low end, but good enough processor. In human terms if person with high IQ is given enough information, then he can be great at certain thing. Person who knows a lot of data also should have good enough processing power to actually make use of all that information. Imbecile with lots of data would be useless, just like high IQ person with no memory. But here's one thing. There was a research done that people, who go into uni and higher education often have slightly higher than average IQ, so those have a slightly more processing capabilities than normies on average, so I assume that person who would somehow have great knowledge in many fields, just couldn't be all that normal. That person may have rather high IQ. It would be just as likely to find a computer with decent processor and huge hard drive, rather than computer with ancient and slow processor and huge hard drive. 

Anyway, I want to see what others will think. It seems like you have interesting topic here, so I even want to hit thanks button just for generating this thought.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Maybe _most_ jobs but probably not every job. Some jobs have requirements that are not even evaluated by IQ tests: ability to handle stress, ability to lift some minimum amount of weight, etc. 

How much more intelligent the second person would be depends on how you are measuring intelligence. If you measure it by IQ, then they are both have the same intelligence regardless of when they go to school. Increases in knowledge don't affect educational curriculum fast enough to make a difference in students separated by a decade anyways.


----------



## ButIHaveNoFear (Sep 6, 2017)

I think a completely average person could do it too. It's about learning skills through exposure, repetition, and perseverance. Anyone can become a "natural" at a skill. 

10 years is plenty of time for technology redesigns and corrections to general knowledge. The current person would get the more comprehensive education. You could compare the curriculum taught to each person and measure their success to make sure it is at least the same.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Depends on their size, health and physical abilities. Also some jobs are gender specific now. Although it's fewer and fewer.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

ButIHaveNoFear said:


> I think a completely average person could do it too. It's about learning skills through exposure, repetition, and perseverance. Anyone can become a "natural" at a skill.
> 
> 10 years is plenty of time for technology redesigns and corrections to general knowledge. The current person would get the more comprehensive education. You could compare the curriculum taught to each person and measure their success to make sure it is at least the same.


While in theory an average person could pick up the same skills, just in a longer timeframe, there are certain specialized professions that require one to execute at a sufficiently high level that I don't think a totally average individual could become competent in the field with any amount of study and practice, e.g. theoretical physicist. For jobs like these, the IQ advantage is actually quite important to picking up the requisite skills.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

The question doesn't necessarily make sense unless you're looking at a static frame, in which case they wouldn't have an infinite amount of time to prepare for the job as the people and job would be ever-evolving thus causing the person's IQ to change 


TeamPB said:


> Stupid IQlets, I have an IQ of 217 and my disdain for you is so strong I literally sent you all my negative thoughts and you will commit suicide within the following hours.


Whoa! you're hilarious my dude :3  ;D whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!! want to hang out sometime? I always enjoy the company of funny people w00t w00t! maybe we can get a drink or something ;3 rawr! You're a fiesty one huh? wubbalubbba dub dub amirite?


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Marshy14 said:


> The question doesn't necessarily make sense unless you're looking at a static frame, in which case they wouldn't have an infinite amount of time to prepare for the job as the people and job would be ever-evolving thus causing the person's IQ to change
> 
> Whoa! you're hilarious my dude :3  ;D whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!! want to hang out sometime? I always enjoy the company of funny people w00t w00t! maybe we can get a drink or something ;3 rawr! You're a fiesty one huh? wubbalubbba dub dub amirite?


Don't you want to hang yourself, instead?


----------



## ButIHaveNoFear (Sep 6, 2017)

PiT said:


> While in theory an average person could pick up the same skills, just in a longer timeframe, there are certain specialized professions that require one to execute at a sufficiently high level that I don't think a totally average individual could become competent in the field with any amount of study and practice, e.g. theoretical physicist. For jobs like these, the IQ advantage is actually quite important to picking up the requisite skills.


I disagree. Though I am not a theoretical physicist, I know that any skill can be developed through practice, whether it is a physical skill _or_ a method of thinking (the reason counseling can work). Each skill is a highly myelinated pathway in the brain. It doesn't make the whole brain smarter, but darn it, those skillsets can be really well-utilized. 

A person with a high IQ has an accordingly high fluid intelligence, which is involved in solving new problems. An average person would have to develop various problem-solving strategies, which would be crystallized intelligence. IQ is a combination of fluid and crystallized intelligence, and the average person may be able to compensate fluid with their crystallized. As we age, we lose fluid intelligence somewhat and gain more crystallized intelligence—but that didn't make Stephen Hawking any less smart as an old man. There is a lot of wisdom and skills in crystallized, and we acknowledge that as a form of intelligence. A person could have a higher IQ than Hawking, but he would still be able to do more than them. 

