"IQ" isn't a precise measurement of intelligence; it's a score produced by various tests. Even if it were precise, what counts in life is performance. There is generally some kind of connection between a specific IQ score (80, 100, 120, 150, 200...) and performance, but IQ scores are only somewhat predictive. Furthermore, we get smarter as we get older - at least we like to think we do.

How much of intelligence is genetic and how much is environmental isn't precisely known and is probably variable from person to person. Your theory places quite a bit of emphasis on experience, which I think is right. Whether adverse experiences are especially good at boosting intelligence... don't know.

It does seem to be the case that intelligent people are better at problem solving than stupid people are.

Getting strong enough to defend one's self from aggressors is an intelligent response, but there are others. Lots of intelligent people don't seem to have become intelligent on the basis of abuse, and abusive behavior probably stunted more people than it ever helped.

The Wikipedia article you cited also noted that very high scores are unreliable, and I would add, perhaps nonsensical. Is someone with an IQ of 200 twice as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 100? How do we measure the difference between IQs of 100 and 200?

Christopher Langan has a huge head. Even he speculates that his head/brain size has something to do with his high IQ.

Downe's Syndrome people and politicians generally also have big heads. What a ridiculous theory!

It is the surface area of the brain that is believed to count, and highly intelligent individuals may simply have significantly more convoluted brains than the average; or they may have more efficient connections between the different brain areas.

Also woman generally have smaller heads, even relative to their size, than men. Go figure...

You can hear Christopher himself explain his reasoning here... He definitely doesn't claim "the reason I'm so smart is because I have a big head." But, he does suggest there is probably a correlation between brain size and IQ. And he does say(about 35 seconds into the video), "my own personal opinion is, 'yes', head size does influence intelligence."

Even if there is no strict correlation between head size and intelligence but instead just a loose correlation, that would still yield the conclusion that, on average, men are more intelligent than women. That conclusion doesn't sound plausible to me, does it to you?

The short answer is, "no, I don't believe that men are, on average, smarter than women." I understand that some have gone down that path, and the evidence suggests otherwise. As to why? I don't know.... more efficient use of neurons? (there is some evidence that birds use their neurons more efficiently than other animals). I don't think it's inconceivable that there is in reality a correlation between brain size and IQ and that a 10% difference in brain size doesn't equate to a 10% difference in IQ, if we're only talking male vs female humans.... (it does make me wonder if anyone is still arguing that men do have, on average, higher IQ's).

Christopher Langan's head is said to be something like 3 - 6 standard deviations larger than average. Any idea how much larger that would make his brain, percentage-wise (assuming his brain is also 3-6 standard deviations larger)?

Langan also agrees that we don't have enough evidence to state for a fact that larger heads/brains = higher IQ.

The study of philosophy, specifically Plato.

But if an on average ten percent icrease in head size does not correlate with any on average increase in IQ, regardless of whether the subjects are male or female then the theory is simply refuted.

I guess I hear you saying you know that the statement "there is likely a correlation between bigger brains and higher intelligence" is false. I'm not ready to go there.

I think we have pretty good evidence that there is in general a correlation (there is evidence that animals with smaller brains are less intelligent). But, we do have to take into consideration the evidence we have that birds' brains are more efficient. And we don't know if the general correlation of brain size to intelligence carries over to specific examples in specific species. (like Langan said, we don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that a larger human brain equates to a higher IQ- do you really think that Down's syndrome should be included in this discussion?- they actually have smaller heads). Your point of male vs female brains is a good one, and worth looking into.

Some suggest the issue of IQ in men vs women is such that it's just way too politically charged to have a rational debate.

The arguments continue even as the pendulum swings between the biological and environmental interpretation. Perhaps the whole issue becomes so politically charged that it is virtually impossible to have a rational debate. This in turn means scholars avoid the research area which “too hot to handle”.

The long and the short of it is that I'm willing to follow the evidence where ever it should lead. Even if larger heads/brains does equate to higher IQ. Does it follow that people with high IQ are somehow better than those with lower IQ?

I think I'd rather have an IQ within the normal range and experience Eudaimonia, than have a high IQ and be a terrible (unhappy, miserable) person.

If there is a correlation on average between head size and IQ, and if there is an, on average, difference between the head size of men and women such that women's heads are, on average, smaller even taking into account relative body sizes, then the necessary conclusion would be that men, on average, have higher IQ's than women. It should be easy enough to find if all these three factors obtain, if you are interested enough; which I am not.

My parents were told in school that I have an IQ about 150, and that I should be coming top of the school ( I was actually closer to the bottom because I found it so boring). I have done various online tests just for fun and have scored between 140 and 160, so it seems that is about right. But, I set little store by IQ in any case; I believe it mostly just measures brain processing speed. As Marcel Duchamp (I think) said (roughly paraphrased): "high intelligence is the sustained ability to grasp extremely complex relations". I don't think IQ can measure that.

