Defining IQ

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that the reason why smart people tend to live longer is that they are less likely to engage in stupid activities (like drunk driving or unprotected sex with strangers) and are more likely to take preventative steps (like vaccination or avoiding areas where everyone is dying from infectious diseases). An intelligent person is not necessarily healthier than an average person, they are just more likely to avoid circumstances where having good health is critical. Of course, a healthy intelligent person will live longer than an unhealthy intelligence person or a healthy average person, so the longest lived people will tend to be both healthy and intelligent.

Paul Erdos' addiction to amphetamines, Ben Franklin's lechery in Paris, Stephen King's...well, entire decade of the 80s, just massive amounts of drug use and sex in colleges. Smart people have plenty of the same vices as dumb people - they may be able to get better jobs that give them access to medicine or therapy that helps counteract the consequences of their choices, but a lot of the same choices get made.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

And the g-loadings for many tasks that are IQ-based in Gurps are low! For example rhythm sense is almost independent of general intelligence, so you could argue that Musical Instrument (Drums) shouldn't be based on IQ. Likewise with emotional recognition, the loadings are really modest.

Can you recommend some literature where I can read more about these loadings?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I disaggree. CLEARLY the record of American colleges demonstrates the VAST capacity of intelligent people for minimal temperance. As does Pushkin regularly having affairs and getting into duels over them. Or Van Gogh cutting off his ear.

Unrelated in that they are equally prone to temperament issues as the general healthy public.

[AlexanderHowl]

Never actually noticed that excessive if behavior in the geniuses that I have known, and everyone of them survived to the current year (unlike some of the people of average intelligence that I have known).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Never actually noticed that excessive if behavior in the geniuses that I have known, and everyone of them survived to the current year (unlike some of the people of average intelligence that I have known).

Well unless you know a significant percentage of all geniuses alive today anecdote is not data (there's also the point that maybe some of the geniuses you do know might not be open about their excesses, as well as some you know might not be open about there genius).

Also all the ones you know that are alive today as opposed so some of average intelligence? Is confirmation bias, all the geniuses you know who are alive today have indeed not died due to excess, and those of average intelligence who have not survived are indeed not alive today.

I'm also guessing that in terms of geniuses you've known or know and average people you've known or know that the latter are by far the larger group, and since self inflicted premature death by excess isn't actually that common* per capita that's going to effect things.

But unless everyone you've ever met has their genius credentials tattooed on their foreheads it's likely that you may not have been aware of who was or wasn't a genius when you met them, weather they are alive or dead now. And of course any dead geniuses you may have unwittingly known are certainly not indulging in excessive behaviour any more so unless you also know the cause of death and contributory behaviour leading to it of everyone you've ever known you might have some missing positive data.


Not to mention that death by excess is itself a defining result that doesn't tell us much about the incidence of behaviour leading to it or correlation (let alone causation) with genius. I.e not dying of excess up to this point doesn't mean no excess, or no chance of it leading to premature death in the future, or that death due to excess can't be avoided by ways other than possessing genius.

This also leaves aside the issue that death by excess doesn't occur automatically after consuming a suitably lethal and precise number of drinks, syringes or cigarettes, or having a certain number unprotected sexual encounters, even for those for whom whose death they are contributory causes. I.e one might have lots of unprotected sexual encounters but just get lucky, or drink heavily and not have you liver rot from cirrhosis. (or hell you might unknowingly be on the way to dying of cirrhosis but get hit by a bus), or course the opposite could happen you could get unlucky as well!


Finally not all driving effects of self destruction through excess are internal (although good luck splitting them out on an individual level as opposed to the macro level, as ultimately they do express through personal action). Some of the other internal ones are not related to IQ, mental illness being classic example.

And of course defining let alone recognising genius is as has been pointed out already, problematic.



*depending on what we're defining as premature death by excess and when we're looking, dying of smoking related illness before 70 is more common that dying of alcohol related illness before 30.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

Paul Erdos' addiction to amphetamines, Ben Franklin's lechery in Paris, Stephen King's...well, entire decade of the 80s, just massive amounts of drug use and sex in colleges. Smart people have plenty of the same vices as dumb people - they may be able to get better jobs that give them access to medicine or therapy that helps counteract the consequences of their choices, but a lot of the same choices get made.

Yep, I've certainly never noticed a significantly different predilection towards self destructive behaviour here. (of course I don't know for sure how many geniuses I've met or necessarily known which one's they were)

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

Paul Erdos' addiction to amphetamines, Ben Franklin's lechery in Paris, Stephen King's...well, entire decade of the 80s, just massive amounts of drug use and sex in colleges. Smart people have plenty of the same vices as dumb people - they may be able to get better jobs that give them access to medicine or therapy that helps counteract the consequences of their choices, but a lot of the same choices get made.

An interesting data point is that the last time I checked, MDs were about twice as likely to smoke as the general population. While IQ tests contain various biases and are indeed more likely to have people who already have significant psychological or substance abuse problems score lower, I would be very cautious about predicting a correlation between scoring high on an IQ test and making future life choices that are safer or more 'sensible' than others with a similar background.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Addictions have NOTHING to do with lack of intelligence. Impulsiveness is also unrelated to low intelligence except in that some disorders effect both.

Well, that's not entirely true. Low intelligence is a notable risk factor for substance abuse, even after correcting for socioeconomic status. There's also a pretty robust association between intelligence and measures of effortful control, which is a broader concept encompassing different aspects of self-control like attentional focusing and impulse inhibition. It's not a huge correlation but it's there.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Well, that's not entirely true. Low intelligence is a notable risk factor for substance abuse, even after correcting for socioeconomic status. There's also a pretty robust association between intelligence and measures of effortful control, which is a broader concept encompassing different aspects of self-control like attentional focusing and impulse inhibition. It's not a huge correlation but it's there.

Out of interest on an aside is there much on how effortful control and physiological addiction impinge in each other? (might be a bit hard to directly test for!)

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Out of interest on an aside is there much on how effortful control and physiological addiction impinge in each other? (might be a bit hard to directly test for!)

My understanding is that there's fairly extensive literature on effortful control (or related temperament measures) and drug use and addictive behavior, but I've not looked into it at all. The thing is that it's hard to find large-sample data on temperament, so when you're looking at temperament on the one hand, and some relatively uncommon behavioral variable on the other, you run out of statistical power pretty quickly trying to go into the matter in any detail. Can't exactly do randomized controlled trials getting people addicted on heroin or something...