High IQ: Not as good for you as you thought [article]

[hypnagogue]

IQ has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands of research studies. Scholars have studied the link between IQ and race, gender, socioeconomic status, even music. Discussions about the relationship between IQ and race and the heritability of IQ (perhaps most notably Steven Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man) often rise to a fever pitch. Yet for all the interest in the study of IQ, there has been comparatively little research on other influences on performance in school.

Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman estimate that for every ten articles on intelligence and academic achievement, there has been fewer than one about self-discipline. Even so, the small body of research on self-discipline suggests that it has a significant impact on achievement.

http://cognitivedaily.com/?p=137

Important findings: self-discipline, as rated on a number of scales, appears to be a more significant predictor of academic success than IQ, particularly for GPA (grade point average). Also, self-discipline and IQ, as measured in this study, were independent measures.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Both IQ and self-discipline are correlated with GPA, but self-discipline is a much more important contributor: those with low self-discipline have substantially lower grades than those with low IQs, and high-discipline students have much better grades than high-IQ students. Even after adjusting for the student’s grades during the first marking period of the year, students with higher self-discipline still had higher grades at the end of the year. The same could not be said for IQ. Further, the study found no correlation between IQ and self-discipline — these two traits varied independently.

I have a positive reaction to this, but in all honesty it may be because the one time I was officially tested my I.Q. was "average". By the same token I can imagine anyone whose I.Q. is over 120 having a bad reaction to this study.

 

[hypnagogue]

I have a positive reaction to this, but in all honesty it may be because the one time I was officially tested my I.Q. was "average". By the same token I can imagine anyone whose I.Q. is over 120 having a bad reaction to this study.

I don't think it's about making anyone feel good or bad, just sorting out what kinds of attributes make what kinds of contributions to success (at least, academic success). This is valuable information for everyone, I think: you can't get by on natural smarts alone, and even if you're not talented as the next guy you can make up for it with hard work. Of course, that's kind of common wisdom, but it's nice to see it out born out by a scientific study.

 

[Rayne]

Do most people view 'self-discipline', work ethic, and ability to focus as a talent in and of itself or do people tend to view it as some mystical product of conscious 'will'?

It makes sense to me that work ethic is more strongly correllated with success than IQ because it seems to me at least for the most a lot of tasks in life and even sometimes professional and academic spheres don't really require genius just dedication to master a lot of material or produce large volumes of work.

 

[hypnagogue]

Do most people view 'self-discipline', work ethic, and ability to focus as a talent in and of itself or do people tend to view it as some mystical product of conscious 'will'?

It could be seen as a talent if it seems to come naturally to a person. A big difference between self-discipline and IQ, though, may be the extent to which one can learn to improve performance along either metric. Presumably, one can improve one's self-discipline to a great extent if given the proper kinds of incentives and/or learning techniques. For instance, if one needed to improve one's self-discipline in order to keep a job, and one underwent cognitive behavioral therapy with a skilled practioner in order to improve in this way, presumably there would be significant improvements. However, it seems that IQ performance is relatively impervious to change as a function of learning techniques or effort.

In the context of this study, this actually turns out to be a good thing. If self-discipline is the more critical factor to (academic) success, that's the one you'd want to be able to improve. The trick is really in how you go about doing it. Just "trying harder" probably won't make much of a difference in the long term if proper cognitive and behavioral changes are not enacted.

 

[Evo]

I have a positive reaction to this, but in all honesty it may be because the one time I was officially tested my I.Q. was "average". By the same token I can imagine anyone whose I.Q. is over 120 having a bad reaction to this study.

I have always said that motivation and desire to succeed are what matters. Kids with average IQs that study hard and want to succeed are far more likely to get ahead than a slacker with a high IQ.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think it's about making anyone feel good or bad, just sorting out what kinds of attributes make what kinds of contributions to success (at least, academic success). This is valuable information for everyone, I think: you can't get by on natural smarts alone, and even if you're not talented as the next guy you can make up for it with hard work. Of course, that's kind of common wisdom, but it's nice to see it out born out by a scientific study.