So, I don't think having an IQ of 150 is anything particularly special, since I believe about 1 in 400 people do. I don't believe one in four hundred people are actually geniuses, or even potential geniuses. Look around you! What about imagination and intuition?

So I would say , that even if men turn out to have on average a higher IQ than women, it doesn't mean much. Maybe women have, on average better imaginations and/or intuitive faculties. Really, what would be the point of the whole comparison, anyway? I tell you, it ain't healthy!

Also, I am not at all convinced that unhappiness is correlated with high IQ, if anything I am inclined to think it would probably be more strongly correlated with an over-actively vivid imagination. IQ just ain't interesting, and I wasn't particularity impressed with Langan either; he comes across as a bit of a self congratulatory and self-obsessed dumbo if you ask me.

To answer the question:

The understanding of facts and what is, turn someone into a smarter - or whatever term you wanna use - being. But the question itself is wrong because it implies comparing 2 or more human beings in respect to some IQ tests which are not even today fully understood or explained completly, so making an assumption on half truth will lead to the same kind of answer ( half answer ).

Comparison is for other fields( technological, etc ), it has no meaning in the psychological field. It is only needed where u can actually compare sizes, weights, dimensions etc, but when dealing with abstract things comparison is useless.

There is no such thing as becoming ( the only thing that ever changes in humans is our perspective of the same thing - by exercising or understanding ). If you are violent ( fact ) and try to become " non-violent" (which is a non-fact, a theory, an idea of non-violence that your mind is projecting), how would you proceed ?

I know for a fact you aren't born one. — Ozymandiaz

No you don't!

Consider my surprise, after you associated genius with having to adapt to abuse, bullying, etc., that you note that you were bullied.


Haha--really I'm joking. I could see that coming from a mile away.

Necessity is the mother of invention and studies showed Vietnam veterans returning from war tended to have higher IQs. You can get a similar effect by merely studying mathematics for a month or two before taking an IQ test. Cultures pushed to the verge of genocide tend to stress that everyone must exceed their personal potential if at all possible and that kind of social pressure can raise your IQ which doesn't necessarily vary all that much over your life time, but its obvious focusing more on actually thinking more can produce better results.

That's one kind of genius, but Socrates held the tribal belief in the memory of God that none can remember in all its glory. You could say the greater unfolding truth of our lives only asserts itself within the silent void producing metamorphic effects according to how well anyone can occupy the lowest possible energy state of the system and actualizes more of their potential in the moment. Infants that are taught to swim or a bear exercising in a circle as they are want to do express this principle because their ability can be said to arise on a cellular level.

If there is a correlation on average between head size and IQ, and if there is an, on average, difference between the head size of men and women such that women's heads are, on average, smaller even taking into account relative body sizes, then the necessary conclusion would be that men, on average, have higher IQ's than women. It should be easy enough to find if all these three factors obtain, if you are interested enough; which I am not. — John

Stanford Neuroscience Graduate Student 'Kendra' says:

• Whales and elephants have much bigger brains than humans
• We have about the same brain-to-body mass ratio as mice.
• Since it would be against human nature to admit defeat... scientists have crafted a third measure of brain size called the encephalization quotient, which is the ratio of actual brain mass relative to the predicted brain mass for an animal’s size (based off the assumption that larger animals require slightly less brain matter relative to their size compared to very small animals). By this metric, at least, humans come out on top, with an EQ of 7.5 far surpassing the dolphin’s 5.3 and the mouse’s measly 0.5.
• There is some correlation between brain-size and intelligence--.3 to .4.
• Using microscopic study of the brain, we find neural complexity is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter

Laying brain size aside, there are other factors which are likely to determine our estimation of how smart somebody is without any other indication of intelligence:

1. Diligence and success in schooling AND
2. The quality of the school experience
3. The ability to sustain a focus on a problem (a personality trait)
4. Rearing in a family of successful people (where successful behaviors are modeled and rewarded)
5. Stable personality (sturm and drang do not help us think clearly)
6, Possession of the accouterments that indicate success (which has nothing to do with intelligence, but a lot to do with our estimation of accomplishment)

In other words, a shiny, brightly colored apple that is only fairly good will outshine a truly delicious apple that has a dull color. rough skin, and an odd shape.

Intelligence is directly related to genetics. Deal with it.

What creates someone who is considered a genius? I know for a fact you aren't born one. — Ozymandiaz

You have to be born with a high I.Q.

High I.Q. is an inhereted trait.

However that alone is not enough.

You must also obsess about the are in which you are a genius.
You must practice, slave, and toil constantly in learning everything there is to know about the subject and from that you seek to find a new and creative way to express yourself about that subject.

Actually getting past the wanting phase and getting on to the trying. There's a million different opinions on it, and if the tools necessary to succeed are innate then just assume that you have them. Try everything, and if it feels dishonest, like pretending, ineffectual then stop and try something else. There is no "right way" but there's always a better way... remember not to wait too long though, and no one is perfect... just be good enough for you, and that's all that matters.