Anyway, high IQ plays a part in how _quickly_ one would progress through theoretical physics school. High fluid intelligence would be really important to be able to process everything. The average IQ person would probably need more time to develop these skills. Since the high sciences are elitist in the way of IQ, no one would want to give this person remedial theoretical physics classes or teach this stuff to the common man (and the common man similarly believes he can't do it and has no interest in trying). I believe that with time, dedication, and good teaching, you can create a theoretical physicist. I don't know if or where it has been done, but I think it's possible.

I would strongly suggest a music education for any kid who wants to grow up with high general intelligence. In music, we learn the tangible and remarkable value of practicing and building skills until they seem "natural".


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

I work in a technical field with very complicated and very large scale systems. Understanding these systems can be learned by an average IQ person. Using them effectively could be developed with a sufficient amount of time and practice. Troubleshooting is a skill that can be learned, and with practice it can be honed. 

My truly gifted intellectual colleagues are far better at troubleshooting and navigating things than those at the lower end of the IQ spectrum. A reasonable argument could be made that a genius IQ person is far more effective in the job, even though it can be done with average IQ. One can acquire the knowledge through study, and can develop skill over time, but a genius can do that instantaneously and concurrently. Troubleshooting the "system" when there is an outage or other problem taxes both fluid and crystal intelligence. An average person may be presented with a problem that takes then 4-5 hours to solve, a genius may solve it in mere seconds, I've seen it. Point being that knowledge and the efficient use of it are 2 separate functions. 

I think back to an early phase of my career when I was training technicians, many with no formal education. They often came up with some of the best and most elegant solutions to problems because they had no knowledge to draw from. They only had the use of their fluid thinking. THey didn't know the correct way to solve a problem, so in desperation they created one. Sometimes they were brilliant, and were adopted on the spot. I often saw other trainers that never listened to their trainees, and did things the same way every time. Those crews were always slow and prone to mistakes.

There is nothing more frustrating to work with in a technical field than a book smart moron, or an "expert" that has no room to learn anything new.

Knowledge can be contained in a book, and is easily acquired and shared. Skill takes innate ability, plus time/dedication to hone. Fluidity is far more rare, and I think far more useful a measure.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

TeamPB said:


> Don't you want to hang yourself, instead?


rawr :3


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

secluded form said:


> If they were to complete all education at every form at the highest level, assuming that that person has learned nothing new in 10 years, and another person with 161 IQ completed all educational courses to the highest level 10 years later at the current rate of progress, considering the rate of intellectual progress of mankind, how much more intelligent would the later person be than the prior? How could this be measured?


Well that's easy. Roll back the IQ database to ten years ago and have the two take the test and measure by the old database.


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Marshy14 said:


> rawr :3


Words cannot express how much I hate INTPs right now


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

TeamPB said:


> Words cannot express how much I hate INTPs right now


;p xD  :3 w00t w00t! Hey whatda ya say we go out and catch some frames at the theater? xP


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Marshy14 said:


> ;p xD  :3 w00t w00t! Hey whatda ya say we go out and catch some frames at the theater? xP


#literallyshaking


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

ButIHaveNoFear said:


> I disagree. Though I am not a theoretical physicist, I know that any skill can be developed through practice, whether it is a physical skill _or_ a method of thinking (the reason counseling can work). Each skill is a highly myelinated pathway in the brain. It doesn't make the whole brain smarter, but darn it, those skillsets can be really well-utilized.
> 
> A person with a high IQ has an accordingly high fluid intelligence, which is involved in solving new problems. An average person would have to develop various problem-solving strategies, which would be crystallized intelligence. IQ is a combination of fluid and crystallized intelligence, and the average person may be able to compensate fluid with their crystallized. As we age, we lose fluid intelligence somewhat and gain more crystallized intelligence—but that didn't make Stephen Hawking any less smart as an old man. There is a lot of wisdom and skills in crystallized, and we acknowledge that as a form of intelligence. A person could have a higher IQ than Hawking, but he would still be able to do more than them.
> 
> ...


Stephen Hawking isn't the greatest example, since even with a decline in fluid intelligence he would still far outstrip most other people. I chose theoretical physics as an example, since the field is heavily characterized by tackling new problems. The mere process of writing a dissertation to earn a Ph.D requires novel research. 

