Intelligence and Communication

[Praxis101]

This may have been posted in another thread, if so, please direct me /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I have read in several places that between two individuals – whose IQ differ about 30 points (as measured by a typical, “legitimate” IQ test) – a barrier of communication can (or will, as some put it) manifest.

SMP, firstly, do you think this is true?

Secondly, can less significant gaps in IQ levels project subtler difficulties in communication?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, can less significant gaps in IQ levels project subtler difficulties in communication?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you're asking.

[Praxis101]

Okay, assuming you agree that an IQ difference of 30 points is significant enough to alter, and hinder, communication between two individuals:

Do you think that smaller differences, say something as small as 10 points, can affect communication between two individuals?


After reading all these posts about "leveling", I can't stop convincing myself I'm being leveled /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[arahant]

I'd like to see some sort of citation. I'm not sure what we're talking about in terms of barriers...

I have no trouble talking to even total morons about most things. Obviously, I can't discuss physics or math with an idiot, but that's not a communication barrier per se. I don't feel there is a barrier if we are talking about something we have in common.

But this is probably a subtle linguistic or sociological question. Maybe there is something in these interactions that I don't see...
Mostly, I think it's hard to talk to stupid people because they are stupid. I assume I can communicate with someone with an IQ of 90 better than another person with an IQ of 90...

[Aver-aging]

Honestly, communication is more about emotions than IQ intelligence. Being emotionally adaptive, sensitive and responsive are the keys do being good at communicating. I've worked with people from every spectrum of intelligence and I can tell you with 100% certainty that IQ has nothing to do with it (unless, perhaps, you are emotionally idiotic and can only relate on an 'intellectual level').

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see some sort of citation. I'm not sure what we're talking about in terms of barriers...

I have no trouble talking to even total morons about most things. Obviously, I can't discuss physics or math with an idiot, but that's not a communication barrier per se. I don't feel there is a barrier if we are talking about something we have in common.

But this is probably a subtle linguistic or sociological question. Maybe there is something in these interactions that I don't see...
Mostly, I think it's hard to talk to stupid people because they are stupid. I assume I can communicate with someone with an IQ of 90 better than another person with an IQ of 90...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll search for a reference or two, I clearly remember coming across this idea, but can't recall exactly where. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

For an extreme example: suppose you have two individuals, with respective IQ's of 85 and 150. Let us set aside the notion that they probably have vastly different interests:

- Construction of messages will likely lose some meaning in the way each phrases his expression, language production and use are likely going to be very different between the two.

- Consider the idea of value. If two individuals have enormously
different interpretations of value, or extremely narrow ranges of perspective - meaning and intention will absolutely be lost in the course of communicating.


[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, communication is more about emotions than IQ intelligence. Being emotionally adaptive, sensitive and responsive are the keys do being good at communicating. I've worked with people from every spectrum of intelligence and I can tell you with 100% certainty that IQ has nothing to do with it (unless, perhaps, you are emotionally idiotic and can only relate on an 'intellectual level').

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the first half of what you say, and think it’s right on.

Consider yourself speaking with a mentally handicapped person (again, another drastic example to illustrate.) If you are very aware of your emotions, and use them well – as in being sensitive and responsive – there is no doubt you could connect with this person on a significant level.

However, the “barriers” that I’m considering come into play when communicating ideas. I would guess it possible for you to uncover this person’s meaning about certain things. For this person to investigate and uncover your unique perspective, to search for meaning and intention in your ideas (after all, this is a key component if one truly searches to understand someone) – well, now we’re pushing the limits.

[mindflayer]

I don't think you could tell in a conversation between a 120 and 150 who was the 150 and who was 120.

I think the barrier is only significant when you get down to the lower levels.. say 90 vs 60 IQ.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you could tell in a conversation between a 120 and 150 who was the 150 and who was 120.

I think the barrier is only significant when you get down to the lower levels.. say 90 vs 60 IQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

First statement is wrong. A 150 is well able to present the appearance of a 120 or 100. But you're right in that it wouldn't be noticeable... To a 120.

As for 90 and 60, well, that's a glaringly obvious gap to make, because sometimes the distinctions are readily apparent from basic motor control, etc.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
First statement is wrong. A 150 is well able to present the appearance of a 120 or 100. But you're right in that it wouldn't be noticeable... To a 120.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny, but even that is probably not true. I think the 120 can tell. That's why I spend so much time self-consciously dumbing down my language /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First statement is wrong. A 150 is well able to present the appearance of a 120 or 100. But you're right in that it wouldn't be noticeable... To a 120.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny, but even that is probably not true. I think the 120 can tell. That's why I spend so much time self-consciously dumbing down my language /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooo. Camoflauge! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Yeah, there's a saturation level at some point, but there is a definite gap between 120 and 150. <waves at academics>

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, assuming you agree that an IQ difference of 30 points is significant enough to alter, and hinder, communication between two individuals:

Do you think that smaller differences, say something as small as 10 points, can affect communication between two individuals?


After reading all these posts about "leveling", I can't stop convincing myself I'm being leveled /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


There is definitely such a thing as intelligence-based empathy (being one aspect of empathy in general). Intelligent people, in a cooperative communicative situation, are generally better equipped to determine what others think, than less intelligent people.

[samsonite2100]

For starters, I think IQ test numbers are kind of baloney. That said, for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how much of a communication gap would exist between a 120 and 150, if they had equal levels of education. It's not like the 150 would be using words the 120 had never heard before. I'm guessing the main difference between a 120 and 150 would be in stuff like spatial reasoning, which hardly figures into day-to-day social interactions.

Actually, if I were to guess, I'd say the 150 would be at more a social deficit than the 120. I read an article recently that talked about how the highest SAT scorers are not usually the ones that go on to wealth and power. It's the 120s of the world that have the advantage--they're smarter than average, but not so over-saddled with intelligence/thinking, that their ability to interact with the world and get things done is impaired.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, I think IQ test numbers are kind of baloney. That said, for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how much of a communication gap would exist between a 120 and 150, if they had equal levels of education. It's not like the 150 would be using words the 120 had never heard before. I'm guessing the main difference between a 120 and 150 would be in stuff like spatial reasoning, which hardly figures into day-to-day social interactions.

Actually, if I were to guess, I'd say the 150 would be at more a social deficit than the 120. I read an article recently that talked about how the highest SAT scorers are not usually the ones that go on to wealth and power. It's the 120s of the world that have the advantage--they're smarter than average, but not so over-saddled with intelligence/thinking, that their ability to interact with the world and get things done is impaired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. No, it's not language, but concepts and abstract-mindedness that occur more the higher you go. If the standardized tests are a cakewalk for ya, there's no point assigning an accurate score, as that's mostly for people who need the assurance that they really are, after all, smart cookies. Meh.

In proportional relation to IQ and wealth, you may be right in that more 120's are successful, driven, and not hindered by the more esoteric aspects of superintelligence. But as a whole, I think the demographic is still the wealthiest per capita, if only for the example of Gates.

However... I wouldn't be surprised to learn that their life expectancies are shorter, rates of suicide are higher, rate of violent ideation much lower...

It's parabolic, I think, and most smarter than average individuals fall into the category where they have an edge, and don't worry about the more pondersome aspects of life enough to have it hinder them.

Perhaps that's why the truly gifted rarely make the media, but when they do, their impacts tend to be gigantic. So there might be a correlation somewhere that tends towards a relational harmony.

As always, mere guesswork.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
In proportional relation to IQ and wealth, you may be right in that more 120's are successful, driven, and not hindered by the more esoteric aspects of superintelligence. But as a whole, I think the demographic is still the wealthiest per capita, if only for the example of Gates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think a certain portion of the supersmart go on to be the absolutely most successful individuals in society, but that the group as a whole does not fare as well as the pretty/very smart strata below it.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, I think IQ test numbers are kind of baloney. That said, for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how much of a communication gap would exist between a 120 and 150, if they had equal levels of education. It's not like the 150 would be using words the 120 had never heard before. I'm guessing the main difference between a 120 and 150 would be in stuff like spatial reasoning, which hardly figures into day-to-day social interactions.

