Jokodo
Veteran Member
The point being that we may accept that intelligence is theoretically limited; But there's no reason at all to imagine that we are even 1% of the way to that limit.
I couldn't point you to anything that proves this empirically, but to me the shape of the curve as well as the raw physics of genetics suggests that there is a very real, hard limit.
Even if the curve were the product of objective measurements on an absolute scale, it would suggest no such thing. If anything, it would suggest we're far from any hard limit.
- IQ measures problem solving ability, and at some point the real, material problems of the world don't require more fire-power, and instead one could argue that many jobs have as much of a social component as they do a problem solving one. Consider a person with an average IQ, and a normal temperament, vs another with an IQ of 160 who is completely socially maladjusted (I saw a couple of these people in college).
Chances are the reason you noticed and remember those people because either a) confirmation bias, or b) because socially competent high IQ individuals would know when not to boast, or a combination of both.
Beyond anecdotes, there appears to be in fact a positive correlation between IQ and social competence. This paper lists correlations of 0.17 to .44 between various measures of social competence and IQ, with the more reliable measures having the stronger correlation.
In terms of life outcomes the person with an average IQ will have more career and reproductive success, because they can talk to people and build a network.
You seem to be saying IQ isn't everything. Can a person with average IQ have more success than a person with high IQ and low social competence? Sure. Can we expect a person with high IQ to have low social competence, making this a valid generic statements about high/average IQ individuals? Not according to the evidence.