If you want to talk about learning cutting-edge concepts of theoretical physics on a qualitative level, I do agree that a person of average intelligence could do this. A professional in this field is expected to advance the body of knowledge, however, and the demands on fluid intelligence are extremely high. 

With that said, creativity is also important in motivating novel thought. Conceivably someone of average IQ with enormous crystallized intelligence and creativity could spur real advances in the field of theoretical physics, though there is far less practical evidence of the efficacy of this combination than there is for high crystallized and fluid intelligence. I would certainly be interested in seeing the results of an experiment training people who lack the educational pedigree and achievements to make it into a quality graduate program to practice theoretical physics professionally.


----------



## MerelyARumor (Feb 20, 2013)

i think racking up all those school fees would be one of the least intelligent things someone could do

which seems a little counter productive


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Did not read the details. A "161" IQ is hardly _enough capacity _to be competent in all skills, retain/remember/apply all that information and be competent at all jobs that require distinct degrees of intelligence - the assumption is that a specimen of 161 IQ can perform at the same/sufficient efficiency as a specimen with a job that is best suited for a specimen with an IQ of 100 (at whatever capacity/degree they occupy), which seems to not be the case for long - and if it is, the 161 specimen may find it as difficult (in more ways than one), same as an 100 IQ specimen solving complex problems - it has been observed that performing "high-challenge mental tasks/constant fluctuation from task to task" - have drastic physical effects (which does not necessarily mean complex-problem solving; but rather navigation around simple obstacles). 

Assuming the specimen took "10 years" to complete a variety of subjects, his/her intellectual competency would have decreased substantially, (as well as the ability to effectively apply/retain information). It also does not account for brain errors, illness, mental capacity, biological effects and biological effects of age-levels/ cognitive decline, mistake-making, psychological/communication discrepancies and other intelligent-_irrelevant _/independent phenomena that exist outside of IQ. I would say by time his "20th" year, he/she would no longer have the capacity to retain new information/apply it with peak efficiency, let alone qualify for more than a few jobs and do a sufficient job at them. In other words, it may be more practical to hire Jim 24, IQ 1 Ph.D in X field: 145, over Tom 78, IQ 170, 50 Ph.Ds in X-amount of fields). It would be a very useless thing to do (to 'qualify for jobs'), outside of personal knowledge-gain. It is more likely Tim would be 'comfortably' medically, biologically, and cognitively unqualified than not.


----------



## ButIHaveNoFear (Sep 6, 2017)

PiT said:


> Stephen Hawking isn't the greatest example, since even with a decline in fluid intelligence he would still far outstrip most other people. I chose theoretical physics as an example, since the field is heavily characterized by tackling new problems. The mere process of writing a dissertation to earn a Ph.D requires novel research.
> 
> If you want to talk about learning cutting-edge concepts of theoretical physics on a qualitative level, I do agree that a person of average intelligence could do this. A professional in this field is expected to advance the body of knowledge, however, and the demands on fluid intelligence are extremely high.
> 
> With that said, creativity is also important in motivating novel thought. Conceivably someone of average IQ with enormous crystallized intelligence and creativity could spur real advances in the field of theoretical physics, though there is far less practical evidence of the efficacy of this combination than there is for high crystallized and fluid intelligence. I would certainly be interested in seeing the results of an experiment training people who lack the educational pedigree and achievements to make it into a quality graduate program to practice theoretical physics professionally.


Super intelligent people think differently from common people—and when you have a group of elite intelligent people, the commoner would be the one who thinks differently. If innovation is from thinking apart from the norm, perhaps a trained up average person would be the real innovator in an intelligent/elite community. (But then people elect Donald Trump for president because "he's not like those other politicians!!")

I'd like to see an experiment like you mention too. What do you classify as "educational pedigree"? It's a fact that children from affluent families hear _thousands_ more words at a young age than children from impoverished families. This early education would prepare children to have a more nuanced and creative use of language, which could have an affect on IQ. I'm curious about what you see as educational pedigree because "pedigree" is a word associated with "breeding" and "history". If intelligence was _made_ all the way back in early childhood, why wouldn't it be possible to make it in later life?


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

My IQ is 33. School helped out a lot.


"high IQ"-people, what ever those are. Lets say "mentally gifted". If they aren't allowed to express their mental abilities while growing up they might end up miserable in many ways. Nurture dictates nature here.

