There are other factors equally important as IQ. No, I'm not thinking of EQ, but rather motivation and will. Will is the force that compels us, IQ is that which structures our will, and which gives it form. A strong will without much IQ will give you a stupid barbarian. A high IQ without much will will give you a Mensa member (just j/k). I mean, a high IQ without much will will give you someone who's intelligent but does not exert themselves in life and hence ends up not getting very far in life. The combination of high IQ and will is the key. And I would argue that all great figures in history did not necessarily possess exceptional IQ's, but that they all had high (to exceptionally high) IQ's coupled with an indomitable will (the will of God). Hence the religiousness of the great ones from the past. The take-home message is that IQ in itself is worthless. High IQ coupled with a strong will is the true marker for success in this life (I guess you could argue for a role of Fortune too, but that's beyond the scope of this little spiel).

Wow... I really liked that because it puts us all on a level where we can compete. True, true, IQ is not enough. The only geniuses we hear about are those who contribute, the others become adept in mid-level professions and become supervisors or directors and are satisfied. Very well put and explained to the degree that we can all understand. Are you a genius? blaksurfr.

High I.Q.
High will.

Agreed, and I would add, 'High concern for both self and Society'. [high morals?]

After all, high IQ plus high will would include clever criminals!

[blaksurfr - colour does not matter; it's just that some people ain't figured that yet. Welcome to mindbrain].

right-on rhymer! Thanks for the welcome...

High IQ, high will, and also, high creativity. We have to bear in mind that IQ and creativity are not the same thing. Highly intelligent individuals might be entirely uncreative and unable to think of novel solutions to problems. Right? I guess it depends on how you define IQ (certainly not solely as what an IQ test measures). Perhaps if you define IQ as adaptability to environment. But with this definition, IQ and creativity are completely separate things. Maybe there are definitions of IQ that involve a relation with creativity. I'm not sure.

Sternberg (1986) believes that conventional intelligence tests tell us little about performance in everyday life and suggest a number of reasons why so-called intelligent people fail:
lack of motivation
lack of impulse control
lack of perseverance
fear of failure
procrastination
inability to delay gratification
too little/too much self-confidence

Remember Sternberg suggests that if intelligence properly defined and measured it MUST translate into real-life success (Sternberg, 1986)

interesting

I wonder how credible Mensa is? How many members? How easy it is to get in? What sort of people are Mensans? I know you have to meet certain requirements on paper, like IQ 135 or greater or SAT greater than a certain amount, or something like that, but how easy is it for just anybody to get in?

Re: distinction between creativity and IQ. IQ is dependent on our knowledge base and does not involve novel recombinations of that knowledge, whereas creativity does. In other words, I'm trying to clarify the distinction between IQ and creativity. IQ is adaptation, but is adaptation that relies on acting in ways that we have stored in our knowledge base, whereas creativity could or could not involve adaptation, but the key is that it relies on novel recombinations of the knowledge in our knowledge database. It would be useful to psychologist definitions for these terms. I wonder how behaviorists would define them.

I guess the point I'm making is that IQ may be distinct from creativity, but if IQ is defined in terms of adaptation or ability to adapt, and if 'success' is defined in terms of success of adaptation, then success would not need to involve creativity. I know this sounds like an odd conclusion, but if we consider the claim that everything that can be said has already been said by others, then that seems to limit our creativity. Who knows.

A very interesting thread, though I disagree with the distinction that IQ and creativity are separate.

As a person whos IQ was measured at a very early age to be over 200 and at the age of almost 37 it slowly gets lower and lower (if IQ tests are anything to go by) The last one I took measured it at 122 doesnt make me any less inteligent than I was before, quite the opposite. I learn something new every single day. The standards of IQ testing are not constant and the expectations and rules governing them are all floating parameters.

If I take a creative IQ test I always score higher than if I take a standard test. The last creative IQ test included practical solutions to theorectic problems where there was no absolute answers and the results were given on a scale of adaptation of information to the end result. My result was 176. Does this make me a genius ? I doubt it very much.

I believe that creativity and IQ go hand in hand, one is dependant upon the other.
It is also wrong in my eyes to think that a high academic IQ relates to intelligence. Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met were artists. Some song writers, authors and poets. And some of the most ignorant people I have ever met were university deans, but their IQ was way above normal.

Your IQ stems from your knowledge base as does your creativity. Bending and shaping knowledge to suit your own purpose leads to creativity, acceptence of knowledge but leaving it as a statuary entity, not willing to see other results as possibilities leads to stagnation.

In the UK there is a competition called "mastermind" it has been running now for over 30 years, out of all of the champions found the only one that sticks to mind was a taxi driver from London. This profession is not synonymous with a high IQ, but was proven to be otherwise. What we do does not necessarily define us as intelligent or lesser intelligent. Was Micheal D'Angelo a genius ? Some would say yes others would dismiss him as "just" an artist.

