[neatcoder]

> Their giftedness as potential group consisted of 198 members of Mensa. Membership in Mensa is granted to individuals who score at the 98th percentile or higher on recognized standardized measures of intelligence.

I have always been curious why a group like Mensa International is relevant in today's society. Does an IQ test like the one Mensa requires has any relevance or correlation with performance in real life career or society?

[FabHK]

> why a group like Mensa International is relevant in today's society. Does an IQ test like the one Mensa requires has any relevance or correlation with performance in real life career or society?

Those are two very distinct questions, though.

I'd say that

1. Mensa is not very relevant (except maybe as a self-help group and dating club, which is by no means a bad thing.)

2. "relevance or correlation with performance" - that's a highly contested question. My take is that IQ and Big 5 factor "conscientiousness" (which includes grit, capacity to delay gratification, etc.) are among the best predictors for performance in real life that we have, which is not to say that they're particularly good predictors. They can only explain a fairly small part of the variability in outcomes.

[cm2012]

IQ is actually one of the most correlated things to future income prediction. I think only parent income predicts it better.

[coldtea]

Not exactly.

"In his recent book Hive Mind economist Garett Jones argues that the direct effect of IQ on personal income is modest, and that most of the benefits of higher IQ flow from various spillover effects that make societies more productive, boosting everyone’s income. This, he says, explains the “IQ paradox” whereby IQ differences appear to explain a lot more of the economic differences between nations than within them." (...) “Fans of g would do well to look at the labor lit: 1 IQ point predicts just 0.5% to 1.2% higher wages.” He has also said that, in terms of standardized effect sizes, IQ accounts for only about 10% of variance in personal income (a correlation of ~0.32).

At some very crude levels (at the extremes) it fares better (e.g. someone below 90 would not do very well) but in general is nowhere near representative.

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...

[throwawaymath]

I'm glad you actually cited something, because online discussions of IQ tend to be ridiculously fraught with baseless speculation and poorly substantiated opinions. Thanks for the link, will have to dig into it.

As a counterpoint, there are a few meta-surveys which suggest that individuals with higher IQs generally have better[1] long term outcomes. I emphasize individual here because your source appears to be analyzing it at the level of economic productivity and industrial output at the national level (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Here are a few sources I've read, which have been aggregated (with light commentary) by gwern:

1. https://www.gwern.net/Hunter

2. https://www.gwern.net/iq

3. https://www.gwern.net/Iodine

_________________

1. This is weaselly, but "better" is difficult to define in a message board comment.

[coldtea]

>Does an IQ test like the one Mensa requires has any relevance or correlation with performance in real life career or society?

Well, someone put it this way: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...

[throwawaymath]

The colorful graphs in Taleb's blog post here obscure the fact that his claims are completely unsubstantiated. He's also extremely condescending (bordering on dismissive) to a variety of disciplines.

There are cogent arguments that critique the use of IQ as an intelligence measure. This is not one of them.

[coldtea]

>The colorful graphs in Taleb's blog post here obscure the fact that his claims are completely unsubstantiated.

More than this comment that doesn't offer any?

Taleb makes some quite specific arguments, and the graphs are quite illuminating as well.

Check the "IQ and wealth" graph for example -- it looks like a total scattershot outside of the bottom left corner that everyone could predict (intellectually challenged people -> low income). That alone would be enough to justify the entire post.

>He's also extremely condescending (bordering on dismissive) to a variety of disciplines.

That's good in my book. We need more colorful characters and less hive mind and institutionalism. Then again I prefer Feyerabend to Kuhn, and Tom Waits to Michael Bolton.

[FabHK]

Yes. Stephen J Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" comes to mind. But then again, that's decades old.

[drilldrive]

My reading of Gould found that he is quite propagandistic with his claims, and that the ground that he covers would be more suitably done by a more careful analysis, which I believe to not exist currently.

[FabHK]

I was very impressed by the book when I read it, but from what I gather now, I'd probably be much more skeptical on a second reading (also given his other controversial viewpoints, eg spandrels, non-overlapping magisteria).

[drilldrive]

I cannot see how spandrels would be particularly controversial, though you need to have the right perspective of such. I believe a spandrel in theory to be the potential minus the solution at hand; in certain problem spaces a spandrel may be present in the optimal solution. This is not to say a spandrel is useless, in that removing a spandrel with reference to some solution from the potential alters the problem space, thus in the probabilistic theory of evolution you would encounter a different spectrum of outcomes.

I would see non-overlapping magisteria to be more controversial, however.

[bregma]

Absolutely, if your career consists of taking IQ tests.

[bleezy]

Isn't that the modern hiring system that everyone hates on? Do leetcode -> get prestigious job -> quit after 18 months -> do more leetcode -> make more money.

[coldtea]

>Isn't that the modern hiring system that everyone hates on?

If you're working for someone else, yes. But those making the most money are not working for others.