How much does IQ matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a kindergarten teacher and the students who struggle almost always test out with IQs in the low 70s. It takes them a very long time to learn new things. If an average kid learns letter names and sounds in the first few months of kindergarten, it takes these students until the end of the year or even into first grade to learn the same information. They fall behind from the beginning and never catch up. They just need a lot more repetition that cannot always be given in a school day. The same students who struggle in kindergarten are the same students who struggle in every subsequent grade level. Some of them have more determination but many give up by late elementary school and become behavior issues.

It’s such a travesty that these facts are being ignored. So everyone has to waste time, teachers get aggravated and quit, all because some people don’t want to face reality because it’s not PC or whatever. Very sad.

You don't understand that low IQ have no where to go. Who is being PC about it? They don't qualify for special ed. There aren't any vocational technical programs. Maybe they became criminals and fuel the school to prison pipeline. Or they drop out. If you don't like it, work to change the law. Provide more funding for reading teachers.

Children with lower IQs may plateau. They don't plateau in kindergarten class. Think people. It's kindergarten. They're either not being taught by a good teacher. Or the teacher has her hands full. K through 3 needs extra adults in the room to help with different reading grade levels. This is just common sense and common knowledge. Are you low IQ that you think children are stupid in kindergarten?

They just need to separate classes by reading level at that age. If the kid can’t read going into 1st grade then they shouldn’t be in the same room with kids that have been reading for 3 years. Nobody wins.

That was called "tracking," and they stopped doing that in the 1980s.

As a kid who read in the highest reading book, I was alone. And I dreaded listening to the other kids read aloud. Reading aloud slows me down.

Why do think you audible and podcasts are so popular? It's not really reading. It's listening to words read aloud to you. That's not reading comprehension.

+1. But the few occasions there was reading out loud, and I recall everyone had to read a paragraph and go around the room, didn’t bother me. But I did know who couldn’t read well. And vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a kindergarten teacher and the students who struggle almost always test out with IQs in the low 70s. It takes them a very long time to learn new things. If an average kid learns letter names and sounds in the first few months of kindergarten, it takes these students until the end of the year or even into first grade to learn the same information. They fall behind from the beginning and never catch up. They just need a lot more repetition that cannot always be given in a school day. The same students who struggle in kindergarten are the same students who struggle in every subsequent grade level. Some of them have more determination but many give up by late elementary school and become behavior issues.

It’s such a travesty that these facts are being ignored. So everyone has to waste time, teachers get aggravated and quit, all because some people don’t want to face reality because it’s not PC or whatever. Very sad.

You don't understand that low IQ have no where to go. Who is being PC about it? They don't qualify for special ed. There aren't any vocational technical programs. Maybe they became criminals and fuel the school to prison pipeline. Or they drop out. If you don't like it, work to change the law. Provide more funding for reading teachers.

Children with lower IQs may plateau. They don't plateau in kindergarten class. Think people. It's kindergarten. They're either not being taught by a good teacher. Or the teacher has her hands full. K through 3 needs extra adults in the room to help with different reading grade levels. This is just common sense and common knowledge. Are you low IQ that you think children are stupid in kindergarten?

They go in the remedial and lowest level math and reading classes then. Not ESOL, not special ed, not dyslexia, but the slow remedial level and do as best they can there.

What do the $$$$ private schools here all day: Teach the child you have. Meet the child where they are.

Can’t do that for anyone if there’s a huge skill/ability range of students in the same lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a kindergarten teacher and the students who struggle almost always test out with IQs in the low 70s. It takes them a very long time to learn new things. If an average kid learns letter names and sounds in the first few months of kindergarten, it takes these students until the end of the year or even into first grade to learn the same information. They fall behind from the beginning and never catch up. They just need a lot more repetition that cannot always be given in a school day. The same students who struggle in kindergarten are the same students who struggle in every subsequent grade level. Some of them have more determination but many give up by late elementary school and become behavior issues.

It’s such a travesty that these facts are being ignored. So everyone has to waste time, teachers get aggravated and quit, all because some people don’t want to face reality because it’s not PC or whatever. Very sad.

You don't understand that low IQ have no where to go. Who is being PC about it? They don't qualify for special ed. There aren't any vocational technical programs. Maybe they became criminals and fuel the school to prison pipeline. Or they drop out. If you don't like it, work to change the law. Provide more funding for reading teachers.

Children with lower IQs may plateau. They don't plateau in kindergarten class. Think people. It's kindergarten. They're either not being taught by a good teacher. Or the teacher has her hands full. K through 3 needs extra adults in the room to help with different reading grade levels. This is just common sense and common knowledge. Are you low IQ that you think children are stupid in kindergarten?

