There’s a weirdness in our society(1): the subject of IQ.
I just got hit by a(nother) stream of emails and posts on the internet about the ranking of US Presidents by IQ. This happens about this time each election cycle — about 4 months in to the new president’s term these emails start up. I think that’s a topic for a sociology discussion, more than for politics or IQ discussion, but… here I want to mention something about IQ.
We are obsessed with IQ.
“He uses long words; he’s smart.”
“He reads books; he must be smart.”
“He’s a lawyer / doctor / engineer; he must be smart.”
Nerds and Geeks are “smart” (by definition).
Computer Gurus are “smart” (by computer industry propaganda).
And the moment someone is flagged as “smart” we trust him a whole lot less.
“Smart people do stupid things.”
“Smart people will ruin the world.”
“Smart people are so dumb!”
“Why can’t you talk like everyone else?”
(Watch the movie “Revenge of the Nerds” if you have a couple hours to absolutely waste and feel like doing some sociological research.)
Unconscious attitudes, to an extent, but I’ve heard all those statements right out loud, often directed at me [can you believe that?]. It’s a real conversation stopper, it is.
Stupid is as Stupid does
I tend to agree with Forest Gump, though: stupid is as stupid does. Did you do a smart thing? You were smart. Did you do a dumb thing? You were not smart. On that action, in that moment. Neither smart nor stupid are fixed qualities: we all do smart things, and we all do not-smart things. Except for this: I believe it takes a really smart person to do a really, really dump thing. Super dumb. Like inventing the A-Bomb and then actually moving on to the H-Bomb instead of retiring the whole thing after seeing what it did. Really dumb. An ordinary person never could have done it.(2)
So much for “smart.”
What is IQ?
IQ is a weird and highly imprecise measure for a an overly-emphasized capability of the Human Brain/Mind. A really small part of what the brain and mind(3) do, by the way. Yet we put a huge emphasis on that number and also on that part of the mind.
There is a correlation between IQ and ability to succeed or cope or solve problems or program a computer or tie your shoe laces(4). But even IQ 70 folks can tie their shoes, and there’s no IQ requirement for Congress or the US Presidency (obviously). But remember even Forest Gump ended up a multi-millionaire (billionaire?) and was a war hero to boot.
There we also have this term “genius” that gets batted about, with several different meanings. In origin, “genius” is a spirit, especially a sort of “guardian angel” that helps really good and groovy things happen in your life. “That’s my particular genius” in that sense is putting the credit onto another entity, but mainstream use of the term is to take personal credit, perhaps in a very arrogant way.
Then there’s the meaning for someone who puts out an incredible volume of work in his life — actors, authors, musicians, etc — we call them geniuses, based on the amount and quality of their output. Howard Shore and Hans Zimmer come to mind, also Johnny Depp, whatever disfavor people might be giving him just now over this personal life(5)
By IQ “genius” is only 133; anything over that is above genius. Genius is about 1% of the population, say 75 million people in the world today. So? How about the movie Good Will Hunting where a super-duper-genius is mopping the floors in a University, and frankly is uncomfortable with formalized learning and professors and all that? (If you haven’t seen that movie, it’s more than worthwhile.)
Genius. Mensa is an organization that is supposed to support “smart people” by providing forums and activities for same. Ever been to a Mensa meeting? (They’re open meetings, any one can attend.) I’ve never met such a room full of ego and rank arrogance and pointless hair-splitting in my life(6). And there in lies my central point for this posting:
Genius is as Genius does
That room full of by-the-numbers geniuses were about as useful as … fill in your favorite “useless as” simile here. Individually, in their real lives, they might have been quite accomplished, but you couldn’t have told it from any of those meetings.
Genius is a word that has many meanings, in short, and is quite misused by mainstream society, as is just about every word that has many conflicting meanings.
Hopefully no one gets to be President of a major nation without some serious IQ, but serious IQ is not (that is *NOT*) related to rationality, motivation, emotional maturity, industry (personal productivity) or much of anything else about the person. It says nothing about *what* the person will do or why he will do it. Rational behavior does not come from IQ, a fact that Star Trek confuses over and over (and over).
What’s the point of this rambling posting? I’d like you to consider that IQ isn’t what our society mostly thinks it is, that it is only one tool in a person’s toolbox. For government leadership it is somewhat important but no more so — even less so, probably — than some of the other tools, such as track record (genius is as genius does, yes? track-record), emotional maturity(7), follow-through, understanding of Ethics, understanding of the Constitution(8) and a bundle of other things our news media (to use the term loosely) rarely — if ever — talks about.
So, here: get off it about which Presidents are/were the smartest; that’s a subjective matter anyway, open to endless debate. Look instead of who did the most to aid the country and who did the most to harm the country — genius is as genius did.
Genius is as Genius did
(By the way, the pun in the title was intentional. Were you “smart enough” to notice?)
[30]
(1) Or is it a billion weirdnesses? Is there anything “normal” in our society? Alas… (Yeah, ok, I’m being cynical/sarcastic. Could you tell?)
(2) In fact, when WWII ended, Congress was all set to discontinue all nuclear bomb research and dismantle the A-Bomb and all that data. One man… one of the stellar intelligences of the time… argued them out of it. Silly person (no, that was not Albert Einstein — he knew better; if you’re curious, look it up.)
(3) I’m one of those weird people who believe that the brain and mind are two different things. Only related to each other in a superficial sense. In fact, I find it harder and harder to believe that mind can even fit inside brain. That’s a whole ‘nother discussion though.
(4) Correlation is NOT a direct relationship. A correlation might imply a relationship between two concepts, but says nothing about causation. For instance, the classic example, somewhat dated now, is the statistical relationship between sun-spot activity and skirt hem length. It was a real correlation. (Truly!) Does that mean that, back when skirts were normal fashion for women, that the level of sunspot activity was causing fashion changes? Don’t be silly. Or, rather, in no known way. That’s a correlation. If there is (was) a cause between those things, it’s a very indirect and subtle one, and therefore also not what’s generally meant by a causal relationship.
(5) Which is none of anybody’s business, really, is it? “Celebrity” is a null concept to me. I have no use for “Kardashians” say who don’t actually seem to do anything, yet are very popular anyway [my viewpoint only, don’t get upset with me] — they are the “celebrities” who want people in their lives. Ok, fine. They’re not my cup of tea. But what an actor or other real artist does in his personal life is his business, not mine. I admire and even love the work. The personal life is not part of the work. But that’s me…
(6) Which is not to say that all Mensa groups are like that. I sincerely hope they are not.
(7) There is a measure called EQ, Emotional Quotient, and is an attempt to codify emotional maturity or emotional intelligence in a way similar to IQ, and frankly it’s vastly more important than IQ, though a high score on both is probably very nice.
(8) Huh? Well, since one must swear to uphold and defend this document — the Constitution, that is — if you don’t know it forward and backward yet take the oath, you are in pretty serious violation of your oath the moment you utter it. So, anyone willing to swear to that oath but who does not actually know the document is a person that, in actuality, can not be trusted with a public office. Funny, that, huh?