Mensa Starts Dating Site

[DGuller]

I don't think it is vastly over-rated.  On average, people with high IQ with lead more successful lives than people with low IQs.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they would amount to some extraordinary cases that are many standard deviations away from the mean.  For that other factors are important, and in fact sometimes high IQ may prevent wild success (because high IQ people are probably more risk averse and will not go for broke as often).

Is this actually true, though? I mean, I know that I've read several studies that kids in Talented & Gifted programs crash and burn in college more often than average kids, resulting in serious employment deficits.

Yes, that's true.  Not all high-IQ students are in the gifted program, and not all people in the gifted program actually do crash and burn.

[merithyn]

I don't think it is vastly over-rated.  On average, people with high IQ with lead more successful lives than people with low IQs.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they would amount to some extraordinary cases that are many standard deviations away from the mean.  For that other factors are important, and in fact sometimes high IQ may prevent wild success (because high IQ people are probably more risk averse and will not go for broke as often).

Is this actually true, though? I mean, I know that I've read several studies that kids in Talented & Gifted programs crash and burn in college more often than average kids, resulting in serious employment deficits.

Some quick googling suggests that while there is a connection between IQ and career success, it tops out at a comparatively modest 120.  IQs higher than that weren't any more likely to be successful.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was remembering.

[DGuller]

I don't think it is vastly over-rated.  On average, people with high IQ with lead more successful lives than people with low IQs.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they would amount to some extraordinary cases that are many standard deviations away from the mean.  For that other factors are important, and in fact sometimes high IQ may prevent wild success (because high IQ people are probably more risk averse and will not go for broke as often).

Is this actually true, though? I mean, I know that I've read several studies that kids in Talented & Gifted programs crash and burn in college more often than average kids, resulting in serious employment deficits.

Some quick googling suggests that while there is a connection between IQ and career success, it tops out at a comparatively modest 120.  IQs higher than that weren't any more likely to be successful.

IQ of 120+ isn't that modest.  That's top 9%.  If your IQ is 120+, it mean you were probably in the top 3 of your school homeroom class.

[Valmy]

Yeah 120 is modest?  That is a very high IQ.

[Barrister]

Yeah 120 is modest?  That is a very high IQ.

It's in the context of discussing a Mensa dating cite, where Mensa membership starts at 130.

[derspiess]

Suffice it to say I'm not a great believer in the predictive power of such standardized testing.

There are outliers for sure, but I always wished the US went with something like that model.  It was a huge drag being stuck in "general"classes in Elementary through Junior High with kids who clearly did not have at least average mental aptitude.  I got bored (or maybe occasionally entertained) when the entire class came to a screeching halt because a kid in the back couldn't read anywhere close to his grade level.

Not that I consider myself a brainiac-- just that where I come from the dumb kids were *really* dumb.

[Malthus]

Yeah 120 is modest?  That is a very high IQ.

It's in the context of discussing a Mensa dating cite, where Mensa membership starts at 130.

Too smart to significanty increase one's prospects - but too dumb for Mensa: the angst of the 120-130 IQ crowd. 

[Iormlund]

I don't think it is vastly over-rated.  On average, people with high IQ with lead more successful lives than people with low IQs.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they would amount to some extraordinary cases that are many standard deviations away from the mean.  For that other factors are important, and in fact sometimes high IQ may prevent wild success (because high IQ people are probably more risk averse and will not go for broke as often).

Is this actually true, though? I mean, I know that I've read several studies that kids in Talented & Gifted programs crash and burn in college more often than average kids, resulting in serious employment deficits.

I don't know if that's true but the contrary does describe my experience pretty well. I've only been tested once (when I was 12 or so), and they only told me I was at 85% percentile in verbal, 90% in math and 95% in spatial skills. I was thoroughly bored through school and high school (the notion of segregating kids by skill was anathema back then over here, maybe still is). I never actually learned how to study since I could coast by just doing nothing at all. Then I went to engineering school and it all went terribly, terribly wrong.

[The Brain]

I was considered some kind of brainiac.

[alfred russel]

Heh, same with me - here in Ontario when I was growing up, kids were streamed into various levels, level 5 being the "ordinary" one, I got streamed into level 6 in HS - the "enriched" one - based on some sort of standardized test I was given as a kid.

My oldest brother was initially to be streamed into the "retard" level in junior high, where kids were essentially taught how to be useful in society by taking on basic and menial tasks, but my parents objected. He went on to become a professor in quantum physics ... 

Suffice it to say I'm not a great believer in the predictive power of such standardized testing.

I guess I followed the same development path as your brother, only topping out at a lower level. I've wondered whether the fact I test out as somewhat bright isn't a function of the fact I was in a very education oriented home with lots of parental involvement in learning (I'm guessing your brother was too). Maybe if I was placed in a more typical household if I wouldn't have been the dolt I was expected to be based on early childhood testing.

[Malthus]

Suffice it to say I'm not a great believer in the predictive power of such standardized testing.

There are outliers for sure, but I always wished the US went with something like that model.  It was a huge drag being stuck in "general"classes in Elementary through Junior High with kids who clearly did not have at least average mental aptitude.  I got bored (or maybe occasionally entertained) when the entire class came to a screeching halt because a kid in the back couldn't read anywhere close to his grade level.

Not that I consider myself a brainiac-- just that where I come from the dumb kids were *really* dumb.

What seems to happen in reality up here at least, is that kids are effectively "streamed" by socio-economic level, depending on where they live. Hence, being in a "good school area" is a selling-point for real estate, which drives up house prices, effectively restricting such areas to those who can afford them - which in turn means that classes are composed of kids who are not, in general, brutally uneducated. If you live in a "bad school area", you send your kid to a private school if you can afford it.

This isn't fair, but politicians are highly resistant to using standardized testing for streaming these days. They ended that in 1999 because they found that kids from poor families were vastly more likely to be "streamed" into a lower stream.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/29/lowincome_streaming_in_ontario_high_schools_alive_and_well_report_says.html

In short, either way they did it, with "streaming" based on standardized tests or not, the same thing appears to happen - kids from higher socio-economic groups do better because their parents work the system to the kid's advantage. Or alternatively (depending on one's political beliefs) the kids are simply more likely to be smart, or are more likey to be socialized to value education - you can take your pick ...

[Malthus]

I guess I followed the same development path as your brother, only topping out at a lower level. I've wondered whether the fact I test out as somewhat bright isn't a function of the fact I was in a very education oriented home with lots of parental involvement in learning (I'm guessing your brother was too). Maybe if I was placed in a more typical household if I wouldn't have been the dolt I was expected to be based on early childhood testing.

Yup. My parents were dissatisfied with the "streaming" result and worked the system, never resting until they got a result they agreed with.

In another household, no doubt my brother would be pushing a mop about now.

[The Brain]

I used to be angry that the retarded Swedish system where everyone was supposed to be equally bad (because anything else would be elitist and horrible) kept me from coming anywhere near my potential in school. After I had my moral epiphany in late 2003 it no longer upsets me at all.

[Admiral Yi]

I would imagine a Mensa meeting goes a lot like this thread. 

[Eddie Teach]

I would imagine a Mensa meeting goes a lot like this thread. 

People sitting around bad-mouthing Mensa? I dunno.