IQ

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IQ is approximately normally distributed. 115 is typically defined as one standard deviation above the mean of 100.

IQ or intelligence quotient is the test score of a test meant to measure general or specific cognitive abilities. IQ tests contain common sense tasks that do not require specialized skills, and it is generally assumed that the score will not be affected by prior training. The test items (within a subtest) are chosen to positively correlate with all the other items, i.e., that they measure the same cognitive abilities. IQ scores based on comprehensive IQ tests are highly stable when one is re-tested even over large time periods (r > .86),[1][2] and IQ scores correlate moderately to strongly with school grades and work performance (especially in more cognitively demanding sectors).[3]

A test taker's raw score, the sum of correctly solved items, is compared to a large, representative sample. This is typically achieved by transforming the test scores such that the population mean is 100, and the standard deviation (a measure of how much the test scores vary in the population) is 15. An IQ of 100 means that roughly 50% of the population scored better (50th percentile, so perfectly average), and a score of 115 means that roughly 16% of the population scored better (84th percentile).[4]

Though IQ is commonly portrayed as "just a useless number" that only suggests how well one does on paper and pen tests that do not measure "real intelligence," IQ testing has proven to have many practical applications, from discerning individuals with learning difficulties at an early age to rapid employment screening. Even though IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, it allows the prediction of the odds of achieving many outcomes well above chance. The prominent intelligence researcher, Arthur Jensen (1980), claimed that the most important thresholds of IQ were 115 on the upper end as the minimum IQ threshold for qualifying for admission to a graduate school. At the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, 75 was the threshold generally required to complete elementary school. [5] As the public intellectual and psychologist Jordan Peterson has famously noted, a minimum IQ of around 83 is the absolute lowest requirement to join any branch of the U.S. military.[6] In practical terms however, the US military generally rejects all candidates below an IQ of 93, which would exclude roughly a third of the US population from military service on this single metric alone.[7][8]

IQ tests partly measure abilities that are relevant for all cognitive tasks; for example, to quickly learn, retrieve and process a maximal amount of information and to quickly consider different hypotheses without losing track of things, one needs a certain level of general intelligence (which is reflected in an IQ test result). These abilities enable one to better find a solution to any given problem and a path to any given goal. Research has indicated that higher IQ individuals generally respond to instruction quicker and more effectively by learning at a rate of 2-5 times faster than lower IQ individuals.[9] Interestingly, even things that are commonly believed to be unrelated to IQ such as social skills correlate positively with it to some degree, but only aspects of social skills like broad social awareness, not so much the gossipy socializing aspect itself.[10]

g-factor[edit | edit source]

Colloquially, IQ is often used interchangeably with general intelligence, or the g-factor,[11] even though these are distinct concepts. While IQ is a test result that may measure specific abilities (e.g. verbal or spatial abilities), g seeks to only measure general intelligence, i.e. a general ability that is useful in all IQ tests and all cognitive tasks. The existence of this general factor is evidenced by the positive correlation between different kinds of cognitive ability. g is determined through statistical analysis of the population scores of many IQ (sub-)tests measuring many different kinds of cognitive ability.[12]

A task in which people's performance correlates with g and hence with all other IQ tests is said to be g-loaded. Anyone who scores highly on one strongly g-loaded test will tend to score highly on other IQ tests, as g explains most of the variance in the scores of IQ tests, and indeed, in regard to most intellectual pursuits in general.[13] The more diverse subtests an IQ test contains and the more g-loaded the subtests are, the more accurate the measurement of g, with diminishing returns at around 13 subtests.[14][15] Diverse IQ batteries containing multiple subtests are so general and comprehensive that the raw score and g correlate strongly. For example, the raw score (FSIQ, or full-scale IQ) given by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), one of the broadest and most commonly used IQ tests, correlates with around r = .95 with g.[16] Hence, FSIQ is often used as an estimate of g, and it is indeed nearly isomorpic with g (measuring the same thing), due to the broadness of cognitive abilities covered in this comprehensive IQ assessment.

Various physiological measures, such as reaction time,[17] brain volume,[18] cortical surface area,[19] brain glucose metabolism,[20] and color discrimation[21] have been found to correlate with g. Further, much of g has been linked to specific genes,[22] and g is highly heritable (up to 86% in adults, but lower in children). This suggests that more efficient and functional brains explain a large portion of general intelligence,[23][24] and that g is less decided by social class, schooling, and so forth (though these do play some role). As these non-biological factors are also associated with life success, the fact that IQ tests may also be measuring them does not diminish their predictive validity in this regard.

Age[edit | edit source]

This IQ score is affected by the test taker's age with cognitive ability typically peaking at around 25, and most cognitive skills remaining stable until the 50s.[25] It also seems plausible that higher IQ individuals generally exhibit less of a cognitive decline as they age, at least they are less likely to succumb to dementia.[26]

Older methods, being based around calculating IQ by the ratio of one's score to one's age, have fallen out of use (with these methods being designed to measure the IQ of children and prone to producing inflated scores compared to modern methods of computing scores). The scores given by most modern tests are relative to an age-matched norming group, which means that IQ is not necessarily a pure representation of raw intellectual ability compared to others in general, as some abilities decline with age (although this effect is generally small), and among children, some may initially be more precocious in this regard but then regress later with age relative to their peers. This is why it is unwise to trust the grossly inflated IQ scores often attributed to public figures that rely on tests administered as a child, even if the result is confirmed as legitimate.

Sexual desirability[edit | edit source]

The mating mind[edit | edit source]

Evolutionary psychologists such as Geoffrey Miller, with his 'mating mind theory,' have argued that high IQ in males is strongly attractive to women. They argue this trait mostly evolved due to sexual selection pressures, claiming that human intelligence only could have developed to such a high degree because of sexual selection for intelligence. Miller claims this is due to basic survival seemingly only requiring low levels of general intelligence, and thus natural selection wouldn't have been enough for humans unusually high intelligence to evolve.[27]

Evidence for[edit | edit source]

This theory was largely influenced by the idea that intelligence functions as an honest signal of a low mutational load due to its highly polygenetic nature. Thus it was suggesting that general intelligence is robustly associated with a general "good genes" factor. While some studies indicated that some purported markers of mutational load, such as fluctuating asymmetry, did correlate significantly and quite strongly with general intelligence,[28] it was later found that the link between secular trends in craniofacial symmetry (used as a rough marker of mutational load) and secular declines in general intelligence was weak, with mutation accumulation only explaining 7% of the secular decline.[29] This suggests that the brain, despite constituting a large amount of the genome, is resistant to the effects of deleterious mutations on general cognitive function outside of extreme neurological conditions.

In support of the sexual selection theory of the development of human intelligence, there is some direct evidence that intelligence may be under sexual selection, with one study showing that an IQ of 120 (90th percentile) is the most sexually attractive IQ score.[30] An important fact that no gender differences were observed in this study, despite being predicted by evolutionary psychology that women should be more sensitive to partner cues of intelligence than men. This prediction is due to intelligence being moderately associated with socio-economic status. According to parental investment theory, women are more sensitive to partner cues indicating the ability to gain resources and status than men due to their greater investment in rearing and nurturing their offspring. It is argued that men generally place a premium on fertility cues such as youth and physical attractiveness when evaluating potential female romantic partners, while women place a premium on wealth and status, at least for long term relationships. The lack of sex difference in preference for intelligence, therefore, may indicate that if intelligence is/was under sexual selection, this selection may be in the form of selection of intelligence as an 'ornament', rather than it being desirable due to it being an indicator of "good genes." However, this study relied solely on self-reported preferences for intelligence (with intelligence presented in an abstract fashion of a certain percentile).

Evidence against[edit | edit source]

Other studies, using standardized intelligence tests to measure intelligence and examining the correlation between IQ and partner rated attractiveness in a speed-dating and video dating context, have found that only perceived intelligence and funniness are viewed as attractive in a potential romantic partner. Driebe et al. (2021) found no positive relationship between objectively measured intelligence and desirability (with more intelligent people being correctly perceived by the participants as more intelligent but not as funnier or more desirable), despite measured intelligence being detectable with a decent level of accuracy in short interactions.[31] The first video rating study mentioned above, which used a battery of IQ tests to estimate general intelligence (as opposed to the simple vocabulary test used in the speed dating studies), actually found there was a possible weak negative correlation between the male subject's general intelligence and the female rated desirability of the male subjects (95% CI -.26; -.01, p = 0.03). It is important to note that the first study also controlled for factors positively associated with both intelligence and male mate value due to the moderate correlation between IQ and socio-economic status (such as displays of wealth, like expensive clothing and wristwatches, etc.). In contrast, it was impossible to control for such factors in the second series of studies due to the speed-dating paradigm used.

