NYTimes.com: David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, restates this idea in his book “The Social Animal,” while Geoff Colvin, in his book “Talent Is Overrated,” adds that “I.Q. is a decent predictor of performance on an unfamiliar task, but once a person has been at a job for a few years, I.Q. predicts little or nothing about performance.”
But this isn’t quite the story that science tells. Research has shown that intellectual ability matters for success in many fields — and not just up to a point.
8 comments:
It has also been discussed that since those who were studied from age 13 were looked at as extremely gifted they were also treated as extremely gifted which had a large influence on their later SAT scores. This article makes interesting points, but Emotional Intelligence has often times proven to better predict success than IQ. I do believe, though, that there is a need for talent and the talent and practice both need to be present; a person most likely will not succeed without both.
This article makes me wonder where responding to unexpected circumstances falls on the IQ / practice continuum. While on the one hand you can't always practice for the unexpected, the ability to remain calm amidst confusion is one that comes through prior experience it seems, and probably allows for the subject to think through things more logically. Also, you can practice particular skills and crafts in our line or work, but does practice in the political and conceptual realm work in the same way? Is there anything to those who have a 'natural' eye or ear, or have they just been practicing by paying more attention?
I think that it is nice to wish that IQ doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Outliers is a little too nice and a little to convenient. Yes it is true that practicing helps you become better at things but obviously there is something to be said to just naturally being better at things.
And the majority of life is not practiced (this is especially true in theater) so how can you prepare? You need to use what you naturally have to push forward or you need to figure out ways in which you can understand things so that you can do them correctly even if you've never done them. I find that that is how you get better at doing things you've never done you keep an open mind and make sure you are recording everything and everything that you can link back to things you know you should.
Along the lines of SMysel's thoughts, I wonder if people with higher I.Q.s are more likely to achieve what the article stated because they are more likely to be interested in those areas of achievement, which seem to be more related to science or academia than the original example of musical talent. If someone is more interested, they are more likely to 1)put more effort into their work, and 2)desire and aim to go further into their field of interest, which could contribute to the higher rates of success .
It could also be possible that people who are smarter (who have higher IQs) are just more prone to studying and practicing more, therefore making them better than those with lower IQs. And that people with higher IQs are more likely to be interested in things that manifest in getting doctorates and securing patents.
What exactly is "IQ." What is it a measurement of and how can we be sure that it is accurate? Would someone with amazing artistic abilities have as high an IQ as someone who is highly logical?
Pia, to your question, an IQ score places a person on a bell curve in relation to others on factors of problem-solving, pattern-recognition, reading synthesis and comprehension, and mathematics. The score tests purely for these categories, which are considered the building blocks of intelligence.
I, like some of the other commenters above, have a lot of trouble taking the Vanderbilt study's qualification categories (PhD, paten, publish) as the best (or only) markers of success, since they leave out many fields which could be qualified with indicators of "success", and that all may be convoluted before any discussion of the IQ score can come in. The working memory theory is an intriguing one - and practice bolsters the strength of the working memory more than anything. I think the Vanderbilt researchers may be a bit hasty, but that all of these factors are so closely tied that to pull them apart with any semblance of test validity may be exceedingly difficult.
I got a 1090 on my SAT. I wear that number with pride because I worked my butt off for that test. I am CLEARLY not one of the 99% talked about in this article.
It's logical to believe that people with good memory would be skilled at sight-reading. But does that translate precisely [and evenly] to talent? Or even skill? For example, does a pianist who'd practiced 10 000 hours but has a poor working memory capacity play better or worse than a pianist who's only practiced 6 500 hours but has a higher working memory capacity?
Most of the kids who scored a perfect on their SATs when I took them were raging potheads. I could never fathom why, but maybe someone with a higher IQ could explain it to me.
There are many aspects to a person that can make them successful. I think we've all seen examples of people that were not the smartest that have risen to high positions in a variety of careers. Personality, timing and luck have a lot to do with success.
I also know that some people can just be good at the system, at taking a test. The SAT doesn't say everything about you, and the ACT (while a subject test) is very much showing about how good you are at taking a test. I can't imagine that the IQ test is invisible to these sorts of things either.
Post a Comment