A mentally average nurtured correct will beat wrongly nurtured mentally gifted at almost every aspect in life.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Obviously not since there are jobs which require eq, creativity, arts etc... which have little to do with iq


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I have a 140 IQ. At least in the corporate world, smarts go a long way (makes someone more useful) but having soft skills such as charisma, managing people well, and having some sort of presence are also vital to success - especially if you want to climb up the corporate ladder. 

From what I hear from friends and family who are in academia though - those soft skills matter less unless you aspire to make your way into an admin position or something like that.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

I had this smart guy at my work place do a summer job right after he finished university studying law. He got the lingo and all that zang. Told him to the best of my ability of how to assemble a skid without cracking the thing (thus needing replacement). 8 out of 10 were cracked. After two weeks, it was still the exact same thing. I thoutht my job required 0 skill. A brain dead person should be able to do it. But apparently I was wrong. The problem? No handiness. Whatever his IQ was he lacked handiness. I don't even need to look at the thing. I can tell by pitch of sound the machine is making or by the vibrations it makes if the screws are deep enough. I can quite literally do it with my eyes closed.

And I'm a fucking retard.


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

Theoretically, perhaps. Realistically, I think not. Natural gifts, talents, as well as likes and dislikes, would come into play. Not to mention that someone that smart would likely not bother, and use their time more productively.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Mammon said:


> I had this smart guy at my work place do a summer job right after he finished university studying law. He got the lingo and all that zang. Told him to the best of my ability of how to assemble a skid without cracking the thing (thus needing replacement). 8 out of 10 were cracked. After two weeks, it was still the exact same thing. I thoutht my job required 0 skill. A brain dead person should be able to do it. But apparently I was wrong. The problem? No handiness. Whatever his IQ was he lacked handiness. I don't even need to look at the thing. I can tell by pitch of sound the machine is making or by the vibrations it makes if the screws are deep enough. I can quite literally do it with my eyes closed.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm a fucking retard.


Maybe he's tone deaf..


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Notus Asphodelus said:


> Maybe he's tone deaf..


lel, nah, he even told me 'Apparently I'm not as handy as I thought.'

The task packet actually contains like 10 or so items that need to be assembled under a certain time limit. And in one way or the other he had trouble with them all.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Mammon said:


> lel, nah, he even told me 'Apparently I'm not as handy as I thought.'
> 
> The task packet actually contains like 10 or so items that need to be assembled under a certain time limit. And in one way or the other he had trouble with them all.


Some people have problem with their eye-hand coordination. I have a colleague who is just like that, but I can't say much about him for he has not got enough practice and the ingenuity to solve his non-handiness. Sometimes we just need to figure out our own rhythm of doing things. I have my own method that is suitable for me whereas my boss has another way of doing it. In the end, what matters is that it works. Hopefully he finds his own way and not break anymore materials.


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

No. IQ 161 is a reflection of the elements tested from the frame work that test is made. That score is processing memory, association capacities, calcs, spacial intelligence and so on. Sure. It is exponential by nature, the score I mean, but if you are asking basically where polymath´ism starts from I can tell you this, any score that starts with 1 and is closer to 150 than 200 doesn't fit in the parameters of that particular word. And to fulfill what the OP asked for, you'd require a Cicero.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

As a very smart person who isn't all talk, I can tell that we don't have the theoretical ability to desire learning about everything, for intelligence is built in an effort to focus on the more important matters. Those matters can encompass various thematics at once, yet the very method for bringing something new and major to the table goes against erudition.

Consider that the smartest one is not a highly functional version of yourself. People think that the ideal intellect is thinking like them or someone they love, but faster and better. In reality you might have to tone down what you believe are virtues in order to get superior virtues that you deem to be excessive and harmful. If you don't like me, I'm afraid you won't like any super genius, you only like the perspective of being a genius the way you are.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

praise the mods said:


> ...for any and every given job assuming they had an infinite life time to enrol on every single educational subject there is? as well as apprenticeships and internships?
> 
> If they were to complete all education at every form at the highest level, assuming that that person has learned nothing new in 10 years, and another person with 161 IQ completed all educational courses to the highest level 10 years later at the current rate of progress, considering the rate of intellectual progress of mankind, how much more intelligent would the later person be than the prior? How could this be measured?
> 
> ...


Everything depends on the genius's _social skills_ and _practical intelligence_. Many jobs don't exactly require intelligence, but they require being good at interacting with people. Even at intellectual jobs like a medical doctor, noone will succeed without good social skills. A surgeon probably doesn't need much, but a psychiatrist or even a GP does.