Further, Hofer et al. (2021) conducted a speed dating study that examined the effects of various traits commonly asserted to be desirable in a romantic partner (creativity, intelligence, physical attractiveness, etc.). In concordance with the other research, it found no significant correlation between men's objectively measured intelligence (verbal, numerical, spatial) and rated desirability by their female partners.[32]

Also, in agreement with the findings of the aforementioned studies, Hofer et al. found that perceived intelligence was associated with greater rated desirability, even controlling for physical attractiveness (which is strongly associated with perceptions of intelligence at least at first acquaintance). This research suggests that general intelligence is probably not a particularly salient factor in determining women's evaluations of male attractiveness (at least in short-term mating contexts) and thus is also not likely subject to female driven sexual selection, at least in modern industrialized society (also the sociological context where Miller claims to derive "evidence" for his sexual selection hypothesis).

Taken together, these findings cast serious doubt on the validity of the "mating mind" theory. If intelligence was sexually selected for, it would likely be indirectly, primarily being driven by the fact that general intelligence is moderately correlated with status and income (in industrialized societies at least, and likely also in pre-industrial ones, perhaps not to the same degree). It is also important to note that much marriage throughout human history was arranged or otherwise subject to social/parental influence to a greater or lesser degree. Parents, in particular, seem to desire that their children are married to highly educated, wealthy, and high-status individuals,[33] all traits that are positively correlated with general intelligence (in modern samples). Thus it is possible that parental choice exerted sexual selection pressure for greater intelligence (particularly in males), where female selection pressure did not. Harsher ecologies likely also exerted more substantial natural selection pressure on general intelligence, and inter-group competition, common throughout human history, would likely also have selected for higher levels of general intelligence, especially among groups in regions with strongly politically fragmented states, with harsh competition for scarce resources and harsh climatic conditions, together with other places where group selection pressures may have been more robust.

Sexual success[edit | edit source]

Many studies show consistent relationships between higher level of intelligence and lower rates of engaging in sexual activity. More intelligent people, especially at universities, tend to have less sex. One of the strongest studies establishing a negative relationship between sexual success and IQ found that teenage boys with a verbal IQ of two standard deviations above the median or above (130 IQ) were two-thirds less likely to lose their virginity compared to those with an IQ of 100. The relationship between higher IQ and lower odds of losing their virginity was linear for both boy and girls above a perfectly average IQ of 100, however, it was stronger for girls 130 IQ or above, who were four-fifths less likely to lose their virginity than girls with a perfectly average IQ of 100.[34]

A German study suggested academics are at least twice as often incels as others (see demographics). Among women, a one-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases their odds of parenthood by 21–25%.[35] Among university age individuals, an informal study conducted by students from MIT-Wellesley suggested incel rates vary considerably between different fields of study, being the highest for biology and the hard sciences, and lowest in the humanities. [36] It is important to note that the hard sciences generally have individuals of a higher IQ than those in the humanities on average (apart from philosophy), and the higher the average IQ of a major, the less women will be enrolled in that subject.[37] This lines up with the fact that women's IQs have a lower level of variability than men, as well as women having a slightly lower level of general intelligence than men. The skewed sex ratio in favor of men in these highly intellectual demanding fields may partly explain the higher incel rate of men enrolled in such subjects, though the co-educational sex ratio of a particular field of study seems to be only weakly associated with men's level of sexual success, and it is therefore unlikely to explain much.[38]

Nevertheless, it seems clear there is a general link between a high-IQ and a lower lifetime sexual partner count in both sexes. It is not entirely certain why this is the case, despite the numerous advantages associated with a high IQ, however many factors are conceivable:

  • Alienation/mismatch of high IQ tasks: Modern highly specialized high IQ behavior (especially computer work and engineering) may be sexually unattractive being evolutionary novel (mismatch hypothesis) unrelated to communal life, and unrelated to naturally attractive behaviors like dancing, singing, humor and demonstration of physical strength. Though as there does not seem to be any major association between broad athletic ability and IQ, it is unlikely that this would be reflective on any physical inferiority on the behalf of intelligent people in general, but perhaps more of a reflection of the social roles high-IQ people would be drawn to in modern society.[39][40]
  • Hard sciences: Harder fields of study may have more incels as they are more evolutionary novel. They are also more time consuming and competitive, reducing time for socializing and hence for sex. Harder courses also tend to have fewer women in them.
  • Feminism: The prevalence of feminism in academia may be shaming male academics to be impotent nice guys. The fact that women in Western countries are now substantially more educated than men (especially younger women) indicates that modern academia is not strongly selecting for intelligence but other traits, such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, and that particularly masculine men may be excluded by the academe. So the predominant ideology is likely also reflective of the demographics and traits of the people that are groomed for academia by the modern education system and society as a whole. Intelligent people may also be more likely to be able to correctly discern what ideology is currently dominant in society, and as Western countries are very liberal and very feminist (in historical terms), it is likely that more intelligent people in general therefore tend to conform themselves more to feminist attitudes.
  • 'Beta behavior' : Intelligence has been found to be weakly correlated with pro-social behavior, with this relationship being stronger for verbal intelligence and likely explicable by common genes partially mediating both intelligence and pro-social behavior.[41] Insofar in that it is commonly claimed that Western women in particular do not like 'nice guys', particularly when they are young and not interested in settling down with a beta provider, one would expect intelligent men to be more likely to be lumped in the 'nice guy' category and rejected by women based on this association between intelligence and pro-social behavior.
  • Hypergamy: The fact that educated women are generally reluctant to date men unless they earn more money than them (see hypergamy) may increase incel rates among academics. A singledom crisis has been observed among highly educated women.[42]
    Though it could also be argued that this would actually increase the demand on highly intelligent men as a group, due to women generally demanding at least parity in terms of social status and education when considering long-term partners and there being a moderate association between intelligence and education level. There is also a moderate positive correlation between intelligence and income.
  • Environmentalism: Environmentalism may make academic men less attractive to women as they seem more likely to be drawn to that ideology, with education level being associated with lower participation in activities revolving around conspicuous consumption and greater overall awareness of environmental issues.[43]
    This poses an issue for the sexual success of environmentally conscious men as women generally prefer men who display wealth[44] and eat meat.[45]
    It may also serve to generate overall pessimism and disinterest in procreation.[46]
  • Slow LH: Though cognitive specialization, crucial for success in modern society, seems linked to a slower life history speed, LHS itself seems to be generally unrelated to general intelligence, with the evidence generally showing it may only be related to how intelligence is 'invested' in certain specialized cognitive skills.[47]
    There is however, evidence that higher levels of intelligence are actually linked to a slower life history speed on the most basic level, that is, delayed reproduction.
    Some research has indicated that the negative relationship between IQ and fertility in men reverses in some samples when age range of men included is extended to men in their middle ages, as low IQ men are much more likely to reproduce young and highly intelligent men are more likely to have children very late compared to lower IQ men.[48]
    This study also found that more intelligent men generally had their children with a single woman, while less intelligent men were more likely to be serially monogamous. This indicates strong pair-bonding and lower promiscuity among the intelligent in general, also traits hypothesized to be associated with a slow life history strategy.
    It is also interesting to note that East Asians appear to generally have a slower life history speed compared to other major races. This Asian-slower life history link, combined with the Asian over-representation in higher education in the US,[49] may both explain the higher incel rates among Asian men, in particular,[50] and also may partly explain why incel rates are higher among academics (especially those in the hard sciences), at least in the United States where Asians are over-represented among the college-educated.
  • Polarization with lower class: Status signaling among upper class might distinguish/polarize itself from activities in lower classes where people produce many offspring for economic reasons, hoping one child will make it (favoring fast LH), thus making rapid production of offspring viewed as uncouth behavior in higher class circles.
  • Mental illness: High intelligence predicts neuroticism and various mental disorders in Mensa members[51][52] and mental issues strongly reduce reproductive success.[53] However, Mensans may not be representative as the organization requires a yearly fee in exchange for membership which may attract people who overcompensate for various flaws by boasting about having scored a high IQ. One can also submit the results of various IQ tests to join, and as IQ tests do not correlate perfectly with each other, an outlier result can be used for admission, so this also selects for people who are particularly keen to join in order to brag about their high IQ. Famously, Stephen Hawking said, “joiners are losers”.[54]
  • Inhibition, cautiousness and responsibility: Higher levels of intelligence may be generally associated with greater cautiousness and a propensity to 'overthink' situations which results in lower levels of impulsive and irresponsible behavior. There is evidence that prison inmates with higher IQ's are more well behaved.[55] High IQ people have fewer conduct problems in school[56] and higher job performance as well [57] Some low IQ couples are so impulsive they even have sex in school, in the back of the classroom, during the lesson.[58]Impulsivity appears to be a strong predictor of sexual success, particularly among men, with teenager boys with ADHD having twice the number of sexual partners,[59] it being found a variant in the dopamine transporter gene associated with impulsive behavior is associated with a 80-100% higher lifetime sexual partner count among adult men,[60] and there is also evidence young people who drink more alcohol have much higher likelihoods of having recently had multiple sexual partners.[61] Thus, if intelligent people are less likely to behave impulsively and engage in risky behaviors like binge drinking, this could partly explain the lower partner counts among the more intelligent, as cautious, responsible behavior appears to curtail many opportunities for engaging in casual sex. Behavioral inhibition could also be directly unattractive to women, as some studies only find a relationship between genes for impulsiveness and sexual partner count in men, though this relationship could be due to women's more passive courtship style, with men generally expected to perform the initial approach and escalate first every step of the way up to sex.
  • Assortative mating: there is substantial assortative mating for intelligence (people preferring to form relationships with those of roughly similar intelligence to themselves). As there are exponentially more men than women at very high levels of intelligence (> 130),[62] it could be that these men may struggle more to form romantic relationships with women than less intelligent men, due to the much fewer amount of women with a similar level of intelligence to themselves. This is assuming that women don't exhibit hypergamy in terms of intelligence, which would be predicted somewhat by their preference for men with higher levels of status and resources, the attainment of which is moderately associated with intelligence.
  • Low IQ is actually attractive to women: Low IQ men have more sex. A study conducted by Halpern et. al (2000) found the most sexually active individuals were in the 75-90 IQ range for males, with these males being found to be the least likely to be virgins as adolescents. An IQ below 70 is generally considered to constitute an intellectual disability. 46.7% of low IQ men were sexually active, while only 18.4% of low IQ women were. Thus, low IQ men were 2.5x as likely as low IQ women to be sexually successful.[63]
    There is also evidence that IQ and scores on highly g-loaded standardized tests may be weakly negatively associated with female evaluations of male romantic desirability.[64][65]
  • Endogenous personality: The psychiatrist and former evolutionary psychologist, Dr. Bruce Charlton, has claimed that genius is characterized by an "endogenous personality" centered around inward motivation and social disinterest. He uses this theory to explain why many noteworthy historical geniuses were often socially isolated, sexually unsuccessful, childless and did not achieve evolutionary success in terms of maximizing individual fitness.
  • Bioenergetic tradeoffs: Though some evidence (noted above) indicates that more intelligent people are partly more intelligent because their brain is more efficient at utilizing the energetic resources available to it on a cellular level, it is important to note that the human brain in general is extremely energetically demanding, even relative to its large size. It could be that there is a trade-off involved at a basic level between investment into large brains and investment into other physiological functions,[66] which could include general mating effort, level of social involvement, competitiveness etc. There is a limited amount of evidence that there is a potential energetic tradeoff at play between larger brains (associated with greater intelligence) and fertility, with one Swedish scientist discovering that guppies he had deliberate bred for greater intelligence and larger brains had reduced fertility as a result. Thus suggesting a basic energetic tradeoff between intelligence and reproductive success in most animal species, with greater encephalization (size of brain relative to body) also seemingly being associated with lower fertility, cross-species.[67]