Actually, if I were to guess, I'd say the 150 would be at more a social deficit than the 120. I read an article recently that talked about how the highest SAT scorers are not usually the ones that go on to wealth and power. It's the 120s of the world that have the advantage--they're smarter than average, but not so over-saddled with intelligence/thinking, that their ability to interact with the world and get things done is impaired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the link to this article? My gut is its BS. Intelligence is very highly correlated with such things as productivity, as well as high skill/high pay careers.

Why in any way that you can think of would Intelligence/thinking oversaddle someone?

If you are at all interested in Intelligence and its relationship to society (including wealth etc) Id suggest "The Bell Curve" by herrnstein and murray. Very good so far.

-JP

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For starters, I think IQ test numbers are kind of baloney. That said, for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how much of a communication gap would exist between a 120 and 150, if they had equal levels of education. It's not like the 150 would be using words the 120 had never heard before. I'm guessing the main difference between a 120 and 150 would be in stuff like spatial reasoning, which hardly figures into day-to-day social interactions.

Actually, if I were to guess, I'd say the 150 would be at more a social deficit than the 120. I read an article recently that talked about how the highest SAT scorers are not usually the ones that go on to wealth and power. It's the 120s of the world that have the advantage--they're smarter than average, but not so over-saddled with intelligence/thinking, that their ability to interact with the world and get things done is impaired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the link to this article? My gut is its BS. Intelligence is very highly correlated with such things as productivity, as well as high skill/high pay careers.

Why in any way that you can think of would Intelligence/thinking oversaddle someone?


[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the time spent thinking - pondering life, courses of action, and other things:
I think the most brilliant minds in our history entirely devouted their lives to tasks that they believed higher, more valuable, than acquiring wealth.

Again, it's a little bit of an extreme example, but it does prove the point to a certain degree: some individuals come to a point where they value material wealth less and less: a case could be made that most of the truly brilliant human minds have felt this way. Intelligence, in some capacity, is probably a factor in arriving at these decisions.

Why? Well, I probably couldn't answer that, and each likely has his (or her) own reasons.

[arahant]

Unless this was a research article, which is unlikely, I think it is false.
This 'observation' is almost always based on the fact that, for example, there are 100 times as many people with IQ's in the 115-130 range than the 145-160 range. It's not like it's ALL IQ, and it doesn't take much luck/perseverence/study/whatever to do very well in life.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the link to this article? My gut is its BS. Intelligence is very highly correlated with such things as productivity, as well as high skill/high pay careers.

Why in any way that you can think of would Intelligence/thinking oversaddle someone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to remember and look for it. I believe it was from a New Yorker article about college admissions.

The point they made, and it did come from a statistical analysis of test scores, was that the supersmart, as Praxis noted above, while still doing well in life, tend to end up in academia, or as teachers/researchers/etc., and on average devoted more of their professional years to esoteric pursuits.

People in the 110-130 range tended to be harder workers more focused on material success. They also tended to have better social skills, which helped them immensely in their career paths.

The upshot of the article was that the type of human built for maximum (material/financial) success, would be the following--personable, good-looking, hardworking and smart but not supersmart.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the link to this article? My gut is its BS. Intelligence is very highly correlated with such things as productivity, as well as high skill/high pay careers.

Why in any way that you can think of would Intelligence/thinking oversaddle someone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to remember and look for it. I believe it was from a New Yorker article about college admissions.

The point they made, and it did come from a statistical analysis of test scores, was that the supersmart, as Praxis noted above, while still doing well in life, tend to end up in academia, or as teachers/researchers/etc., and on average devoted more of their professional years to esoteric pursuits.

People in the 110-130 range tended to be harder workers more focused on material success. They also tended to have better social skills, which helped them immensely in their career paths.

The upshot of the article was that the type of human built for maximum (material/financial) success, would be the following--personable, good-looking, hardworking and smart but not supersmart.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if true, it sounds very much like very high intelligence should be selected against. Of course, variability has it's own rewards.