A person with very low social skills can have problems with an ordinary job interview, even if he is intelligent. Think of geniuses who died poor and socially isolated, like Tesla.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Theoretically yes, but because knowledge is forever expanding and, for the fact of the matter, becoming more specialized, the likelihood of this individual's knowledge becoming anything more than a library of general facts is low.

You also have to take into account that iq is the measurement of a human's capacity for abstract concepts. A human would actually have to want and have the energy to learn and apply such concepts. A human would probably lose his mind one way or other by imbibing himself in so many disciplines if his emotional and social needs aren't at least met. 

That being said, a super smart guy with an endless thirst for knowledge could do it. I've heard a man once, from Korea who went to law school and medical school, and got top marks in each subject.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

IQ (as an imperfect measure of generalized intelligence factor) positively correlates with other forms of intelligence, but it isn't exactly the same thing. Someone with an IQ of 161 is statistically more likely to be able to be taught the basics and excel in a given discipline than someone with an IQ of 100, but you can be a genius-level intellect and still be incompetent at music or composition or whatever.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Bill the Piper said:


> Everything depends on the genius's _social skills_ and _practical intelligence_. Many jobs don't exactly require intelligence, but they require being good at interacting with people. Even at intellectual jobs like a medical doctor, noone will succeed without good social skills. A surgeon probably doesn't need much, but a psychiatrist or even a GP does.
> 
> A person with very low social skills can have problems with an ordinary job interview, even if he is intelligent. Think of geniuses who died poor and socially isolated, like *Tesla*.


Careful not to conflate someone who chose to somewhat isolate themselves for reasons (workaholic with a disdain for 'modern' women in the case of Tesla) with people who have low social skills and therefore are isolated by circumstance rather than choice. They are _very_ different things. Nikola Tesla was the rejector, not a rejectee (with people and money).


* *




"Tesla often refused social engagements, preferring the company of his work to dinner-party chit chat. But he did have a few close friends, many of whom were writers and some of whom also happened to be famous. Among them was Mark Twain. Tesla and Twain spent a lot of time together in Tesla’s lab and elsewhere." https://www.edn.com/Pdf/ViewPdf?contentItemId=4410028

He had a close long time friend, poet/editor Robert Underwood Johnson and his wife Katharine. Tesla had affectionate names for the two of them and Robert wrote very fondly of Tesla. Through them he became friends with a number of socialites. He was also friends with a number of people from Croatia (where he was born/grew up). A notable example was the long friendship Tesla enjoyed with Croatian sculptor Ivan Meštrović with whom he exchanged many telegrams. He was neither a complete recluse nor socially awkward.

Apparently there was no shortage of women interested in tall, fit, well dressed, famous/popular in his time, brilliant, respected, passionate Tesla. Tesla would typically claim celibacy was good for his work; "an inventor has so intense a nature with so much in it of wild, passionate quality, that in giving himself to a woman he might love, he would give everything, and so take everything from his chosen field. It’s a pity, too, for sometimes we feel so lonely." But he did reveal his less than positive view of the new modern women (post First World War) in 1924:

"...the soft-voiced gentle woman of my reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man--in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind... The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me... Women who keep themselves agitated by their tremendous ambition to beat man at his game are losing at the same time something that counts for more in the end..." Nikola Tesla - "Mr. Tesla Explains Why He Will Never Marry" - An Engineer's Aspect

Whether remaining a bachelor was due to his marriage to his work or frustration from not finding a suitable woman, in neither case was it due to a lack of social skills. And, of course, there is the usual reason a famous person might choose to isolate themselves (also nothing to do with social ability): "This is one of the reasons I remain apart from the crowds. The public, or semi-public, character is the target for all sorts of attacks and unpleasant communications."

Tesla was just a highly driven introvert with a very particular personal view/standard who never met his match (but did have friends, including close & long term friends). It was only vary late in life when he questioned whether he gave too much to his work and made a mistake by not marrying. *He didn't lack social skills to achieve marriage/friendship.*

*Nor did he die poor bc he lacked enough social skills to achieve wealth*. The short version: Edison screws over Tesla early on. Tesla quits then works with Westinghouse. There is a war on electricity between Edison and Westinghouse. Edison is winning. Tesla tears up the royalty contract with Westinghouse (which would have made him the richest man alive in time) to give Westinghouse the edge. Westinghouse wins (Edison gets crushed taken over due to debt from this war). Tesla, all passion, chose to spend his already amassed immense wealth (at one point he was rich) on experimenting new technologies, eventually running out of money. But Westinghouse, his loyal friend, paid for his hotel room & food to the very end.