They just need to separate classes by reading level at that age. If the kid can’t read going into 1st grade then they shouldn’t be in the same room with kids that have been reading for 3 years. Nobody wins.

If a kid has been reading since 3 years old, it more than likely means he/she is on the autism spectrum.

[Anonymous]

I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

[Anonymous]

Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

Whoa, can you elaborate?

I consider myself pretty smart and my greatest weakness is my stamina - I was underweight until peri and I needed 10 hours of sleep everyday even in my 20s. I have scored a few great jobs with potential but I fudged all of them because of my lack of stamina I burned out after a year or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

Agree.

Strong books smarts ain’t all that. Those individuals need a lot of scaffolding from their mom, wife, secretary, junior staff. Forever.

Need a balance of book smarts/ high IQ and other life skills like EQ, empathy, drive, optimism, social skills, communication skills, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

Whoa, can you elaborate?

I consider myself pretty smart and my greatest weakness is my stamina - I was underweight until peri and I needed 10 hours of sleep everyday even in my 20s. I have scored a few great jobs with potential but I fudged all of them because of my lack of stamina I burned out after a year or two.

What do you mean lack of stamina caused you to lose jobs?

There are still 14 hours of the day to work and be social and do household admin. What’s happening?

Is this a health issue or more like ASD/ need lots of decompression time alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

Whoa, can you elaborate?

I consider myself pretty smart and my greatest weakness is my stamina - I was underweight until peri and I needed 10 hours of sleep everyday even in my 20s. I have scored a few great jobs with potential but I fudged all of them because of my lack of stamina I burned out after a year or two.

Were you a perfectionist and burned out? Like you couldn’t get stuff done on time or prioritize?

Or were you masking so much at work that you burned out?

Or was the work places truly toxic and taking advantage of you and others with too much work or problems or stress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an IQ test in a professional psychologist’s office (so, one hopes, fairly reliable) that put my overall IQ at 138. I’m surely at least 20-30 points lower than my father who is a fairly well known physics professor with many famous publications. My brutally honest opinion is that 1) the returns to high IQ are unfortunately much lower for women, and 2) even for men, unless you’re making advances at the knowledge frontier of abstract mathematics, you’re best off with an IQ of approx 120 and high energy + high EQ. IQ higher than that simply doesn’t pay off for the individual in terms of more money or higher social status.

Happy to elaborate on my own life path (which is actually pretty good, all things considered!) but that’s the TLDR.

Whoa, can you elaborate?

I consider myself pretty smart and my greatest weakness is my stamina - I was underweight until peri and I needed 10 hours of sleep everyday even in my 20s. I have scored a few great jobs with potential but I fudged all of them because of my lack of stamina I burned out after a year or two.

What do you mean lack of stamina caused you to lose jobs?

There are still 14 hours of the day to work and be social and do household admin. What’s happening?

Is this a health issue or more like ASD/ need lots of decompression time alone?

The good jobs I scored were in hedge funds so the business hour is 11hrs and up to 14 hours (a few times a month), throw in commute and I truly felt so drained when I get home at 80pm. But the men (even the ones with kids) appear fine and survived 20 years going strong.

[Anonymous]

So a non market hours hedge fund research or trading job. Like activist or distressed debt perhaps..

Even in your 20s could you do an 8am to 8pm finance job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a non market hours hedge fund research or trading job. Like activist or distressed debt perhaps..

Even in your 20s could you do an 8am to 8pm finance job?

Nope, did 9-9 for 3 years and became super depressed and left. The athlete colleague became MD after 10 years and I still had 2nd year base salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a non market hours hedge fund research or trading job. Like activist or distressed debt perhaps..

Even in your 20s could you do an 8am to 8pm finance job?

Love it how you can immediately tell it’s distressed credit 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a non market hours hedge fund research or trading job. Like activist or distressed debt perhaps..

Even in your 20s could you do an 8am to 8pm finance job?

Love it how you can immediately tell it’s distressed credit 😆

Yeah, only project driven work HF types I know! They even have to fly to state courts and talk sometimes, lol. Cyprus, Goldentree.

Def not the L/S equity guys who leave at 4:35pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in Mensa. It's not a bunch of highly successful people if you look at measures like career or financial success (or even relationship success). Plenty do well, but not much different from the general population.

IQ helps when it comes to being successful, but it's more than just that. EQ for example plays a big factor. So does motivation.

Well, Mensa is an organization for unsuccessful smart people to give them something to feel good about. The successful smart people generally aren’t interested; they find lots of intellectual stimulation in their day to day lives.

Like the special Olympics and/or every other group to have a sense of belonging. I think it's fine, but people with very high I.Q.s often have other problems. Often social or emotional.