IQ and talent are often overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ? Really?

Einstein, Edison, Gates, Curie, Galileo, Turing, Hawking, Newton….

Ummm IQ is extremely important.

Americans have gotten so dumb with the reality tv and social media idiots.

You certainly showed that iq matters for a minute sliver of people who are interested in theoretical science. What about the remaining 99.9% of the population?

[Anonymous]

Yes, somewhat higher than average IQ people can be monetarily successful through hard work and persistence. Typically, they run some small business, like a franchise, something in the trades, an internet merchandiser, etc. But, none of those operations are life changing for society, and the jobs created are few, basic, and relatively low-wage - only the owner does well.

Contrast that with people of high IQ and hard work and persistence. That’s where the technology breakthroughs happen and great wealth is created, not only for the founders, but for the employees, and stockholders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, somewhat higher than average IQ people can be monetarily successful through hard work and persistence. Typically, they run some small business, like a franchise, something in the trades, an internet merchandiser, etc. But, none of those operations are life changing for society, and the jobs created are few, basic, and relatively low-wage - only the owner does well.

Contrast that with people of high IQ and hard work and persistence. That’s where the technology breakthroughs happen and great wealth is created, not only for the founders, but for the employees, and stockholders.

Actually, it’s been proven that you just have to be “smart enough” when it comes to founding businesses and creating great wealth. I recall a study (will have to dig it up) where they determined there were distinct outcomes for those with SATs of 1200+ vs below 1200.

Essentially, those with a 1200+ were “smart enough” and then actual success was most determined by hard work, risk appetite, etc.

Your examples above exclude plenty of industries like oil&gas and natural resources, logistics companies, etc. where plenty of “smart enough” people have created Fortune 100 companies that employ thousands of people and have made the founders some of the richest people in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmkay. Well my ivy kid loves the school, works hard, gets many opportunities due to just being a student there. They enjoy being around a lot of other high IQ talented kids and there is nothing wrong with fitting in in that environment and choosing it

And that’s okay it just they are less likely to make last positive affects on the world and are more likely to make lasting negative affects on the world like crashing the economy or committing fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, somewhat higher than average IQ people can be monetarily successful through hard work and persistence. Typically, they run some small business, like a franchise, something in the trades, an internet merchandiser, etc. But, none of those operations are life changing for society, and the jobs created are few, basic, and relatively low-wage - only the owner does well.

Contrast that with people of high IQ and hard work and persistence. That’s where the technology breakthroughs happen and great wealth is created, not only for the founders, but for the employees, and stockholders.

Actually, it’s been proven that you just have to be “smart enough” when it comes to founding businesses and creating great wealth. I recall a study (will have to dig it up) where they determined there were distinct outcomes for those with SATs of 1200+ vs below 1200.

Essentially, those with a 1200+ were “smart enough” and then actual success was most determined by hard work, risk appetite, etc.

Your examples above exclude plenty of industries like oil&gas and natural resources, logistics companies, etc. where plenty of “smart enough” people have created Fortune 100 companies that employ thousands of people and have made the founders some of the richest people in the country.

1200 SAT is 75-80 percentile. That’s considerably above average, but not brainiac. Agree that these people can do great things, particularly if one is just focused on personal wealth.

[Anonymous]

To be clear, there are a lot of really smart people who rest on their degree laurels in a professional job that pays $250k. Couple that with a similar spouse, and HHI is $500k. Many find that sufficient, so they are the smart, lazy people with work/life balance. Tons of them in the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Title of this thread should be:

"Talent, IQ, money, good looks, and happiness are overrated."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, there are a lot of really smart people who rest on their degree laurels in a professional job that pays $250k. Couple that with a similar spouse, and HHI is $500k. Many find that sufficient, so they are the smart, lazy people with work/life balance. Tons of them in the federal government.

"Many" find being a top 1% earner in the entire US to be sufficient and that makes them "lazy"?

Do you even hear yourself?

Nobody "needs" to move up from an ordinary house to a $M house, for example.

You only have one life. If you sell all your time, that's a choice. You can't get it back.

[Anonymous]

^500K HHI is a 1% household

[Anonymous]

Name your heroes, OP.

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to offer my personal opinion on the matter (does this forum really need another opinion?). But I'll offer that if anyone is interested in this conversation, the 2023 Nobel Prize winner in medicine/physiology explores it a bit in her memoir, Breaking Through.

She says that in school and college, she wasn't especially smart or talented, but that she out-worked everyone around her. But rather than it being a simple matter of "hard work overcomes all", the hard work actually changed her baseline. Plasticity of the brain, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mmmkay. Well my ivy kid loves the school, works hard, gets many opportunities due to just being a student there. They enjoy being around a lot of other high IQ talented kids and there is nothing wrong with fitting in in that environment and choosing it

And that’s okay it just they are less likely to make last positive affects on the world and are more likely to make lasting negative affects on the world like crashing the economy or committing fraud.

DP.
1. It’s “effects” in this context.
2. Neither Ivy nor high IQ is statistically associated with the effects you state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, there are a lot of really smart people who rest on their degree laurels in a professional job that pays $250k. Couple that with a similar spouse, and HHI is $500k. Many find that sufficient, so they are the smart, lazy people with work/life balance. Tons of them in the federal government.

"Many" find being a top 1% earner in the entire US to be sufficient and that makes them "lazy"?

Do you even hear yourself?

Nobody "needs" to move up from an ordinary house to a $M house, for example.

You only have one life. If you sell all your time, that's a choice. You can't get it back.

100% could not agree more!
The PP is a typical Dcum that thinks 450-500k is average and likely the same ilk who insist they cannot afford elite schools because they are “donut hole”. What is wrong with having a highly respected professional career, earning top1-2% money (or less) and living a good life with your family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to offer my personal opinion on the matter (does this forum really need another opinion?). But I'll offer that if anyone is interested in this conversation, the 2023 Nobel Prize winner in medicine/physiology explores it a bit in her memoir, Breaking Through.

She says that in school and college, she wasn't especially smart or talented, but that she out-worked everyone around her. But rather than it being a simple matter of "hard work overcomes all", the hard work actually changed her baseline. Plasticity of the brain, etc.

It’s a great book. She is somewhat disingenuous considering all evidence indicates she is a at least academically gifted(95%), likely highly so(98-99th). Among some academic peers who may have been some 1 in 1000 ppl she may have felt “average” , but there is nothing average about her. She is correct that hard work and surrounding yourself with people who are similar or smarter does push you to work hard, and that is where the growth occurs. This has been studied and is one of the key reasons people with 98-99% kids often want to super-elite schools: the peers, faculty, everyone will push you to achieve more than you would if you were one of the top ones in a weaker peer setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mmmkay. Well my ivy kid loves the school, works hard, gets many opportunities due to just being a student there. They enjoy being around a lot of other high IQ talented kids and there is nothing wrong with fitting in in that environment and choosing it

No, but your talented, smart kid likely would be able to fit in and excel at life at almost any school. They'd find a group of similar students at most schools in the T50-100 rankings.

Exactly—if I’m paying half a million for a school, I’d much rather my child be surrounded by real brilliant, kind, and curious kids than cookie-cutter clones ones

Its hilarious that you think that brilliant kind and curious kids only go to Ivy. In fact, Ivy is not equal to brilliant or curious. It is actually equal to legacy, donors, influence, celebrity etc.. sure there maybe some kids who got in because they played their game but it doesn’t mean the rest of the schools have mediocre cookie cutter clones.