Other hypotheses[edit | edit source]

Claims of social maladjustment among the extremely intelligent[edit | edit source]

There is some evidence that very high (outlier) intelligence is associated with social maladjustment, possibly caused by difficulties in social intercourse among people of different intelligence levels. This greater social maladjustment on behalf of the very intelligent, if accurate, would suggest a link between extreme levels of intelligence and involuntary celibacy as social exclusion and low achievement do not tend to be generally good things regarding men's romantic prospects.

This idea was first expounded upon at length by a member of several high-IQ societies, Grady M. Towers, who wrote a famous article called "The Outsiders" for the journal of the Prometheus society (a society for people at or above the 99.997th percentile of IQ), Gift of Fire. In this article, drawing on research into intellectually gifted children produced by the psychologist's Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth's research into the effects of intelligence on leadership, Towers argues that intellectually brilliant people ofter suffer a profound sense of social alienation brought on by difficulties with schooling (with the unstimulating material provided being claimed to often lead to laziness and ennui on behalf of the superbright student), the lack of peers of similar intellect to themselves, and a supposed qualitative difference in thinking ability that is reached when one exceeds a certain IQ threshold (stated to be around 150).

In the course of his piece, Towers mainly draws upon anecdotal evidence of the often tragic lives of several outlier high IQ people, repeatedly referring to the tale of Williams James Sidis, a child prodigy often stated to be the most intelligent person who ever lived. Sidis is notable for having invented his own language before the age of 8 and for having graduated from Harvard University at the age of 16. Sidis died at the age of 46, in poverty and likely a virgin (as an aside, it is interesting to note that Sidis was also likely not voluntary celibate as has commonly been asserted as he was described as having an unrequited love for an older girl after his adolescent oath of perpetual celibacy).[68][69] Given the lack of public recognition his intellectual accomplishments achieved during his lifetime and his bleak and lonely life, Sidis is viewed by many as an archetypal example of the pitfalls of being intellectually precocious, with it often being proclaimed that Sidis was a complete failure in life despite his childhood brilliance. However, Sidis did actually leave behind a substantial literary corpus containing his polymathic and deep knowledge of the sciences, mathematics, philosophy, and American history, often written under pseudonyms, with some of his ideas influencing later geniuses.[70]

Official research has found no evidence of a negative relationship between IQ and positive life outcomes in general, with several positive life outcomes being linearly associated with IQ in a large general population sample.[71] However, as it is nearly impossible to gather large, representative samples of outlier high IQ people, this doesn't necessarily reveal much about the lives of the extremely intelligent.

