• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Would the world still function if the average IQ was 170?

MessiahDecoy123

Psychological Anarchist
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
25,501
Reaction score
4,465
Points
103
You need miners, countless industry workers, and consumerism to develop and advance technology.

You also need your janitors, factory workers, waiters, drivers, etc. for everyday needs.
 
It's an interesting question. It makes me think of something I read where the question was raised about clearing national debt, Why not print more money?

Money would just be worth less.

It's not the same but reminds me of it. Intelligence would be worth less and in that the jobs a more capable mind does now wouldn't be paid anywhere near as much.

That's just one side to it.
 
Who says janitors, waiters, and drivers can't have IQs of 170? My dad was a mechanic and he was genius brilliant, too smart to work at a job he had to 'take home with him' every night.

So yes: the world would still function.
 
Yes, the world would still function normally, and people would still vote for Trump, who was probably voted for by some smart folks.
 
Who says janitors, waiters, and drivers can't have IQs of 170? My dad was a mechanic and he was genius brilliant, too smart to work at a job he had to 'take home with him' every night.

So yes: the world would still function.

Most people with 170 IQ aren't going to want to work 50 hours a week cleaning toilets making minimum wage while other people with 170 IQ are billionaires or exploring space travel/robotics/genetics/etc.

Just a hunch.
 
They will be smart enough to know someone has to make these sacrifices, and limit their whining about working in jobs like these, even more when other jobs reject them.
 
I'm just thinking of the Citadel of Ricks from Rick and Morty. Thousands of versions of the smartest person in the multi-verse and still somebody has to be a plumber.

I think that we'd still be idiots due to human nature.

At best we'd be making advances in AI to the point where most menial jobs would be automated and things would go on from there. Maybe we'd invent utopia technology like in Star Trek and then just go on doing whatever for the enjoyment of doing it instead of having to do things just to survive.
 
You need a vast majority making under or way under $40,000 per year to support your millionaires and billionaires not to mention the explpitation of third world countries' natural resources and cheap workforce to keep products cheap and vital consumerism flourishing in wealthy countries.

Speaking of consumerism, are billions of people with 170 IQ going to fall for that sugar pill of happiness?
 
Having a high IQ doesn't mean you'll be rich or successful.
 
Yeah but things start to get wicked once everyone hits the 200 mark.
 
Having a high IQ doesn't mean you'll be rich or successful.

I know geniuses will work as a janitor or as a fast food worker for s**ts a giggles but most of them are not going to dedicate their entire existence to these social experiments.

And then you have third world countries no longer exploitable fpr cheap products and labor which funds the rich nations' lifestyle TBH.
 
I know geniuses will work as a janitor or as a fast food worker for s**ts a giggles but most of them are not going to dedicate their entire existence to these social experiments.

And then you have third world countries no longer exploitable fpr cheap products and labor which funds the rich nations' lifestyle TBH.

I meant that geniuses don't necessarily have the lives you think they do. And it's not a social experiment. I know someone with ridiculously high IQ who decided to do something that wasn't necessarily high paying but fulfilled them more. Maybe they'd prefer less stressful lives. Or maybe they drop out of school and never really make it.
 
Impossible. The average IQ is 100, so 170 would just become the new 100 :o
 
Impossible. The average IQ is 100, so 170 would just become the new 100 :o

I was gonna say that, but then I realised that the question obviously meant 170 from our world and I was just nitpicking.


:oldrazz:
 
There are a few issues with using IQ as some sort of marker for success or motivation, etc.

First, IQ is extremely subjective and culturally biased.

Second, once you start getting into numbers higher than 130, it doesn't matter anymore. It's not about being the smartest or having the highest IQ, it's about being smart enough. If you have a group of people (saaaaaay, students that want to get into Harvard), who all have IQs over 130, it starts to matter less what their IQ is and more where they're from and what environment they were raised in. Someone with an IQ of 130 and another with an IQ of 170, given the same opportunities and support, will generally have the same outcome in life (job wise). So using 170 as a marker doesn't make much sense because, at that point, it's more about nurture than nature.

Third, IQ is not indicative of success, drive, perseverance, wealth, and so on. For example, there is a man in the US who has an IQ of close to 200. He's a rattle rancher in Michigan (or Illinois. Whichever). He did not get to be what he wanted to be because he has a horrible social IQ and he had a terrible upbringing.



TL;DR, IQ is a problematic marker to use to measure success or the probability of success.
 
Last edited:
Yes technically speaking the average IQ is always going to be 100 because IQ is measured by how intelligent you are compared to others in our society.

But seriously though, I think so. If the average intelligence would increase, the rest of society would change with it. We would make a world where people with high intelligence would be needed.
 
Yes, the world would still function normally, and people would still vote for Trump, who was probably voted for by some smart folks.

I think you underestimate a society where the average person is as smart as Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

The collective bargaining would be insane.

Things like free college, free healthcare, a universal basic income would be a given.

And you cpuld simply confuse people and get them to work against their own interest with xenophobia, identity politics, "tax relief" or blind nationalism either.
 
You're putting way too much stock in IQ. It's not that simple.
 
I meant that geniuses don't necessarily have the lives you think they do. And it's not a social experiment. I know someone with ridiculously high IQ who decided to do something that wasn't necessarily high paying but fulfilled them more. Maybe they'd prefer less stressful lives. Or maybe they drop out of school and never really make it.

Well being that most people hate their jobs and wish they had more money it's safe to say a society of Eistiens would find a way to live a simple existence without being exploited by an "upper class".

The truth is people accept s**tty jobs because they don't have much choice. Beggers can't be choosers.

But see how long a billion Einstens accept low wages, expensive healthcare, austerity, class warfare, etc.
 
There are a few issues with using IQ as some sort of marker for success or motivation, etc.

First, IQ is extremely subjective and culturally biased.

Second, once you start getting into numbers higher than 130, it doesn't matter anymore. It's not about being the smartest or having the highest IQ, it's about being smart enough. If you have a group of people (saaaaaay, students that want to get into Harvard), who all have IQs over 130, it starts to matter less what their IQ is and more where they're from and what environment they were raised in. Someone with an IQ of 130 and another with an IQ of 170, given the same opportunities and support, will generally have the same outcome in life (job wise). So using 170 as a marker doesn't make much sense because, at that point, it's more about nurture than nature.

Third, IQ is not indicative of success, drive, perseverance, wealth, and so on. For example, there is a man in the US who has an IQ of close to 200. He's a rattle rancher in Michigan (or Illinois. Whichever). He did not get to be what he wanted to be because he has a horrible social IQ and he had a terrible upbringing.



TL;DR, IQ is a problematic marker to use to measure success or the probability of success.

IQ gives a person options.

A person with a 90 IQ can do only so many jobs. A person with an IQ of 180 could master virtually anything if they felt like it.

You bring up some interesting variables and yes, people with 150 IQ would be treated like idiots and there would be other divisive concepts for new forms of discrimination, prejudice and double standards to emerge but I still think the average person would be much better off due to the problem solving skills of the new Eistein working class.
 
Well being that most people hate their jobs and wish they had more money it's safe to say a society of Eistiens would find a way to live a simple existence without being exploited by an "upper class".

The truth is people accept s**tty jobs because they don't have much choice. Beggers can't be choosers.

But see how long a billion Einstens accept low wages, expensive healthcare, austerity, class warfare, etc.

You assume that people with ****** jobs didn't choose them. That can be a problematic assumption to make. You should watch the documentary The Minimalists. Money isn't everything. Being happy and liking where you work and what you do is way more important than how much you make (and by more important, I mean more fulfilling).

Again, IQ is not indicative of anything, really. It mostly depends on how you were raised. If you need more proof, google the group of kids known as the Termites. They were handpicked by a man named Lewis Terman and their average IQ was 151. Basically, his lifelong study of the kids didn't prove that a high IQ meant success. It proved that a higher socioeconomic status did.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites

Another analysis shows that the accomplishments of the "Termites" could have been predicted on their socioeconomic status alone. These were mostly white, middle to upper middle class men with opportunities and resources for success. Some argue that it wasn't even necessary for Terman to analyze the IQ dimension--he could have stopped with SES and call it a day.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=40678

As for what IQ scores can predict about a person's future, Hastorf offers a middle-of-the road position: the tests are pretty good at identifying "school-bright" children, those likely to perform well in ordinary school settings, but "on the issue of what makes you school-bright, it's obviously a combination of variables -- your genetic constitution, your biological health, the motivation that your parents put into you, chance."

Though the Terman kids were handpicked for high IQ, the longitudinal results tell us little about the meaning of IQ, except for one study conducted by Terman's associate, Melita Oden. In 1968, she compared the 100 most successful and 100 least successful men in the group, defining success as holding jobs that required their intellectual gifts. The successes, predictably, included professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers. The non-successes included electronics technicians, police, carpenters and pool cleaners, plus a smattering of failed lawyers, doctors and academics. But here's the catch: the successes and non-successes barely differed in average IQ. The big differences turned out to be in confidence, persistence and early parental encouragement.

In other words, intelligence alone doesn't guarantee achievement. But then, you don't have to be a genius to figure that out.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,549
Messages
21,987,962
Members
45,780
Latest member
TaciturnTerror
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"