I'm sure you didn't post it to make anyone feel better or worse. I'm thinking about what usually happens around here in threads about I.Q. which is that everyone has a chance to say they don't think it ultimately matters while also mentioning that their's was tested at 187. Another gets to say I.Q. doesn't matter, and they, themselves, gave up their membership in MENSA because the other people were obnoxious. Then a third gets to pipe in that the first doesn't really have an I.Q. of 187 because the test they took was not the most accurate, best I.Q. test, not that I.Q. matters.

 

[Mk]

I don't think it's about making anyone feel good or bad

That's what science is about.

 

[Evo]

I'm sure you didn't post it to make anyone feel better or worse. I'm thinking about what usually happens around here in threads about I.Q. which is that everyone has a chance to say they don't think it ultimately matters while also mentioning that their's was tested at 187. Another gets to say I.Q. doesn't matter, and they, themselves, gave up their membership in MENSA because the other people were obnoxious. Then a third gets to pipe in that the first doesn't really have an I.Q. of 187 because the test they took was not the most accurate, best I.Q. test, not that I.Q. matters.

I think what is unusual here is that we have people with high IQ's that are also highly motivated. Although they may have high IQ's, they also do something with it and what they test at doesn't matter to them as much as what they achieve in real life.

Did I mention the Nobel prize winning scientist that failed the Mensa test because he doesn't test well? Good thing he didn't try before he got his Nobel prize, huh?

 

[GCT]

I wouldn't think that IQ would correlate with g.p.a., most of the smarter kids and friends I knew (who are med students, grad students, law students now) in high school would obtain fairly low grades in light of their standardized test scores, most of them put their minds to work on other things. As far as grades go, yes self-discipline can earn you the grade...for anyone, except for sufficiently retarded people. The results of this study? Not all high IQ individuals value academic success, the g.p.a factor. And self discipline itself does not pertain soley to academic success.

 

[Genecks]

I wouldn't think that IQ would correlate with g.p.a., most of the smarter kids and friends I knew (who are med students, grad students, law students now) in high school would obtain fairly low grades .

I would fit into this category of slacker mainly because video game design and eating pizza hut seemed a lot more fun on "sick days". It's the fact that most kids see it as a rat race because that's what the majority of people make it, even the teachers. Which throws the whole idea of intrinsic motivation off key.

I like to think of SDT theory in these types of situations. It seems like grades exist only for recognition. Yet, we have to remember that even high school teachers aren't the best educated at all times unlike college professors who specialize and know their stuff. Currently the generation gap exists because of the information highway and many things in social psychology along with psychology are going to change.

The reason people are motivated is going to change also as money declines and knowledge becomes more useful, thus knowledge will become more expensive perhaps. Of course throw in piracy and etc. and things go blah.

I find that a high IQ is nice yet those who are motivated want something in life. The universe was based on want even as anthropomorphic as it may seem to some things. I'll have to admit that most people who make high grades in high school have more guidance than others while those with high IQs yet score low in school get low grades because of certain factors.

I assume the reason i got some low grades in school was because of group projects. Most people understand that people high in IQ find others a waste of time, ineffecient, and social loafers, therefore it takes the toll and the person eventually gives up and says f' it.

Thus their grade drops. Conformity perhaps? I assume there are many factors to this which is why I have a beef with what determines someone's intelligence. I figure that someone who can create something new, teach tons of people better than someone else, or some other standard makes them more intelligent than others.

Science in my opinion is what determines the intelligence of someone. Most importantly their ability to apply their knowledge.

If self-discipline is simply patience with the ignorant due to the motivation and the want for power then knowledge of social skill is applied, i find that sad. Yet, that's how the world works and people use one another to get ahead in life. It happens everyday in politics.

the interesting thing i find about some people is that, they are ignorant, they are intelligent, yet somehow they have this blind type of knowledge that allows them to get ahead. quite the oddity i see. it's like watching and talking to a bipolar person.

There are usually roadblocks for the self-disciplined and those who may seem disciplined may have help to overcome those so they don't have to be so disciplined.