For the evidence that extreme intelligence is sometimes associated with adverse life outcomes, we can turn to the psychologist Lewis Terman's long-running genius study, one of the very few studies that examined a large group of outlier high IQ individuals over a long period. Terman sought to debunk the idea that intellectually precocious children were often maladjusted. Indeed, while Terman found that his subjects, commonly dubbed "Termites," were physically healthier than typical children of the same age and considered particularly well adjusted socially and psychologically,[72] when his "Termites" were tested again later in adulthood there was evidence of a linear relationship between scores on a test of verbal intelligence and maladjustment. Notably, fully half (45%) of the men tested that were at the highest range of ability (a verbal IQ of over three standard deviations above a sample of university graduates, Flynn effect corrected, so over 160[73]) exhibited social or psychological maladjustment.[74] Similarly, it has been asserted based on studies that have examined the intellectual capabilities of high achievers in scholastic fields that the extremely intelligent may be underrepresented in eminent intellectual fields more than would be predicted by the distribution of IQ scores in the general population.[75] This relative exclusion despite possessing a superior IQ would suggest certain deficits among the "supergifted" or discrimination against these individuals that often prevent them from achieving success in these fields.

One possible reason for the phenomena of the underachieving genius is that while essential communication is still obviously possible among people that are very different in IQ, effective or highly persuasive communication may be more difficult, which is called the "IQ communication gap theory". Proponents of this theory generally claim that effective social communication between two individuals requires a rough similarity in IQ (usually claimed to be within two standard deviations between each other so within 30 IQ points) and that exceeding this gap makes it difficult for very intelligent people to convincingly express themselves in a way that results in persuasive, effective communication.

While the 2SD figure cited by Towers and Hollingworth is arbitrary and dubious, there is some evidence that two individuals have to be within a certain level of intelligence to each other for deep communication between them to occur. In the 1980s, psychologist Dean Keith Simonton showed evidence that the optimal distance between individuals for influence and leadership was 20 points, with further IQ beyond that leading to diminishing returns in terms of social influence. The relationship between superior intelligence and influence possibly reversed after that level. The most substantial evidence cited in favor of Simonton's hypothesis was the fact that certain social groups had a specific range of intelligence included within them and that after this range was exceeded, individuals were typically excluded from the group or disengaged from it voluntarily.[76] Simonton's research suggests that there was not only a "communication gap" in terms of ability to fully grasp the intentions and ideas of the super-intelligent on behalf of their intellectual inferiors but also a gap in which people could not effectively discern whether the person in question was more intelligent or competent than themselves. This does suggest that outlier high IQ people are sometimes perceived as odd by others due to differences in interests, values, and the quality and nature of their thoughts, as suggested by Towers and Hollingworth. It could also be that reverse-hierarchies play a role in this, i.e., people are often hostile and envious towards people whose intelligence they perceive outstrips their usefulness to the group in terms of competence, especially as they may not be able to correctly gauge the competence level of people much more intelligent than themselves.[77]

Looks[edit | edit source]

There is a strong relationship between perceived intelligence and physical attractiveness,[78] in line with the general 'what is beautiful is good' stereotype (that is, the halo effect that exists for beauty). Despite the large connection between individual's judgements of people's intelligence and their looks (at least at first acquaintance), it is uncertain whether these judgements have a grain of truth to them or not.

