Are people who study math smarter than people who study liberal arts?

[Hartmann von Aue]

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

[Angler]

Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue

I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.

I considered joining ISPE at one point (or maybe it was Triple Nine?), but after reading some of the online discussion, it all looked like intellectual masturbation to me.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.

I could be wrong about that, but my impression of people I know who have joined Mensa has been less than stellar. Most of them seemed eager to stroke their own egos, believing that a high IQ score was an achievement in itself. But where's the beef? The truest proof of ability is producing something novel and useful. Those who developed quantum theory or invented the radio aren't famous for their high IQs, but for their work. No doubt there are people with higher IQs than they had but who never "delivered the goods" by producing anything of value.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.

The thing is, people with high IQs tend to go to school with and work alongside other people with high IQs. If we use the SAT and GRE as surrogates for IQ, the average student in my college and grad programs was in the 99th percentile. Similarly, in my job I routinely work with people who are very bright. It's not as if our conversations are strictly limited to what's work-related, and if we want to discuss something further, we can always do so after work.

The existence of the Internet is another reason why I question the stated rationale for groups like Mensa. Plenty of bright people gravitate to certain discussion boards -- hell, there are some very bright people right here on this one. So if it's intelligent discussion one wants, one can find it very easily on the Web.

All this considered, I suspect most people who are attracted to groups like Mensa are really just seeking bragging rights. I know that's not true of everyone who joins those groups, but it's been my general impression.

[Angler]

Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.

[Blighter]

Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue

There's a big difference between actually performing works of genius and being in the .1%. That's why you're disappointed when you're exposed to people in the .1%.

(There are millions such people on earth after all)

I have met exceptional and unexceptional people with high IQs. The difference isn't that one type performs 'works of genius' and the other doesn't. The difference is that one is absolutely on the ball, razor sharp, and when a problem requires logical thought they can apply themselves to it effectively without requiring outside assistance or a thorough explanation. The other type of 'high IQ' person struggles in the same way that a perfectly average person struggles, and then blames the stupidity of the problem itself or the person who posed it for their failure to find a solution.

I don't expect intelligent people to shoot lightning out of their arsehole, but I can distinguish capability from incapability.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by Macrobius

Interesting. This makes the 'modern research results' exactly the dual of my intuition.

My intuition placed the hot/cold distinction on the horizontal (verbal) axis, and identified the principal 'intelligent' cross-dimension (upper left to lower right) as 'dry' with wet being upper left or lower right, and dry closer to the g-loaded diagonal.

What you are saying is that the wet/dry axis is primary, and that it trends from lower left (wet) to upper right (dry). The 'hot-cold' axis trends from upper left to lower right, growing 'cold' away from the g-loaded diagonal -- either to the upper left, or the lower right. In short, you make the verbal axis phlegmatic (non-verbal) to melancholic (highly verbal), and present choleric as 'mathematical' and its opposite, sanguine, as non-mathematical. In contrast, I put the 4 humours in the 4 quadrants, on the diagonals, not on the vertical and horizontal axis.

Thus, I say Physics is hot and dry, while you say research supports the notion that it is cold and dry. There is no way to reconcile the two theories, by simply tilting the diagram, say. So deeper reflection work is at principle (the medievals, for their part, took the horizontal axis to represent the introvert/extrovert dimension, making all 'verbal' people simply extroverts. I suspect none of these three reductions of three degrees of freedom to two is entire satisfactory, though all three approaches capture something interesting.

To take an example, I see the INFP 'priest' type as a melancholic healer, a bit of a psychologist, whereas you (or modern research) sees a highly intelligent person interested in the classics, and excelling at verbal skill but not at all at mathematics.

We may need Astrology and the planets to weigh in, in order to sort this out!

Well I've yet to be iNtuitively satisified by such humourous correspondences, but here is how I would divide Sluggo's graph:



We could bisect each quadrant according to dominant function:



Or go by extraverted, rather than dominant, function, and get the simpler:



I'll go with dominant for now, which gives us something like this:



P.S. For anyone who's wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-B...Type_Indicator

[Ash]

Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:

[Allegheny]

Originally Posted by Hartmann von Aue

I've never been heavily involved in IQ societies and I let my membership in ISPE lapse.

Much of the discussion is rather mediocre.

I don't think they're "mutual admiration societies'" though, not in my experience.

The point is for people with higher IQs to network and get to know each other. I'm not sure they're very effective, but they're not bad things in my experience.

People with higher IQs tend to be better adjusted than those with lower IQs. The trade-off in social functioning doesn't really start to bite until an extremely high threshold, likely somewhere around .05% range, perhaps even higher.

[Allegheny]

Originally Posted by Angler

Very true, and I think the difference is creativity. A lot of people associate creativity primarily with literature and the fine arts, but I believe it's a prerequisite for innovation in ANY field. Furthermore, although creativity doesn't lend itself to testing the way IQ does (at least not yet), I've read about research showing that creativity and general intelligence have separate neurological bases.

Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare. Emotional instability is negatively correlated with high IQ and dedication. If genius were merely high IQ, then we would be inundated with geniuses.

[Opus131]

Originally Posted by Allegheny

Genius = high IQ + emotional instability (psychoticism) + task dedication, which is why it is so rare.

Just about the dumbest thing i ever heard. Psychoticism? Where does that even enter as a factor?

Genius has nothing to do with either high IQ, task dedication or any particular psychological pathology. Genius is a metaphysical quality. Things like high IQ are mere facilitators, they do not determine genius.

Weininger got as close to a conception of genius as you can hope to get without taking the absolute into the equation. Perhaps you should read it up.

[Macrobius]

Originally Posted by Man of Ash

Actually, this rings truer, going on personal experience:

Now those are very thought-provoking.

Leaving aside your and my intuitions, and modern research, the theory is that there are two primary axes, corresponding to brain function -- N/S (the P function) and T/F (the J function). The suffix P or J refers to which is the major axis. Thus, a person who is J must be further out on T/F dimension (in whichever direction) than on the N/S dimension. This implies they can't be simple octants.

Also, the medieval theory tends to confound melancholy and phlegmatic with introverted, and choleric and sanguine with extroverted. Whereas, the MBTI theory treats I/E as a dualism that indicates whether you present your major or minor function.

Finally, the mapping of the theory of temperaments to MBTI usually has the four characters as (NT, NF, SP, SJ) *not* (NT, NF, ST, SF) which would be a simple cross.

Thus, the matter is somewhat complex.