But I do hope no future eugenicists decides to castrate me for being too smart...

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have the link to this article? My gut is its BS. Intelligence is very highly correlated with such things as productivity, as well as high skill/high pay careers.

Why in any way that you can think of would Intelligence/thinking oversaddle someone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to remember and look for it. I believe it was from a New Yorker article about college admissions.

The point they made, and it did come from a statistical analysis of test scores, was that the supersmart, as Praxis noted above, while still doing well in life, tend to end up in academia, or as teachers/researchers/etc., and on average devoted more of their professional years to esoteric pursuits.

People in the 110-130 range tended to be harder workers more focused on material success. They also tended to have better social skills, which helped them immensely in their career paths.

The upshot of the article was that the type of human built for maximum (material/financial) success, would be the following--personable, good-looking, hardworking and smart but not supersmart.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if true, it sounds very much like very high intelligence should be selected against. Of course, variability has it's own rewards.

But I do hope no future eugenicists decides to castrate me for being too smart...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not like really smart people don't do well. They do, just debatably not quite as well as less-but-still-pretty smart people. And was pointed out earlier, a certain portion of the supersmart do better than everyone.

[soon2bepro]

IQ tests are bs.

They measure your knowledge in very specific areas, but not necessarily or mainly communication. Not to mention language.

But obviously someone who has an easy time understanding an applying logic may have a hard time communicating to someone that doesn't, especially if he doesn't learn how to explain things differently than the way he understands them.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
IQ tests are bs.

They measure your knowledge in very specific areas, but not necessarily or mainly communication. Not to mention language.

But obviously someone who has an easy time understanding an applying logic may have a hard time communicating to someone that doesn't, especially if he doesn't learn how to explain things differently than the way he understands them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not entirely wrong but...you are extreme.

IQ tests are not "BS". As you say, they measure you in a somewhat limited area, but it is not as limited as popular belief. The limited area it measures you in is often correlated very well with success in other areas of testing. Someone with high IQ scores is likely to have high verbal reasoning and communication skills (to use your example).

Just because someone with a low IQ can do well on the SATs or make lots of money and vice versa does not mean that IQ is BS. To quote the Bell Curve, "measures of intelligence have reliable statistical relationships with important social phenomena, but they are a limited tool for deciding what to make of any individual".

In many ways, IQ tests are a very proven method of measuring intelligence and intelligence is a very real very important trait to have in society. Those people that everyone associates as being "Smart" (and often successful), are very likely to have high IQ's.

Again to quote the bell curve, "To say that most of the people in the cognitively demanding positions of a society have a high IQ is not the same as saying that most of the people with high IQ's are in such positions" The book argues convincingly that intelligence is a very accurate predicter of productivity and ability in the work place.

I may babble but the point is this, IQ measuring is a very real tool for social scientists. As I said, while not an accurate predicter of individual success, Intelligence/IQ scores are responsible for and important when discussing our modern society. IQ is very related to occupation/unemployment, wealth/poverty, and crime/civility.

-JP

[madnak]

But these correlations absolutely fall apart at the very high levels, and that means quite a bit. Many conversations about IQ are talking about those in the "high genius" range or above, and the IQ scale isn't a particularly adequate measure at that level. Moreover, mental illness is more frequent in that group than in almost any other subgroup of the population, suicide is common, happiness inversely correlates, and especially at the highest levels, behavior is frequently capricious and eccentric even among the "sane" individuals, and while ambition is arguably rather high, it tends to be directly so strangely that it can seem totally absent. For instance, there have been a number of virtuosos, spectacular geniuses who have proceeded through early life with an almost obsessive ambition and then suddenly abandoned their work to isolate themselves and accomplish nothing at all.

Generalizations are somewhat accurate for the mildly to moderately intelligent, up to the 130-140 region perhaps, but everything turns crazy after that. That's why these theories about the great intellects are so common and so hard to refute - there are so many unconventional behavior patterns it's possible to justify anything, but nothing can be established.