Certain evolutionary theories do predict that intelligence and physical attractiveness in humans would be expected to be correlated with each other due to the purported existence of a central 'good genes' factor that unilaterally increases fitness, however, robust empirical evidence for this claim is lacking. While some studies show dramatic links between intelligence and physical attractiveness,[79] these studies often suffer from serious methodological flaws such as using less accurate tests of general intelligence, using low numbers of raters, and the ratings themselves being seriously confounded by potential halo effects. Higher-quality studies, such as a recent meta-study of 1,753 identical and fraternal twins and their siblings, generally find no correlations between facial attractiveness and IQ.[80]

Though intelligence and looks are not strongly related to each other, intelligence may play an important role in the perceptions of and preferences for looks in opposite sex partners. Aesthetic judgement is highly g-loaded (.60),[81] although this specifically concerns preferences for design and 'good' artistic taste. This strong relationship between intelligence and superior aesthetic discrimination may be applicable to preferences for beauty in other people. One interesting study that may provide some indirect evidentiary support for this hypothesis indicated that the halo effects for beauty concerning certain traits such as intelligence are stronger among more intelligent individuals.[82] While the increase in biased perceptions found in this study among more intelligent people could be due to them preferentially desiring others they perceive as more intelligent as romantic partners (in line with the general principle of assortative mating) and thus rating these people as more attractive, it is also plausible that the superior aesthetic discrimination found among the intelligent plays some role here, serving to strengthen the halo effect found for beauty.

Height[edit | edit source]

Studies have found a weak, but significant correlation between IQ and height (around r = 0.2-0.3 depending on age when tested and type of ability measured).[83] Different explanations for this correlation exist, ranging from superior childhood nutrition increasing both height and IQ,[84] assortative mating for both height and IQ leading to them being genetically linked,[85] or even that taller people have greater cortical volume in the brain, leading to greater intelligence on average.[86] The association may be explicable by a general fitness factor linking intelligence and height, along with other traits, due to assortative mating regarding fitness promoting traits.[87]

Memes[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/explained/reliability.html
  2. https://www.statistics.com/glossary/test-retest-reliability/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289697900039
  4. https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
  5. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
  6. https://law.stackexchange.com/a/37493
  7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low
  8. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG265/images/webG1471.pdf
  9. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf
  10. https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/9746/does-high-iq-correlate-with-good-social-skills
  11. Deary et al. 2010
  12. http://node101.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm
  13. http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence/spearman.html
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332567767_How_Can_General_Intelligence_Composites_Most_Accurately_Index_Psychometric_g_and_What_Might_Be_Good_Enough
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Uncorrected-g-Loadings-Range-Corrected-g-Loadings-g-Saturation-and-Specificity-IQ_tbl2_41967810
  16. Jensen 1998, 26, 36–39
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289601000629
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797618808470
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6468099
  20. Jensen, R. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. 1998. Chaper 6: Biological Correlates of g, pp 157. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289601000666
  22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6411041/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11276900/
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11276908/
  25. https://medium.com/psyc-406-2015/how-fast-does-iq-decline-can-you-do-anything-about-it-f5ca370d8b62
  26. https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb01/dementia
  27. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/114577/the-mating-mind-by-geoffrey-miller/
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222822118_Fluctuating_Asymmetry_and_Intelligence
  29. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-04155-035
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321640585
  31. https://psyarxiv.com/qv3eh/
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656621000507
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20021710/
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10706169/
  35. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SSR2014.pdf
  36. https://web.archive.org/web/20050527112706/http://counterpoint.mit.edu/archives/Counterpoint_V21_I3_2001_Nov.pdf
  37. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
  38. https://incels.wiki/w/Women_in_STEM#Gender_ratio_and_STEMcel_rates
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23267402.1937.10761836
  40. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Those-%60Dumb-Jocks%27-Are-at-It-Again%3A-A-Comparison-of-Whitley/456151e51aa3d96e4d62c18275bc00b171a6e885
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300611
  42. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747
  43. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916511416647
  44. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_.28and_men.29_pay_more_attention_to_high_status_men.2C_not_high_status_women
  45. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Vegetarian_men_are_less_attractive.2C_likable.2C_and_masculine_to_women_than_omnivorous_men
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-021-00379-5
  47. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-39868-004
  48. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359
  49. https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1264683376151105537/photo/1M/
  50. https://incels.wiki/w/File:No_relationship_adoscents.png
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302563
  53. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#tocMental
  54. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-choose-to-leave-Mensa
  55. https://www.utdallas.edu/news/2012/5/1-17541_Study-Prison-Inmate-Intelligence-Influences-Miscon_article-wide.html
  56. http://www.lscp.net/persons/ramus/docs/INTELL18B.pdf
  57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
  58. https://www.wfsb.com/news/students-face-charges-after-video-shows-them-having-sex-in/article_3adabd96-c5b9-11e8-bfe8-93cd1d661f85.html
  59. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Teenage_boys_with_ADHD_have_double_the_amount_of_sexual_partners_vs._.27normal.27_teens
  60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17245411/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9859017/
  62. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_have_a_slightly_lower_average_IQ_which_drastically_reduces_their_intellectual_output
  63. Hapern CT, Joyner K, Udry JR, Suchindran C. 2000. Smart teens don't have sex (or kiss much either). J Adolesc Health. 26(3): 213-25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706169?dopt
  64. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Looks_are_most_important_to_women_in_blind_dating
  65. https://psyarxiv.com/qv3eh/
  66. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5651807/
  67. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/scientists-breed-smarter-fish-but-reveal-the-costs-of-big-brains
  68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
  69. https://archive.org/details/prodigy00wall/page/n13/mode/2up
  70. https://www.sidis.net/
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682520/
  72. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ781688.pdf
  73. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED078015.pdf
  74. https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/
  75. https://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html
  76. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14442-001
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229782141_Attitudes_towards_the_high_achiever_The_fall_of_the_Tall_Poppy
  78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112099?seq=1
  79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.003
  80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415372/
  81. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1974.tb02281.x
  82. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.053
  83. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-016-0340-0#Sec15
  84. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/34/3/678/682312
  85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044837/
  86. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-018-1675-4
  87. https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/correlation/2019-conroybeam.pdf

