When the Meme Strikes Me

cemet3

Author: John

Nobel-Prize Winning, MacArthur Genius Grant Near Recipient writing to you regularly about Fitness, Wealth, and Wisdom - How to be happy and how to be healthy. Oh, and rich.

5 thoughts on “When the Meme Strikes Me”

  1. I worked with a man who had his Ph.D in studying I.Q.

    It was his opinion that the only salient thing you could relate I.Q. to was the probability of successfully completing your first year of college.

    Obviously, if you don’t successfully complete your first year then it is unlikely you will have a second, third or fourth year.

    There was not even a decaying exponential relationship with later years in college. Low IQ people who made it through their first year found and adapted coping strategies, whether it was carrying a dictionary with them or by hanging out with people who had high IQs.

    John Keersmaechers also said that vocabulary was the single most robust component of the standard IQ test.

    1. First note: comment appreciated!!!!

      Second note: In general, the post related to group I.Q. versus outcome. So the question I was raising was what level of I.Q. does the society need to reach in order to be rich. At some level there does seem to be a correspondence between how smart a society is and how well governed it is and how wealthy it is.

      Third note: On an individual basis, there is correlation, but it’s within a range, and as nearly as I can find (from my readings, not my research!) there are multiple factors that influence an individual’s overall success. So, for a range of let’s say, 85 to 115, you’d expect to see 70% of the population, more or less (probably less, but let’s go with this number for now). There will also be a personal cut-off for college.
      So, if you tell me a kid’s I.Q., and nothing else, the prediction rate outside of that first year is low. For that kid. But when you aggregate I.Q. by group, more 120-130 I.Q. folks are going to be lawyers than 70-80 I.Q. folks, so there is predictive ability. It’s also predictable that 140-145+ I.Q. folks are going to have more massive burn-outs and be less represented in “high I.Q.” fields on a proportionate basis. And they (as I recall) also have a higher suicide rate – “genius” level I.Q. may be maladaptive for some.
      There are oodles of correlations associated with higher I.Q. – some quite negative:
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

      Fourth note: Monday’s post was really a set-up for the next two Monday posts. I hope you’ll find the ride interesting!

      1. OK, listen…(heh heh)…in response to the second note…i have to ask what is *your* definition of “rich” (and as i type…) i am thinking that the “human condition” shall never attain such lofty ideals…BECAUSE: Lazy… well, my stream of typing thoughts perhaps are jumbling now?

        To sum up (and i imagine you’ll agree, maybe) it is my opinion that attaining zoo…er…utopia is a matter of the principles of those in charge. As the saying goes: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Students of history might observe that systems of governance have improved from tribal fiefdoms, to honest attempts at representative governance. Yet…human nature (and *higher* powers i.m.h.o.) seems to take us away from such lofty ambitions.

        1. Yup. Rich in this case is a decent standard of living, very little hunger, PEZ, and enough disposable income that the family has a car (at the societal level). But as the wealth is concentrated, it gets corrupted . . .

    2. Higher IQ is positively correlated with being able to make comments under the post relevant to the comment.

Comments are closed.