One of the most creative minds I have ever seen came from an 18 month old child. She saw that her two parents couldnt reach the smoke alarm on the ceiling, without prior instruction from her parents she waltzed out to the broom cupboard, fetched a long handled broom and then presented it to her parents to reach the smoke alarm. She had never seen her parents doing this, but in her 18 month old mind she made a reltation between the problem and the solution.
The child is now 8 years old and has difficulties in reading and mathematics as any 8 year old has. Will she become a genius ? Only time will tell.

High IQs do not represent intelligence, they represent high IQs what people do with their intellect is what defines them. Creativity stems from the IQ or is stagnated by the IQ, the choice is individual.

The other point about the need for a will to succeed, I agree with the group, but there are many forms of will. Does the "strong silent type" have a lesser will then the "flamboyant type" ? Just because someone doesnt seek the limelight does that make thier will any less than those who strive to be on the front page of every newspaper ? There are many ways of achieving a goal and sometimes the most effective one is the one "you never saw coming". It takes a stronger will not to promote yourself and concentrate on promoting your ideals than it does to force your ideals forward down peoples throats. We are used to seeing fifty foot high billboards of famous people, promoting whatever to make money. The more famous the person the more billboards the more PR for the person and eventually the billboards are remembered for the person and not the product.

The last statement in -unknown-s post " if we consider the claim that everything that can be said has already been said by others, then it seems to limit our creativity" is one of truth but cannot be possible.
If it is true that everything has been said, then logically we would never be more intelligent than we are today, progress in every field would stagnate and we wouldnt be able to build anything bigger, better and faster than they are today. A terrible thought !

Well thats my ramblings for this post.

J

thanks for the ramblings J. So are you a proponent of different types of IQ, like Howard Gardner? He also believes in different types of creativity. I don't find anything he's written particularly novel or surprising. The IQ I was thinking of above is more like 'fluid intelligence' or a general IQ. I was not thinking in terms of particular types of IQ. It comes down to definitions, of whether you believe in a single general IQ or multiple types of IQ.

In relation to general or multiple IQs I do believe in different forms of IQs even though the idea of a general IQ has always been the bread and butter of the scholastic system.

I agree completely Unknown,

I'd like to add that wisdom, (in my opinion) is more important.

I've known many people who have advanced college degree's and I've witnessed many of them making un-smart decisions and un-smart choices. ( I dislike the word, "stupid.")

My Grandfather had only a sixth grade education, yet he held more wisdom then anyone I've ever known.

Zabb

i have HIGH IQ friends ( I won't mention my IQ because of my false modesty !)

one of these friends is OCDS ( OCD) and this prevents him from getting around to doing anything , but once in a while when in the right mood

he will solve a problem or a puzzle or a math question out of the blue or a philisophical historical cultural mystery and watching him think

is a real pleasure let me tell you . he has super iq and just cant use it all the time because of OCD ,

Now DONT YOU GUYS/GIRLS suspect that the majority of peopel out there may have something getting in the way of their massive potential ??


so of course IQ isnt everything it never was it never will be

I have watched true idiots go ahead and DO things that no one else

either THOUGHT of doing ( for whatever reason ) or

GOT AROUND to doing .

BTW EQ is bull and Gardner is so so.

i would agree,...but take "God" out of the equasion because not all individuals such as myself adhere to a "god"...so therefore thats tainting the process in my view,Nicknack

Surely the IQ is simply the alacrity or velocity of the thought processes without possessing any other attributes? We encounter the less intelligent (IQ wise) who reach the same conclusions to those reckoned to be of higher intelligence but are either a trifle slower or reluctant to impose their views on others or possibly less dominant? Those who succeed in society are either socially popular or emotionally driven or just happen to be in the right place at the right time; success has no relevance to IQ. My guess is that comprehension can be measured which is connected to perception yet perception seems to be different to intelligence and a trait that can too readily socially alienate.

I would have thought that IQ or academic snobbery (or snobbery of any kind) is simply the compensatory reflection of inner-feelings of inadequacy. Success too often is driven by the inner-urge to prove onself. There are others who do not feel the need to prove their worth for reasons connected to feelings of self-sufficiency and self-confidence. Research (if you believe in it) has shown that those who succeed tend to possess the same ten features, five of which are primary and five secondary. Of the five primary, the following features were: articulation, dominance, maleness (which today might be changing) oddness (like being a 'character' or simply a buffoon) and low bodily movement but, IQ was not part of the criteria.

A study done in the US discovered that around 2% of bosses of industry had academic qualification while the opposite was true of their deputies. Another thought; over 80% of the prison population has IQs below the average while the 'bell-curve' would suggest otherwise so why is the police unable to detect this type of criminal? Is it because they are white-coller theives or too smart to be detected or in the right social circles? Who knows, but surely this latter statistic is an indictment on our westernised societies?