See also[edit | edit source]

Redpill

Game

GameOvergamingFrame (PUA)Signaling theoryRomantic idealizationCourtshipNeggingSexual market valueBeautyCharismaOrbiterBullyingLMSPUAAssholeTalk therapyIndicator of interestDominance hierarchyFuck-off signalsSocial circleSlayerNeurolinguistic programmingDatingOffline datingOnline datingBraggingAnabolic steroidGuitarClown Game

Misc. strategies

SEAmaxxingGymmaxxingTrannymaxxingGymmaxxingStatusmaxxingMoneymaxxingJestermaxxingCastratemaxxing

Pick Up Artists

R. Don SteeleRoss Jeffriesr/TRPReal Social DynamicsRooshVOwen CookPlayer SupremeWinston WuList of people in the seduction community

Ranks

Alpha maleAlpha femaleBeta maleBeta femaleOmega maleOmega femaleSigma maleVox DayDominance hierarchy

Personality

NeurotypicalNeurodivergentCoolCharismaStoicAssholeDark triadBorderline personality disorderNice guySimpApproach anxietyButterflies in the stomachConfidenceShynessLove shyHedonophobiaAsperger's SyndromeSocial awkwardnessIQRationalityEvolutionary psychologyTestosteroneEstrogen

Celibacy states

SexlessnessCelibacyIncelDry spellDating LimboSingleVirginWizardVolcelAsexualSex haverMarriedAscendedRelationship

Sexuality

HypergamyCopulationNudityCasual sexPump and dumpPromiscuityCock carouselRapeSexual harassmentBodyguard hypothesisBetabuxProvisioningMarriage proposalReproductive successSexual envySex driveBateman's principleSexual economics theoryResources for orgasmsSex ratioFemale passivitySexual attractionAttraction ambiguity problemBody attractivenessMuscle theoryFemale orgasmHuman penisHulseyismSexual conflictSlutWhoreLordosisLeggingsPaternity assuranceMicrochimerismFeminine imperativePussy cartelRejection (dating)Ghosting (dating)Shit testAdverse effects of inceldomMaslow's hierarchy of needsCauses of celibacyHomosexualityHomocel hypothesisDemographics of inceldomTeleiophilic delayPolygynyPolyandryMonogamyMarriageTraditionalist conservatismMate guardingMate poachingMate choice copyingIntrasexual competitionFacial masculinityNeotenyParthenophiliaFisherian runawaySexual selectionCreepinessValidationChadsexualHybristophiliaScelerophiliaQuality and primitivity theorySexclamationTumescenceClitorisTesticlesLooks bottleneckGaitIncestpillPraying mantisoidMigraine

Other theories

Timeless quotes on womenFemales are socially ineptWomen-are-wonderful effectGynocentrismApex fallacyFeminismSexual revolutionFemale subordinationFemale hypoagencyFemale solipsismPrincess syndromeLife on tutorial modeFemale privilegeFake depressionFemale sneakinessFemme fataleBriffault's lawJuggernaut lawArguing with holes | Halo effectFailo effectSinglismVariability hypothesisPsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapyAntifragilityTriggeredLife historyScientific Blackpill + Scientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Evolutionary mismatchMutationFeminizationBehavioral sinkPolitical correctness‎Affirmative actionVirtue signalingEugenicsEnvironmentalismMale scarcityRegression toward the meanMatthew effectPatriarchyTutorial IslandEmpathy gapWelfare gameX-factor theoryBuy a wheelchair to pick up women gameClown WorldProblematicIncel crisis coverup