Is Verbal IQ Overrated?

[Akira]

Is verbal IQ overrated? I think so, spatial IQ, etc. is more important.

What does everyone else think?

[Allegheny]

A few points to consider...

Those who have a verbal-spatial contrast IQ (a measure of intellectual asymmetry) greatly loaded towards the verbal are more likely to suffer from mental illness, especially schizophrenia.

The most g-loaded items in IQ tests tend to be verbal analogies, not anything quantitative. I think that verbal ability correlates better with g because it measures your ability to deduce meanings and construct relationships. You deduce the meanings of words by seeing them in context over a lifetime (correlated with g in the sense that the more intelligent are more voracious readers) and then, when faced with verbal analogies on a test such as the GRE or the SAT, you construct novel relationships (vainglorious is to modest as truculent is to ) with abstract concepts. This carries over well to learning new tasks.

Also, according to La Griffe du Lion here (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm):

[b]In market economies, per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106.


Ashkenazi Jews, who have much higher verbal than spatial IQs, have produced far beyond their share of eminent mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, economists, and so on. The very highest levels of these disciplines require extraordinary spatial addition but even more extraordinary verbal ability. Anyone who has ever done the slightest amount of computer programming will quickly realize that much of it is grounded in both the ability to think logically AND the ability to see relationships between abstract entities -- both of which owe more to verbal than spatial intelligence.

So, no, if anything, verbal intelligence is underrated.

[Muhos]

Both are mandatory in plenty to be a genius. Most people have only one of these. To wipe ur ass you need to understand the discomfort of grease, and to locate the target, so both are mandatory at a basic level. Whether logic comes from words is a matter of debate. To feel discomfort and proceed to take care of it does not require words.

[von Sternberg]

Short answer: yes, because of Jews.

[Angler]

I think that verbal ability correlates better with g because it measures your ability to deduce meanings and construct relationships. You deduce the meanings of words by seeing them in context over a lifetime (correlated with g in the sense that the more intelligent are more voracious readers) and then, when faced with verbal analogies on a test such as the GRE or the SAT, you construct novel relationships (vainglorious is to modest as truculent is to [blank]) with abstract concepts. This carries over well to learning new tasks.Cattell's distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence) comes into play on many cognitive tasks, and verbal analogies are no exception. Word knowledge is related to crystallized intelligence; the ability to educe relations between words is more of a fluid task.

Because crystallized intelligence is dependent on both formal and informal education (as well as genetic potential), some caveats are in order:

-- While more intelligent people may tend to read more often, there are many exceptions to this rule (especially among children).

-- Words can be learned from a dictionary rather than by figuring out their meanings from context. In fact, it's frequently not possible to figure out the precise meaning of an unfamiliar word solely from the context. Lazy people may simply skip over unfamiliar words rather than interrupt the flow of their reading to reach for a dictionary.

-- Those who wish to impress others with their word knowledge (knowing that people tend to associate a large vocabulary with intelligence) or who want to prepare for tests like the SAT or GRE may go out of their way to learn as many "big" words as possible. I made a conscious effort to read as much as possible during my high school years, and I ended up acing the verbal SAT. I'm certain this would not have been possible if I hadn't done all that reading and taken the time to learn any unfamiliar words I came across.

[Saqqara]

We didn't have any books in the house as a child, so after I finished reading whatever library books allotted for the week, I read the dictionary instead even though it was missing a large chunk of pages and the cover was torn off.

I also enjoyed reading my grandparents encyclopedia collection when we went to their house.

[Cardinal]

It is overrated, IMO. As for the fluid and crystallized -- fluid is more important ultimately, but todays society is crystallized focus.. education, memorization, even programmed focus. There isn't much focus on actual thinking (outside certain fields) or doing. You don't generally have to be fluid to survive and be successful, just crystallized. I consider fluid to be ingenuity, the ability to figure things out on your own, the ability to actually think, 'get it' and expand on it.

We live in a jewified society, it's why they are so successful - it's their domain. But who allowed it to get that way?

Also, this crystallized and fluid thing reminds me of 'Mercurians and Apollonians'. (The connection I got could be off mark, as I might not understand the fluid and crystallized intelligence theory - I only skimmed the wiki article on it)

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf
http://doggo.tripod.com/doggmercap.html

[Gorilla]

Unban Akira at once.