https://dailyoddsandends.wordpress....a-billion-dollar-fortune-then-died-penniless/




Back to the OP: Know that people with 160+ IQs are unlikely to be thinking in degree-job-yay! terms. The Teslas/Einsteins/Elon Musks of the world tend to focus on something BIG that interests/challenges/satisfies their massive inquisitiveness, rather than burn time getting many degrees, the prize for which is, obstensibly speaking, a middle class job. They are operating outside that frame. They create the new frame. Working out stuff others don't know about yet is their idea of a good time.

I'm sure they _could_ get multiple degrees, Tesla was a hyper polyglot, but why do it when you can borrow your friend's textbooks on rocketry (Musk) and learn it yourself in a few weeks (for free). While there are benefits to consilience, generally speaking you do better massively specializing (and even then the Einsteins feel they never got enough time to do 'their' work).

While a (true) 160+ IQ is very rare and potentially very valuable, IQ isn't everything -- how valuable it ends up being comes down to the exact individual, their circumstances and ultimately their choices. Kaczynski (unibomber) with a 167 IQ, anyone? Yeah, no thanks. Mental health counts. As do many other factors (memory, willingness to take risk, ability to concentrate, *drive*, EQ etc etc). I've heard about people with a freak IQ employed as a bouncer or something similar.

Also, just as gifted general IQ can't be learned, certain other gifts/talent are discrete and also can't be learned (not completely anyway). A 160 could do an art degree but they'll never learn to be the 160 equivalent in art -- someone like Picasso. A similar thing could be said for kinesthetic IQ and so on.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Dare said:


> Know that people with 160+ IQs are unlikely to be thinking in degree-job-yay! terms. The Teslas/Einsteins/Elon Musks of the world tend to focus on something BIG that interests/challenges/satisfies their massive inquisitiveness, rather than burn time getting many degrees, the prize for which is, obstensibly speaking, a middle class job. They are operating outside that frame. They create the new frame. Working out stuff others don't know about yet is their idea of a good time.


Obsessive interests can also be an autistic trait. I don't say all super intelligent people are autistic or lack social skills, only that IF they are this can be an obstacle on the road to success.

It's probably better to have a moderate IQ (say, 115) with good social skills and balanced emotions, than IQ above 160 with autistic spectrum disorder or other psychological problems. And it seems more geniuses have severe psychological problems than not.


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

Chris Langan. The bouncer. That has nothing to do with IQ, thats a man who knows how the test was created. He nowhere NEAR even mensa. No, where, near. estp..

And yes. Drive is the single most important impulse for success. Its that bc in that singular case motivation is internal not external. People with external drive are lazy. 

Energy, intelligence and diligence are the only things a fund owner would want to see in his portfolio managers. Energy meaning drive. Intelligence meaning perception and creativity. And diligence that words, sentiments and actions are in perfect synergy.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Bill the Piper said:


> It's probably better to have a moderate IQ (say, 115) with good social skills and balanced emotions, than IQ above 160 with autistic spectrum disorder or other psychological problems. And it seems *more geniuses have severe psychological problems than not*.


That's an old idea/cliche or limited experience/skewed perspective from the average view (or feelz-good fantasy for the tall poppy crowd). 

"...in brain scans, the same regions of the brain seemed to perform both emotional and cognitive tasks... as IQ test scores went up so did measures of social abilities... In the past, scientists believed that emotional intelligence and general intelligence were distinct, and books and movies are rife with depictions of intellectually brilliant but socially clueless nerds." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emotional-smarts-tied-to/

While the rare austistic savant exists, autistic = genius is another cliche. Although inherently difficult to test, the correlation between IQ and autism has never been a positive one (many are intellectually disabled).

"...gifted children with IQ's above 150 did not show greater levels of psychopathology. This latter finding is of particular interest given the widely held belief that highly gifted children are at-risk for more social and emotional difficulties than are moderately gifted children."

"Eysenck (1995) observed that the number of people making claims about the psychology of gifted children is greater than the number of people who bother to verify such claims. It is clear from the studies referenced here that there are some claims we should stop making. One is that highly gifted children (IQ above 160) are more vulnerable to social and emotional problems. *The research does not support the broad conclusion that there's a level of IQ at which problems in adjustment significantly increase*."

The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being


----------

