J Lopez (
5 Feb 1995 09:32:57 -0500

In <> (Stephen Lajoie) writes:

>In article <3gvsf0$>, J Lopez <> wrote:

>>>Ah, Mensa. Yes. I've known many of very intelligent people who ended up
>>>flipping burgers because things came to easy for them, and they never
>>>learned to work. They were quite sucessful at finding women with "nice
>>>boobs", however.
>>Interesting you should say that. The rationale between the equivalence
>>of tested IQ and real-life intelligence is that tested IQ is supposed
>>to correlate highly with success. So, if you have encountered a sample
>>who are stuck flipping burgers (i.e. unsuccessful), but seem to have a
>>high IQ, then there is a low or negative correlation within that sample. On
>>what basis, then, can we determine that they are in fact intelligent,
>>and not false positive, or pseudo-intelligent?

>Intelligence has not been shown to be a hard and fast indicator of
>success. It is strongly correlated. There are always exceptions. I've
>seen a number of highly intelligent people remain ignorant because they
>never had to "work" to learn things.

Again, if they were ignorant, on what basis do you call them "intelligent?"
Maybe they seemed to be smart, but were missing Aces out of the deck, so
to speak.

The reason that I bring this up is that in TBC, after spending the whole book
stating that IQ and intelligence are equivalent, H&M on pp. 408-9 decide
that for Black children whose IQ was substantially raised, the
equivalence was no longer true. Why? Because their performance did not
increase along with their IQ. OK, I suppose, but then, which is
it? IQ = intelligence or performance = intelligence?

>I was a lazybutt myself who never
>had to work until I got to grad school.

So, is "hardworkingness" a part of intelligence? Let's not forget that
"stupid" and "lazy" often go together.

>>It reminds me of the hackneyed Darryl Strawberry phrase, "wasted
>>potential." People always assume Strawberry had a high capacity to
>>perform, but he did not. Yet if he did not perform, then perhaps his
>>capacity was not as high as it was assumed. Perhaps his failure was
>>innate, no?

>Issues of human potential is always an iffy question.

I think they need to be answered before we decide that social
policy changes will be effected based upon differences in potential.

jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell