Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I started to write a much longer response but don't have time. My IQ was tested at 142 some decades ago and, from what I've read, would be higher cause the tests have changed.

I was always very successful in my jobs but, when it came to starting my own business, I needed a lot of active encouragement or I would give up too quickly. However, in two cases, a business clicked with me, for some reason, which made me excited and driven. While others commented on my innovative approach to those businesses that made them successful, it was the enthusiasm that kept me going, followed by the excitement of success. You might say it's the difference between being a good player on a bad sports team versus a good player on a first place team. My IQ, perhaps, helped me see things most did not but it's the enthusiasm that keeps me going and, especially helpful, encouragement and support from others, not my IQ.




Talent is a trap. It has taken me years to see this, but because "talent" is really how easily you can accomplish at a high level, it can be a shock when you run into an area where you need growth.

I was limiting myself from growing in important areas because I gave up too easily when my "talent" didn't shine through. I should have realized at some point that it's all work in the end, and sometimes you have to slug through it.


Disclaimer, I'm not a psychologist. I think IQ is a measure on how good you are manipulating abstractions and detecting patterns. For this other part

>> when it came to starting my own business, I needed a lot of active encouragement or I would give up too quickly

For that abstraction and patterns doesn't help, this is about your temperament, I'd look on how you score in the big five of personality traits. If you don't want to rely on being encouraged all the time. I think you could learn a set micro skills to compensate for those aspects that your natural temperament falls into 'need encouragement' pattern. Note there might not be known micro skill for some of traits, but at least you will have a model that explains your tendencies.


Someone successful enough could just hire an employee for encouragement. In fact lots of people do that, with executive coaches etc. Lots of others steal that service from their firms, by demanding lots of ass-kissing from subordinates.


You are almost 3 standard deviations up, meaning you the distance between you and the average is the same as between average and someone with what used to be called "mild mental retardation".

If it was something like WAIS you did it is actually a pretty comprehensive test including many different areas of mental performance (working memory, abstract verbal reasoning, visual spatial comprehension, inductive reasoning, attention encoding, auditory processing, quantative reasoning, associative memory, processing speed among others.).

A high score on something like WAIS is a pretty good predictor of work performance.


> My IQ, perhaps, helped me see things most did not but it's the enthusiasm that keeps me going

You need a sufficiently high IQ to seek out and achieve the higher things, such as productive sources of enthusiasm. Those with lower IQ will be less inclined to figure out how to become self-actualized.


That is unsubstantiated speculation. "IQ" doesn't mean "anything that makes a person ideal".


What is speculative about needing a high IQ to solve problems? This is simply a specific version of that.


> and, from what I've read, would be higher cause the tests have changed.

That doesn't sound right - the Flynn effect causes IQ tests to get harder over time.

Also, I believe IQ reliably deteriorates with age.


The Flynn effect is misunderstood to be some sort of general humanist truth (because psychology classes generally present it as such), but the existence of a reversal in the Flynn effect in recent years may indicate that it was just a circumstance of the 20th century and not something that we can assume will continue forever.

Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused (2018)

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/0...


People are definitely reluctant to retract that bit of gospel and it's not a good look. IIRC Flynn himself was circumspect and the memory is uncertain but I thought he pointed to the recent reversal too.

This sort of collective amnesia happens often if you look out for it and this makes me suspicious of other conventional wisdom I see peddled here and on Reddit. Is it probably true because a lot of people think so or is it true because it chimed with a story. The mind warping powers of politics are well known but maybe the conceit every person shares is that we feel there ought to be a nice coherent story like a box to put things into - meanwhile Reality/Nature/God gives zero fucks about all that.


Iq is standardised on a population level, where age is an important parameter.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: