5 Unexpected Downsides of High

Intelligence
By Eddie Rodriguez May 06, 2011 3,922,142 views
Add to Favorites

You know that phrase, "Ignorance is bliss"? There's a reason it's stuck
around all these years. Because having the upper hand in intelligence
might give you an advantage in some areas, like crossword puzzle
solving and quantum physics-ing, but it also might just screw up your
life forever.
For instance, if you're smart ...
#5.
You're Probably a Night Owl -- And That's a Bad Thing

Getty
Recently, scientists discovered a quirky side effect to having a high
IQ: You tend to stay up until later hours and get up later in the
morning. That's right -- the more intelligent are also much more likely
to be night owls. Which isn't such a surprise when you consider that
intelligent people are infamous for burning the midnight oil to cram
for tests, write papers, touch up those earnings reports, etc.

Photos.com
And spending reports.
It appears to just be evolution -- the more intelligent members of a
species are, in general, the first to change habits (their big brains are
wired to seek out novelty). Since humans have been day-dwellers
during most of their existence, it's primarily the smarties who prefer to
habitually stay up until the wee hours and to do the types of tasks that
are easier to accomplish when you don't have the day-dwellers
hanging around and distracting you. Stuff that requires concentration,
in other words.
So let the early birds keep their measly worms. The nights owls get to
feast on the juicy field mice of accomplishment!
So What's the Problem?
Well, being a night owl does have some negative side effects. And by
"some" we mean, "You're pretty much screwed."
 Getty
And we mean REALLY screwed.
For starters, studies have found that "eveningness" is associated with a
high degree of emotional instability. That means you tend to be less
agreeable and conscientious than the average Joe. Oh, and you don't
just make others' lives miserable. Thanks to your late-night habits,
likely brought on by high intelligence, you're also three times more
likely to suffer symptoms of depression.
And the fun doesn't end there, geniuses! Turns out that, short of
becoming a competitive asbestos eater, staying up late at night is
about the worst thing you could do for your physical
health. According to a number of studies, night owls are at higher risk
for heart disease and suffer more arterial stiffness than those who go
to bed early.

Getty
It's important to note, however, that not all night owls are geniuses.
The direct cause might have less to do with the fact that you stay up
than with some of the other things you're doing while your eyes get all
nice and bloodshot. You see, people who tend to stay up late also tend
to do other unhealthy things at night, such as overeating. Then, once
they do eventually hit the hay, they experience more sleep
interruptions when those pesky morning larks get up and start
noisying about.
All this adds up to some nasty artery stress and whacked-out circadian
rhythms, a nice recipe for a massive coronary. So be sure to thank
those dumbass early risers and your high intelligence for your
inevitable heart attack.

Photos.com
Causes of death: Morning-type wife and a 155 IQ.
#4.
You're Less Likely to Pass On Your Genes
Another unfortunate stereotype of smart people is that they're socially
awkward nerds who are doomed to lives of celibacy until they get out
of high school hell. Unfortunately, that one turns out to be totally true.
But it's not all bad news. There's evidence that the highly educated get
more enjoyment out of sex than the dumb jocks and that really, all the
lovin' you need to be happy comes from having sex with just one
partner per year. So even the nerdlingers among us can find one
person to get along with, then have highly enjoyable loser-geek sex,
eventually leading to populating the planet with loser-geek children,
right?

Photos.com
"Timmy! You'd better not be drawing dicks on my math!"
So What's the Problem?
Smart boy, please. Those genes you're carrying aren't going any-
goddamn-where. Unbeknownst to the smarties, their education levels
and IQ are conspiring to keep them childless and perhaps leading
them to adopt 30 cats when they're in their late 70s.
It all starts with the smart ladies. A 2008 national census reported that
women who had dropped out of high school had the most children on
average. And the more education women achieved, the fewer children
they were likely to have, with the fewest children being born to
women who had finished graduate school.
The explanation, according to the Census Bureau, is simple: Women
wanted to finish school before they were saddled with nine months of
fetus-carrying. Then, for smart people of both sexes, there's the career
to think about, and promotions, and who has time for a needy mini-
human during all that? And of course, IQ plays a direct role here,
since it has also been found that women with lower IQs are less likely
to know how to use birth control properly, leading to more unplanned
pregnancies.

Photos.com
"OK, but I'll need a glass of water. I can't swallow them dry."
But that's just the ladies. The smart fellas must be picking up the slack
somehow, right? Maybe by getting a little dumb-girl nookie on the
side? Not so. Research shows that countries with high national IQs
tend to have lower childbirth rates in general compared with countries
that can't collectively tie their shoelaces together. That's right -- entire
nations are missing the evolutionary point of fucking as their IQs rise.
#3.
You're More Likely to Lie

Getty
The problem with being the smartest guy in the room is that you
usually know you're the smartest guy in the room. For some people,
that's not a big deal. They can relate to others just fine and know how
to navigate around everyone else's deficiencies without being
complete pricks. Others, however, know they have an intellectual edge
and can't help but abuse it.
So What's the Problem?
In addition to giving you an advantage in brainpower, IQ apparently
also bestows the gift of deception.

Getty
"Me? No, it was already like this when I got here."
After all, in order to lie and get away with it, you also have to keep the
truth in mind and manipulate it, and you might even have to cover up
your lies upon further questioning. All of this involves integrating
several brain processes in much the same way that you would solve a
complex calculus problem. This means that the age at which you start
lying, and the effectiveness with which you do it throughout your life,
are controlled by how smart you are.
In one study, scientists put people in brain-imaging machines and
found that the regions of the brain that light up when a person
metaphorically sets his pants on fire are the same that control
"executive functioning." These are high-order thinking and reasoning
abilities that include working memory, which, you guessed it, is the
single biggest component of your IQ.

Getty
Suuuuure, Mr. Hawking. The universe is expanding and boundless.
We're onto your game!
Another study simply tracked the tendency of children to lie as they
got older (that is, as that aforementioned part of their brains
developed). The researchers simply placed young kids in a room with
a toy Barney under a cloth and told the kids not to peek at the toy
when the researchers left the room.
 Photos.com
They later conducted the same test, replacing the toy with a live cobra.
Of course, 9 out of 10 kids totally peeked, but the percentage of kids
who lied about whether they peeked grew as the kids got older. At age
2, 25 percent of the kids lied about peeking; at age 3, half lied; and by
age 4, 90 percent of the kids who peeked at the purple dinosaur
refused to admit their guilt. That would also seem to imply that the 25
percent of kids who fibbed at age 2 possessed higher cognitive
abilities than their peers.
In other words, if you want to know whether your kid is gifted, simply
track the specific age at which he starts trying to bullshit you.
Speaking of which ...

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-

downsides-high-intelligence.html#ixzz2rMkX4r1D
#2.
You're More Likely to Believe Bullshit
Getty
We're sure that at some point, someone has told you that you can't get
anywhere without an education, and for the most part, they're right.
And you're much more likely to pursue that education if you're
starting out with a high IQ. According to renowned
intelligenceologists who painstakingly measured every goddamn thing
that you can associate with IQ, test scores were "the best single
predictor of an individual's years of education."

Photos.com
Though some measurements were admittedly questionable.
Why? Well, their theory goes that smarter students do better in school
(Cracked breaks new ground yet again!), which leads to more
encouragement from teachers and parents, which in turn leads to more
motivation to stay in school, then yadda yadda yadda, bingo-bango,
master's degree in economics!
So What's the Problem?
It turns out that all this book learnin' is teaching you more than just the
Pythagorean theorem -- it's also making it easier for you to believe
some laughably wrong and even seriously weird stuff.

Via Mastermarf.com
One problem is that education leads to one overall inaccurate belief:
You think you're smarter than you are. Three studies have found that
people who fall for investment scams are better-educated than the
average person but don't seek advice because they think they're
immune to making mistakes. In one study, researchers found that 94
percent of college professors think their work is superior to their
peers'. These fellows fail to realize that intelligence doesn't always
translate to real-world ability, and thus they tend to overestimate the
quality of their work.
 Via Smartiq.com
Whoa! Sure is getting crowded at the smart end of the bell curve.
Right, guys?
It seems to go back to the old saying about how the wisest man is the
one who realizes he knows nothing. Or, as Michael Shermer, the
author of Why People Believe Weird Things, puts it: "Smart people
believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they
arrived at for non-smart reasons."
That's why the more education you get, the more likely you are to
believe in, say, ghosts and the supernatural. One study found that 23
percent of college freshman believed in the paranormal, compared
with 31 percent of seniors and 34 percent of graduate students. Which
leads us to wonder ... what the fuck are schools teaching these days?
#1.
You're More Likely to Be Self-Destructive

Getty
On one hand, it seems like the smarter you are, the greater your ability
to know the dangers of, say, shooting heroin. So self-destructive
habits are traits of the low-class and stupid, right? Eh, not really...
The thing is, the great minds have something in common with
proverbial death-prone kitties: curiosity. Researchers have finally
begun to understand the link between curiosity and intelligence on the
molecular level, thanks to scientists from the University of Toronto
and Mount Sinai Hospital who discovered a protein in an under-
explored part of the brain that controls both traits.

Via Wiredtowinthemovie.com
It's always in the last place you look.
Makes sense. Weird shit like monkey-powered time machines can be
invented only by people with enough brain smarts to make them work
and enough curiosity to want to see such awesomeness in the first
place.
So What's the Problem?
Extra-curious people are also extra-likely to be substance abusers.
British scientists published the results of a long-term study showing
that smart people were more likely to be drunks. People who fell into
the "very bright" category (IQs of 125 or greater) were not only more
likely to experiment with alcohol but also were more likely to drink
excessively and binge drink than their dimwitted counterparts.
 Getty
These men are living, breathing supercomputers.
And yeah, they pretty much found the same link between high
intelligence and psychoactive drug use. It also turns out that intelligent
people are much more likely to indulge in illicit substances such as
marijuana, Ecstasy, cocaine and heroin. The smarter you are, the more
likely you are to be tripping balls at any given moment.

Photos.com
"Duuuuude. We should totally rent The Wall tonight!"
As for why, remember when we said earlier that smart people's brains
seek out novelty and thus are the first to experiment with any new
habit? Well, one theory explaining the link between substance abuse
and intelligence is that both alcohol and drugs are novel substances, in
evolutionary terms. Humans have been consuming alcohol for only
about 10,000 years, and the earliest recorded drug was only 5,000
years ago. So when something is novel, the curiouser and most
intelligent among us are more likely to want to try it out.
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-downsides-high-
intelligence_p2.html#ixzz2rMkvP02R
Having a high IQ is not always good news

Mensa Magazine June 2009 pp 34-5

Bruce G Charlton

There are so many advantages to having a high IQ that the disadvantages are
sometimes neglected – and I don‘t mean just short-sightedness, which is commoner
among the highly intelligent. It really is true that people who wear glasses tend to be
smarter!

High IQ is, mostly, good for you

First it is worth emphasizing that high IQ is mostly very good for you.
This has been known since Lewis Terman‘s 1920s follow-up study of Californian high
IQ children revealed that they were not just cleverer but also taller, healthier and
more athletic than average; and mostly grew-up to become wealthy and successful.

Professor Ian Deary of Edinburgh University has confirmed that

both health and life-expectancy improve along with increasing
IQ. So that, remarkably, a single childhood IQ test done on one
morning in Scotland in 1932 made significantly-valid statistical
predictions about when people would die many decades later.
And other studies have shown that higher IQ people tend to be
less violent, so smarter people usually make less-troublesome
neighbours.

Indeed, Geoffrey Miller has put forward the idea that IQ is a measure of biological
fitness. Since it takes about half of our genes to make and operate the brain, most
damaging genetic mutations will show-up in reduced intelligence. So it would have
made sense for our ancestors to choose their mates on the basis of intelligence,
because a good brain implies good genes.

Sidis and the problems of ultra-high IQ

However, high IQ is not always beneficial. Terman‘s study of the highest IQ group
among his cohort revealed that more than one third grew up to be ‗maladjusted‘ in
some way: for example having significant problems of anxiety, depression,
personality disorder or experience of ‗nervous breakdowns‘.

This applied to William James Sidis (1898-1944), who is often considered to have
had the highest-ever IQ (about 250-300). Sidis was a child prodigy, famous
throughout the USA as having enrolling at Harvard aged 11 and graduated at 16. Yet
he was certainly ‗maladjusted‘, and had a chaotic, troubled and short life. Indeed,
Sidis was widely considered to have been a failure as an adult – although this failure
has been exaggerated, since it turns out that Sidis published a number of interesting
books and articles anonymously.

In fact, there seems to be a consensus among psychometricians (and among the

possessors of ultra-high IQ themselves) that - while an IQ of about 120-150 is mostly
advantageous - extremely high IQ levels above this may prove to be as often of a
curse as a benefit from the perspective of leading a happy and fulfilling life.

On the one hand, the ranks of genius are often recruited from amongst the more
creative and stable of ultra-high IQ people; but on the other hand there are also a
high proportion of chronically-disaffected ultra-high IQ people that have been termed
‗The Outsiders‘ in a famous essay of that title by Grady M Towers
( www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html )

Socialism, atheism and low-fertility

Sidis himself demonstrated, in exaggerated form, three traits which I put forward as
being aspects of high IQ which are potentially disadvantageous: socialism, atheism
and low-fertility.

1. Socialism

Higher IQ is probably associated with socialism via the personality trait called
Openness-to-experience, which is modestly but significantly correlated with IQ. (To
be more exact, left wing political views and voting patterns are characteristic of the
highest and lowest IQ groups – the elite and the underclass - and right wingers tend
to be in the mid-range.)

Openness summarizes such attributes as imagination, aesthetic sensitivity,

preference for variety and intellectual curiosity – it also (among high IQ people in
Western societies) predicts left-wing political views. Sidis was an extreme socialist,
who received a prison sentence for participating in a May Day parade which became
a riot (in the event, he ‗served his time‘ in a sanatorium).
Now, of course, not everyone would agree that socialism is wrong (indeed, Mensa
members reading this are quite likely to be socialists). But if socialism is regarded as
a mistaken ideology (as I personally would argue!), then it could be said that high IQ
people are more likely to be politically wrong. But whether correct or wrong, the point
is that high IQ people do seem to have a built-in psychological and political bias.

2. Atheism

Something similar applies to atheism. Sidis was an atheist, and it has been pretty
conclusively demonstrated by Richard Lynn that increasing IQ is correlated with
increasing likelihood of atheism. The most famous atheists – like Richard Dawkins
and Daniel Dennett – are ferociously intelligent individuals.

Again, whether atheism is a disadvantage is a matter of opinion (to put it mildly!) –

but what is not merely opinion is that religious people are on average more altruistic
in terms of measures such as giving to charity, giving blood, and volunteering time for
good causes.

So, higher IQ may be associated with greater selfishness. In other words, smarter
neighbours may be less troublesome on average, but they may also be less helpful.

3. Fertility

However the biggest and least-controversial disadvantage of high IQ is reduced

fertility. Again Sidis serves as an example: as a teenager he published a vow of
celibacy, and he neither married nor had children.

Pioneer intelligence researchers such as Francis Galton (1822-1911) noticed that

(since the invention of contraception) increasing intelligence usually meant fewer
offspring. Terman confirmed this, especially among women – so the group of the
highest IQ women had only about a quarter of the number of children required for
replacement fertility.

This trend has, if anything, increased in recent years as ever-more high IQ women
delay reproduction in order to pursue higher education and professional careers.
Indeed, more than 30 percent of women college graduates in the UK and Europe
have no children at all – and more than half of women now attend college.

Since IQ is highly heritable, this low fertility implies that over time high IQ will tend to
select itself out of the population.

The bad news and the good news

So much for the bad news about high IQ.

The good news is that while the advantages of high IQ are built-in; the disadvantages
of high IQ are mostly a matter of choice.

People can potentially change their political and religious views. For example, Sidis
apparently changed from being a socialist to a libertarian, indeed many adult
conservatives went through a socialist phase during their youth (declaration of
interest: this applies to me).

And religious conversions among the high IQ are not unknown (declaration of
interest: this applies to me). For instance, GK Chesterton and C.S Lewis being
famous examples of atheists who became the two greatest Christian apologists of the
twentieth century.

Indeed, although it does not often happen, smart people can also choose to be more
fertile. One example is the Mormons in the USA, whose average IQ and fertility are
both above the national average, and where the wealthiest Mormons also have the
biggest families. Presumably - since wealth and IQ are positively correlated - this
means that for US Mormons higher IQ leads to higher fertility.

So, on the whole it remains good news to have a high IQ - although perhaps not too-
high an IQ. But perhaps the high IQ community needs to take a more careful look at
the question of low fertility. It may be that, under modern conditions, high intelligence
is stopping people from ‗doing what comes naturally‘ and having large families.

Human reproduction could be one situation where the application of intelligence may
be needed to over-ride our spontaneous emotions or the prevailing societal
incentives.

Or else at some point in the future, high IQ could become very rare indeed.

What characterises people with high IQ's ?

We have seen in this thread that IQ is strongly hereditary, that
children with highly educated parents also tended to have
higher IQ's, and especially that male hormones significantly
increased IQ (because IQ only testes typically male reasoning
skills, like logic and spatial skills). We saw that the higher the
IQ, the bigger the gap in numbers between men and women.
Because IQ is so intricately linked to male hormones, it is
normal to see a correlation between very high IQ and
masculine social behaviour.

The higher the IQ, the higher the sense of individuality and the
independence of mind. Exceptionally gifted people care (much)
less about what other people think of them, and are less
sensitive to praise, and even less to flattery.

Because they care less about the opinion and esteem of others,
they tend to be less socially oriented, but also feel less easily
lonely. Maybe it is because they have a very heightened sense
of the "self".

They feel pressed to tell openly what they think to others,

especially when they hear something that conflicts with their
reasoning or knowledge. They value more truth, facts and logic
than friendship or emotional relations.

Gifted people therefore only care about social conventions they

agree with, and (harshly) criticise the others. They live in an
inner world where anything that is not rational is wrong and
should be changed. It is unconceivable to them to bask in
mediocrity. They are born perfectionists (for what they care
about).

Their disregard for conventions, combined with vivid, creative

and independent mind, often make them coin new words (often
just for fun, to see the reaction of those who care about
conventions), or use rare words (not by pedantry at all, but just
because they like them better). In other words, they recreate
the conventions for themselves.

Typical high-IQ people are constantly thinking about

something, worried about a problem, thinking about solutions...
So they end up having little time and energy left, and little
motivation, for ordinary chit-chat. Because they are constantly
"navigating in their thoughts", they tend to be more forgetful of
trivial things ("damn, I forgot to remove the clothes from the
washing machine last night !").

Their strong independence of mind and deep intellectualisation

of things results in exceptionally gifted people having stronger
individual interests than average ("passions" for some topics or
activities). Once they get into something, they want to know
everything about it (which can make them look like geeks or
freaks to ordinary folk).

High IQ correlates strongly with exceptional concentration

abilities. The problem is that it makes such people quite
stubborn until they know or understand what they wanted.
Such children are known for always asking "why" questions,
and never give up until they get a satisfactory answer.

One thing that normally irritates people with high IQ is asking

them to explain something (complex), then stop listening in the
middle of their explanations. Exceptionally gifted people just
can't understand why one would ask a question and not care
about the answer, when they visibly do not understand that
topic.

At school, exceptionally gifted children are easily bored by

lessons, because they understand before everyone else and get
irritated when the teacher has to repeat for slower people. If it
is a subject they are particularily interested in, they usually
have learned everything by themselves before, which can
create conflicts with the teacher, as gifted children do not mind
correcting the teacher's slightest mistake in front of the whole
class (that's their way of showing that they shouldn't be sitting
in that class in a humiliating position of inferiority - well, you
know how wild and vain kids can be !).

On the whole, exceptionally gifted people tend to be

hyperactive, eat a lot and sleep a lot (because the brain uses so
much energy), or on the contrary eat and sleep very little
(these are exceptions, like Napoleon, probably due to a
different metabolism).

At work, they have difficulty understanding why other people

can't do as much as they do in the same amount of time, or
don't do things as well as they should. They are usually
unsatisfied by others, demanding, strict, and feel like they have
to do things by themselves if they want them to be done
properly...

High-IQ people are very individualistic, but they usually strive

for the common good (as well as their own interests). Their
passion for things, their sense of logic, and their desire for
perpetual improvement, make of them good politicians and
philosophers. On the other hand, they usually dislike routine
jobs, with predefinied tasks and little space for creativity and a
sense of intellectual challenge.

Given their individualism, they rarely bear the authority of

other people, and are therefore more often self-made people,
free-thinkers and entrepreneurs, rather than conventional
academics or professionals employed by a company.

Having a high IQ has little influence on most of the arts, as IQ

only testes rational, logic and spatial skills. It may help for
sculpture (spatial skills), or classsical music (rational and
spatial).
The Downside of Higher IQ
Satoshi Kanazawa's new book, The Intelligence Paradox: Why the
Intelligent Choice Isn't Always the Smart One, is mainly an extended
exposition of his Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis ("the Hypothesis"),
which states that

less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent

people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel
entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. In
contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals‘ ability to
comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations
that existed in the ancestral environment.

Evolutionarily novel entities that more intelligent individuals are better

able to comprehend and deal with may include ideas and lifestyles, which
form the basis of their preferences and values. It would be very difficult
for individuals to prefer or value something that they cannot truly
comprehend. So, applied to the domain of preferences and values, the
Hypothesis suggests that more intelligent individuals are more likely
than less intelligent individuals to acquire and espouse evolutionarily
novel preferences and values that did not exist in the ancestral
environment and thus our ancestors did not have, but general
intelligence has no effect on the acquisition and espousal of
evolutionarily familiar preferences and values that existed in the
ancestral environment.

On this blog, we've expounded at some length on the scientific findings

on the subject of IQ, and the ways that IQ is correlated to life outcomes.
To cite a few examples, IQ is positively correlated to income, education,
health, and longevity, and negatively correlated to criminality and
various other social pathologies. It would seem that, all things equal,
having greater intelligence would be more advantageous for a person
and, in aggregate, a society, than lower intelligence. Kanazawa is here to
tell us that this may not necessarily be the case.

For example, it's been noted that liberals and atheists are, on average,
more intelligent than conservatives or the religious. Liberals and atheists
themselves have often crowed about such results - and the conservatives
and the religious have decried them and questioned their objectivity -
but, if "the Hypothesis" has explanatory power, then the reason people
hold the beliefs of liberalism or atheism has nothing to do with the
superiority of the ideas themselves.

Kanazawa defines liberalism for the purposes of his book as a concern for
non-genetically related others and the providing of resources to them. In
that light, liberalism is profoundly evolutionarily novel. No human
groups, whether in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) or
up to nearly the present, have been liberal; on the contrary, they have
been concerned only about members of their own group. Likewise, no
human groups have ever, on the whole, been atheistic; they have all been
religious. (Kanazawa found the only evidence of significant atheism in
formerly Communist societies.) Another way of saying all of this is that it
appears that human beings are hard-wired by evolution to be
conservative and theistic.

Now, what is general intelligence anyway? Without going too far afield,
there is some debate as to whether intelligence is domain-specific or
domain-general. Domain-specific psychological qualities are those that
have evolved to solve problems that were frequent in the EEA, for
example, a sense of direction or tracking ability. Because this ability was
so important in the EEA, it evolved into a domain-specific skill, and there
is no correlation between a person's IQ and his ability to track his own
whereabouts. A similar judgment can be made about psychological
qualities such as the detection of cheaters or understanding what another
person might be thinking. General intelligence, on the other hand, came
about - such is the claim - to solve evolutionarily novel problems.

Therefore, those with higher intelligence would be more likely to engage

in behaviors and to have beliefs in fields that are novel from the
evolutionary standpoint, liberalism and atheism being two such beliefs.
We might say either that less intelligent people are incapable of
understanding liberalism and atheism, and therefore fall back on their
hard-wired, evolutionarily derived beliefs, or that it takes an intellectual
to believe stupid things.

One can see where this is going: the presence of higher IQ whether on the
personal or societal level can lead to beliefs and behaviors that are
evolutionarily disadvantageous. Here is the basis for Bruce Charlton's
"clever sillies" hypothesis (discussed by Kanazawa); in this light, a
"deficiency of common sense" might be interpreted as "potentially
maladapted to our evolutionarily derived nature".

Kanazawa provides abundant evidence for those of higher IQ engaging in

evolutionarily novel behavior and beliefs. Besides being more inclined to
liberalism and atheism, the more intelligent are more likely to be night
owls, to be openly homosexual, to be more fond of classical music - not
because it is more complex, but because it is largely instrumental, which
is evolutionarily novel - and to have fewer children. Men with higher IQ,
but not women, value sexual exclusivity more; this is novel because of
our polygynous past. Higher IQ people drink more, smoke more, and use
illegal drugs more than those with lower IQ.

From these examples, it's no stretch to see the downside of greater

intelligence, both for the person who possesses it and for the society that
contains large numbers of high IQ people. For those who wonder how
modern Western societies can advocate policies and hold beliefs that
manifestly harm themselves, look no further than the fact that the highly
intelligent are in charge. This is the flip side to Herrnstein and Murray's
hypothesis that the U.S., and by extension other Western societies, have
become technocratic and ruled by those with higher intelligence; it gives
new meaning to William F. Buckley's quip that he would rather be ruled
by the first 300 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of
Harvard. It might also suggest that there are worse things than
democracy.

Those who have some familiarity with Dr. Kanazawa's published

research will not find all that much new here, but the book does tie
everything together quite well and in a way that elicits new
understanding. Those unfamiliar with his work will find an exposition of
an idea that can profoundly change the way one thinks about the world.
The problem with high IQ
I have recently been reading Malcolm Gladwell‘s new bookOutliers: The Story of
SuccessI have to say that I found a lot of it irritating as I thought his arguments were
very polemic and with lots of flaws, although he is a great storyteller and writer. There
 are however, two interesting chapters on high IQ in the book. As a neuropsychologist
who assesses IQ, I sometimes get people telling me that they or their children have
very high IQ‘s normally over 150 and sometimes over 200. I am never sure when this
comes from as on the most commonly used test of IQ in the US and UK, the
Wechsler scales, the highest IQ you can get is 160. In Gladwell‘s chapter he
discusses the case of Chris Langan a person with one of the highest IQ‘s in the US,
with an IQ of 195.
I think a lot of people think that having a high IQ is a very valued attribute and thus
claim to have a high IQ in order to impress. What people don‘t seem to realize is that
IQ is not an interval scale i.e. like a ruler, getting higher in equal measures. Instead
IQ is a comparison scale, it compares your score to others. About 50% of the
population have an IQ between 90 and 110 making this level of IQ normal. A further
46 % have either a high IQ from 111-130 or a low IQ between 89 and 70. Only 2%
have an IQ below 70 (classed as a learning disability) and 2% or 2 in a 100 people
have an IQ above 130. An IQ above 148 would place you in the top 1 out of 1000
people. However a high IQ isn‘t always a good thing. Gladwell describes how Chris
Langan‘s life has been one of underachievement, he now lives on a farm looking
after animal with a relatively quite life. Gladwell also looked at a long term study of a
group of very high IQ kids who had been followed up. They also hadn‘t done that
well. Gladwell argues that whilst a higher than average IQ predicts good education
etc beyond a certain point (about 120) ‗having additional IQ points doesn‘t seem to
translate into real world advantage‘ (p79).
In my clinical practice I have only rarely seen children with an IQ over 130 and those
that I have seen seem to have found it difficult. They tended to be socially isolated
partly because they couldn‘t relate to their peers. But also a good proportion of these
children had a social communication disorder (Asperger‘s syndrome). In a way a very
high IQ is abnormal. Only a very few people have it and there must be some odd
process in development/evolution for it to occur. It doesn‘t seem to give any particular
benefit and often is associated with difficulties. So my advice is to be careful in
wishing for a very high IQ for you or your child in this regard it is probably better to be
average or high average.
People with high IQs really DO see the world differently: Researchers find they
process sensory information differently
 Experts found that a high IQ brain was better able to block out
larger or more irrelevant images when focussing on a small moving
object
 But surprisingly, when tested with larger objects, people with a high
IQ were slower to see what was right in front of them
 Scientists say this explains why some brains are more efficient
than others
 By RACHEL REILLY
PUBLISHED: 11:31 GMT, 27 May 2013 | UPDATED: 12:15 GMT, 27
May 2013


136
View
comments

People with high IQ scores aren't just more intelligent - they also process
sensory information differently, according to new study.
Scientists discovered that the brains of people with high IQ are
automatically more selective when it comes to perceiving moving
objects, meaning that they are more likely to suppress larger and less
relevant background motion.
‗It is not that people with high IQ are simply better at visual perception,‘
said Duje Tadin of the University of Rochester. ‗Instead, their visual
perception is more discriminating.'
 +2
Scientists discovered that the brains of people with high IQ are more
selective when perceiving objects in motion, meaning that they are more
likely to ignore larger and less relevant background motion
'They excel at seeing small, moving objects but struggle in perceiving
large, background-like motions.‘
The discovery was made by asking people to watch videos showing
moving bars on a computer screen.
Their task was to state whether the bars were moving to the left or to the
right.

More...
 Why developing MORE brain cells can means we forget the early days of
our childhood
 Can you decipher Darwin's handwriting? Museum calls for help in
deciphering handwritten labels on priceless collection
 +2
That ability to block out distraction helps to explain what makes some
brains more efficient than others
The researchers measured how long the video had to run before the
individual could correctly perceive the motion.
The results show that individuals with high IQ can pick up on the
movement of small objects faster than low-IQ individuals can.
'That wasn't unexpected, Tadin says.
The surprise came when tests with larger objects showed just the
opposite: individuals with high IQ were slower to see what was right
there in front of them.
‗There is something about the brains of high-IQ individuals that prevents
them from quickly seeing large, background-like motions,‘ Tadin added.
In other words, it isn't a conscious strategy but rather something
automatic and fundamentally different about the way these people's
brains work.
The ability to block out distraction is very useful in a world filled with
more information than we can possibly take in.
It helps to explain what makes some brains more efficient than others.
An efficient brain 'has to be picky' Tadin said.
The findings were reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology.
WHAT IS AN IQ AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of
standardised tests developed to measure a person's cognitive
abilities or ‘intelligence’ in relation to their age group.
IQ tests do not measure intelligence the way a ruler measures
height , but rather the way a race measures speed.
Modern IQ tests produce scores for different areas - such as
language fluency and three-dimensional thinking - with the overall
score calculated from subtest scores.
The average score, according to the bell curve, is 100.
Studies have linked IQ scores to morbidity and mortality and even
social status.
The average IQ scores for many populations have been rising at an
average rate of three points per decade since the early 20th
century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect.
It is disputed whether these changes in scores reflect real changes
in intellectual abilities.

Low and high IQ behaviour

Low IQ individuals are not monsters. Rather, they are simply people with a more limited
range of behaviour than the common run of homo sapiens, just as children display a more
limited range of behaviour than a normal adult. In particular low IQ individuals have
difficulty with abstractions. This has implications both for problem solving and the empathic
understanding of other people.

A low IQ means that its possessor will find it difficult to deal with the demands of an
advanced society because such a society will require a good deal of abstract thought,
knowledge acquisition which is not related to the natural world, constant learning as
information becomes outdated or additional information has to be learnt.

Of course the problems associated with a low IQ are not restricted only to the racial groups
which possess an inferior IQ distribution In a country with an average IQ of 100
approximately a quarter of the population will have an IQ of 89 or less. Approximately ten per
cent of such a population will have an IQ of 80 or less. But there are two important
differences between such a society and a low IQ community. First, in a high IQ society the
number with IQs which make them unfitted to live independent lives is comparatively small.
Second, those with low IQs can rely on the help of the much larger group who form the higher
IQ majority, the exact reverse of a low IQ society.

Because of the way human beings generally behave, favouring those most like themselves, it
is probable that that the more ethnically/racially homogenous a society is the more likely it is
for the low IQ individual to receive help from higher IQ individuals because of the enhanced
sense of group solidarity. (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism edited by Frank Salter provides
substantial statistical evidence that as the diversity of a society increases support from the
majority population for social provision falls).
High IQ behaviour

High IQ behaviour is more complex than low IQ behaviour for the beautifully simple reason
that the high IQ individual has a wider range of intellectual competence than the low IQ
individual.

A high IQ will, other things being equal, give its possessor an advantage in any occupation
which relies significantly on IQ related skills. This does not have to be a high status
occupation. For example, someone with an IQ of 160 will tend to be a more expert machinist
than someone with a low IQ.

The higher the IQ the more people will tend to earn and the higher status job they will tend to
occupy. However, when it comes to making a fortune (as opposed to inheriting it or gaining it
through good fortune such as a win on the lottery), IQ is probably not the prime determinant.
At best it might be a necessary but not sufficient condition but even that is dubious. Think of
all the highly intelligent academics whose material circumstances are modest and the many
people of little education and no obvious unusual intelligence who end up as multi-
millionaires. The making a fortune would seem to be more a question of personality – having
a risk-taking personality – persistence and circumstances. It is noteworthy that most
successful entrepreneurs have quite a few attempts before succeeding. This suggests that a
large part of their success is simply the willingness to keep trying and a disregard for the
social harm they cause while failing. It may also be that because a high IQ is more likely to
lead to higher intellectual activity, those with a high IQ are simply more interested in that
activity rather than making money or building a company (entrepreneurship is not only about
money). More prosaically, much will depend on a person’s social circumstances. Many
entrepreneurs have some financial help from inheritance or family assistance, whether that be
financial or simply growing up in a business environment.

High IQ Runs in Families with Psychiatric Issues

November 14, 2013 • Contributed by Jen Wilson, GoodTherapy.org Correspondent

 inShare

Schizophrenia is often found in families with high rates of psychological

illness. When one member of a family has schizophrenia, the chances of
other members developing psychological problems, including
schizophrenia and psychosis, increase. Some of the factors that are
considered when analyzing risk for illness are family history, life
stressors, trauma, and IQ. Each of these had a unique relationship with
risk and schizophrenia.
In a recent study, Kim W. Verweij of the Department of Psychiatry at the
University Medical Centre Utrecht in the Netherlands sought to explore
the influence and evidence of IQ in families with schizophrenia. Using a
sample 696 individuals with schizophrenia and their siblings (766),
Verweij compared IQ scores to those of 517 individuals with no history
of schizophrenia or psychiatric issues. Researchers collected data from all
participants without schizophrenia and scored them separately. Those
with schizophrenia also completed IQ tests and their results were
analyzed independently.

The results showed that siblings of those with schizophrenia only had
elevated IQs if they themselves had any history of mental health issues,
or if other members of their family did. Those siblings who did not have
a family history, excluding the member with schizophrenia, had average
IQs compared to siblings with a robust family history. Verweij also found
that the individuals with schizophrenia, who also had a family member
with mental health issues, had higher IQ scores than the individuals with
schizophrenia and no family history.

Verweij believes that this suggests a high familial influence on psychiatric

impairment in the participants with family illness, while those without
may be more influenced by external and variable factors, such
as trauma, premature birth, or other stressors. Not only do these factors
create a ripe environment for psychological impairment, but they also
increase vulnerability for intellectual and cognitive disability.

This study provides much needed insight into the unique association
between IQ and genetic predisposition for schizophrenia. Verweij added,
“Since the association between IQ scores and family history of
psychiatric disorder in siblings is not extensively investigated, more
research is needed to further address this question.”

Does Super-High IQ = Super-Low Common Sense?

Andrea Kuszewski
Andrea Kuszewski
The Rogue Neuron

Posted: Oct 16, 2009

We have all heard the term ―Nutty Professor,‖ which brings to mind the
highly intelligent yet socially inept individual; excelling in the academic
world, yet failing miserably in the realm of common sense. Is there an
evolutionary explanation for why this phenomenon exists?
Bruce Charlton, editor-in-chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses, says
―yes‖. He calls these people ‗Clever Sillies‘ in his article, ―Clever Sillies—
Why the High IQ Lack Common Sense.‖ Charlton proposes that high IQ is
not just a cognitive ability, but also a cognitive disposition. He says:
My suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and
personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a
tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving,
and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved
behaviour which could be termed common sense.
Charlton suggests that a tendency to rely on analytic ability to problem-
solve everyday situations results in inappropriate behaviors and ideas. I
agree that an over-use of analytical problem-solving in situations that
don‘t require it is inappropriate. He goes on to suggest that the reason for
their strange or inappropriate responses and behaviors in these social
situations stems from their personality trait of Openness to Experience,
one of the big five traits of the Five Factor Model of Personality defined by
Costa and McCrae. Openness is one of the only personality traits that is
highly correlated with IQ; it is characterized by a preference for novelty,
experiencing new things and ideas, and appreciation for art and
aesthetics.
He goes on to explain why he feels this trait explains ‗clever silliness‘:
Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the
many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is
not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for
which humans have evolved ‗domain-specific‘ adaptive behaviours. And
since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the
social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems,
the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average
intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and
behave maladaptively.
Initially, this makes some sense. But I feel that while he is touching on a
very important issue, he is missing the application of this logic completely.
A person with high IQ who overuses analytical ability to problem-solve in
social situations is much like the 170 IQ person who can‘t find their way
out of a paper bag, such as I described in my article ―What Makes a
Genius?‖ There is definitely a ―personality type‖ that can be found in this
range of IQs. However, where I think he misses the point is when he says
that Openness is the cause for this phenomenon.
Charlton claims that by the high IQ person generating many novel ideas
using analytical methods, they appear as foolish and silly to the rest of the
population, and thus are maladaptive behaviors. But I only see this as
problematic if the person is not only high in the Analytic component of
intelligence, but also deficient in another facet of intelligence, the part that
correlates with common sense.
Openness is characterized by not only novelty-seeking behaviors, but also
creative thinking. Not all people who are high IQ are also highly creative,
as I already discussed in my previous article. But people who are high IQ,
plus high in Openness, and also high in Practical Intelligence (the third
facet of Intelligence described by Sternberg in his Triarchic Theory of
Intelligence), are the ones who are able to have many novel, strange
ideas, but also able to appropriately apply them to social situations. The
practical application of novel ideas to situations which result in
appropriate, beneficial outcomes is the definition of creativity. Just
because someone has a novel idea does not mean it will be ―strange‖ or
―silly‖; it depends on the context and application of those novel ideas, and
that is where the person who is high in Practical Intelligence as well as
high in Analytical Intelligence differentiates himself from the ―Nutty
Professor.‖
It is not the presence of novel or seemingly foolish ideas that makes one
silly, it is the absence of the ability to appropriately apply those novel
ideas to the social situation at hand—what we call using common sense.
So while the author of this article was correct in saying that high IQ
people do indeed often fall in the category of ―Clever Sillies,‖ many others
do not. The reason for this socially inept personality type alluded to by
Charlton is not the presence of the trait of Openness, but rather the
inability see the value of the generated novel ideas and know when and
where they are best put to use.
So, do all high IQ people lack common sense? No, but the person with
high IQ and high common sense, or Practical Intelligence, is definitely a
rarer breed of genius.

What We Have Learned About Gifted Children

30th Anniversary
1979 - 2009

Linda Silverman, Ph.D., Director

Gifted Development Center

The Gifted Development Center has been in operation since June, 1979, and we
have assessed over 5,600 children in the last 30 years. By concentrating totally on
the gifted population, we have acquired a considerable amount of knowledge
about the development of giftedness. In 1994-1995, three noted researchers
spent post-doctoral internships assisting us in coding our clinical data to enable
statistical analysis: Drs. Frank Falk and Nancy Miller of the University of Akron,
and Dr. Karen Rogers of the University of St. Thomas. Here are some of the
highlights of what we have learned so far:

1. Parents are excellent identifiers of giftedness in their children: 84% of 1,000

children whose parents felt that they exhibited 3/4 of the traits in
our Characteristics of Giftedness Scale tested in the superior or gifted range. Over
95% demonstrated giftedness in at least one area, but were asynchronous in their
development, and their weaknesses depressed their composite IQ scores.

2. Giftedness can be observed in the first three years by rapid progression through
the developmental milestones. These milestones should be documented and
taken seriously as evidence of giftedness. Early identification of advanced
development is as essential as early identification of any other exceptionality.
Early intervention promotes optimal development in all children.

3. When parents fail to recognize a child’s gifts, teachers may overlook them as
well. Rita Dickinson (1970) found that half of the children she tested with IQs of
132 or above were referred for behavior problems and not seen as gifted by their
teachers or parents. Parent advocacy is critical for gifted children’s emotional and
academic growth. Associate Director, Bobbie Gilman’s (2008a) award-winning
book, Academic Advocacy for Gifted Children: A Parent’s Complete Guide, can
guide parents in effectively advocating for their children. Challenging Highly
Gifted Learners (Gilman, 2008b) is an excellent book for teachers and parents.
4. Children and adults can be assessed at any age. However, the ideal age for
testing is between 5 and 8 ½ years. By the age of 9, highly gifted children may hit
the ceiling of the tests, and gifted girls may be socialized to hide their abilities.
Unless they are absolutely certain they are right, gifted girls are often unwilling to
guess, which lowers their IQ scores.

5. Brothers and sisters are usually within five or ten points in measured ability.
Parents' IQ scores are often within 10 points of their children's; even grandparents'
IQ scores may be within 10 points of their grandchildren's. We studied 148 sets of
siblings and found that over 1/3 were within five points of each other, over 3/5
were within 10 points, and nearly 3/4 were within 13 points. When one child in the
family is identified as gifted, the chances are great that all members of the family
are gifted.

6. Second children are recognized as gifted much less frequently than first-borns or
only children. They often go in the opposite direction of their older siblings and
are less likely to be achievement oriented. Even the first-born identical twin has a
greater chance of being accepted in a gifted program than the second-born!

7. IQ testing in childhood clearly demonstrates the equality of intelligence between

males and females. Until the IQ test was developed, most of society believed in the
―natural superiority of males.‖ Even now, the fact that most of the eminent are men
leads some to believe that males are innately more intelligent than females. On the
contrary, we have found more than 100 girls with IQ scores above 180. The
highest IQ score on record at our Center was attained by a girl, and four of the five
highest scores were earned by girls. However, parents are more likely to bring their
sons for assessment and overlook their daughters, and this inequity appears to be
getting worse. From 1979 to 1989, 57% of the children brought for testing were
male, and 43% were female, whereas 51% above 160 IQ were male and 49%
female (see chart). In 2008, 68% of the children brought for testing were male and
only 32% female, while the distribution in the highest IQ ranges is 60% male and
40% female.

Males above
Females above 160 IQ Total
160 IQ
1979 –1989 94 89 183
1990 – 2009 507 298 805
1979 – 2009 601 387 988
8. Gifted girls and gifted boys have different coping mechanisms and are likely to
face different problems. Gifted girls hide their abilities and learn to blend in with
other children. In elementary school they direct their mental energies into
developing social relationships; in junior high school they are valued for their
appearance and sociability rather than for their intelligence. Gifted boys are easier
to spot, but they are often considered ―immature" and may be held back in school if
they cannot socialize with children their own age with whom they have no common
interests.

9. Gifted children are asynchronous. Their development tends to be uneven, and

they often feel out-of-sync with age peers and with age-based school expectations.
They are emotionally intense and have greater awareness of the perils of the world.
They may not have the emotional resources to match their cognitive awareness.
They are at risk for abuse in environments that do not respect their differences.

10. This asynchrony is often seen in large discrepancies between index scores on
the fourth edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV). In
these cases, the Full Scale IQ score should not be used to select gifted students for
programs. Instead, the General Ability Index (GAI), which omits Working Memory
and Processing Speed, provides a better estimate of the child’s reasoning ability.
The GAI has been endorsed by the National Association for Gifted
Children: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=375. Extended norms are now
available for the WISC-IV:http://harcourtassessment.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-
us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8979-044&Mode=resource

11. The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB5) measures
mathematical and visual-spatial abilities better than abstract verbal reasoning
abilities. When the SB5 is used for selection of gifted students for programs, the
cut-off score for admission should be lowered to 120 IQ. Different scoring options
are available for gifted children, including Rasch-ratio scores. The publisher
permits the administration of the older version of theStanford-Binet (Form L-M) to
assess abstract verbal abilities, especially in exceptionally gifted children, and
recommends that it be administered in conjunction with the SB5 so that various
scores can be compared (Carson & Roid, 2004).

12. Creative children, culturally diverse children, mathematically talented children,

children with attention deficits, highly gifted children, learning disabled children,
and underachievers often are visual-spatial learners who require different teaching
methods. Visual-spatial learners usually think in pictures or rely on ―sensing‖ or
feeling, whereas auditory-sequential learners usually think in words. Typical
educational strategies are a better match for auditory-sequential learners than for
visual-spatial learners. We have developed methods of identifying this learning
pattern and effective strategies for teaching visual-spatial learners (Silverman,
2002). Our Visual-Spatial Identifier can be used with entire school districts or
classes, as well as individually. Please visit www.VisualSpatial.org for free
information about strategies for teaching visual-spatial learners.

13. Gifted children have better social adjustment in classes with children like
themselves. The brighter the child, the lower his or her social self-concept is likely
to be in the regular classroom. Social self-concept improves when children are
placed with true peers in special classes.

14. Perfectionism, sensitivity and intensity are three personality traits associated
with giftedness. They are derived from the complexity of the child's cognitive and
emotional development. According to Dabrowski's theory, these traits—related to
overexcitabilities—are indicative of potential for high moral values in adult life.
The brighter the child, the earlier and more profound may be his or her concern
with moral issues. But this potential usually does not develop in a vacuum. It
requires nurturing in a supportive environment.

15. About 60% of gifted children are introverted compared with 30% of the general
population. Approximately 75% of highly gifted children are introverted.
Introversion correlates with introspection, reflection, the ability to inhibit
aggression, deep sensitivity, moral development, high academic achievement,
scholarly contributions, leadership in academic and aesthetic fields in adult life, and
smoother passage through midlife; however, it is very likely to be misunderstood
and ―corrected‖ in children by well-meaning adults.

16. Mildly, moderately, highly, exceptionally and profoundly advanced children are
as different from each other as mildly, moderately, severely and profoundly
delayed children are from each other, but the differences among levels of giftedness
are rarely recognized.

17. There are far more exceptionally gifted children in the population than anyone
realizes. Approximately 18% of the 5,600+ children we have assessed in the last 30
years are exceptionally gifted, with IQ scores above 160 IQ. As of January 1,
2009, we found at least 988 children above 160 IQ, including 281 above 180 IQ
and 87 above 200 IQ. We have entered massive data on 241 of these children—
the largest sample in this IQ range ever to be studied (Rogers & Silverman, 1997).
Only two comprehensive studies have been published to date on children in these
ranges. Leta Hollingworth (1942) found 12 children above 180 IQ between 1916
and 1939 and Miraca Gross (1993; 2004) studied 60 Australian children with IQ
scores above 160.

18. Many cases of underachievement are linked to chronic early ear infections (9 or
more in the first three years), with residual effects of auditory sequential processing
deficits and attentional problems. Spelling, arithmetic, handwriting, rote
memorization, attention, and motivation to do written work are all typically
affected.
19. Gifted children may have hidden learning disabilities. Approximately one-sixth
of the gifted children who come to the Center for testing have some type of
learning disability—often undetected before the assessment—such as central
auditory processing disorder (CAPD), difficulties with visual processing, sensory
processing disorder, spatial disorientation, dyslexia, and attention deficits.
Giftedness masks disabilities and disabilities depress IQ scores. Higher abstract
reasoning enables children to compensate to some extent for these weaknesses,
making them harder to detect. However, compensation requires more energy,
affects motivation, and breaks down under stress or when the child is fatigued.

20.Gifted/learning-disabled children and visual-spatial learners usually have at least

one parent with the same learning pattern. Visual-spatial learners and children with
dual exceptionalities tend to get smarter as they get older and often become
successful adults.

21. Difficult birth histories, such as long labor, heads too large for the birth canal,
four or more hours of Pitocin to induce labor, emergency C-sections, cords
wrapped around any part of the infant’s body, and oxygen at birth, can lead to
sensory processing disorder (SPD). Parents, teachers, and pediatricians should be
alerted that the critical period for ameliorating sensory-motor deficits is from birth
to age seven. When gross or fine motor weaknesses are seen, pediatric
occupational therapy should be sought immediately, rather than waiting for the
child to ―outgrow‖ the problem.

22. Giftedness is not elitist. It cuts across all socio-economic, ethnic and national
groups (Dickinson, 1970). In every culture, there are developmentally advanced
children who have greater abstract reasoning and develop at a faster rate than their
age peers. Though the percentage of gifted students among the upper classes may
be higher, a much greater number of gifted children come from the lower classes,
because the poor far outnumber the rich (Zigler & Farber, 1985). Therefore, when
provisions are denied to the gifted on the basis that they are "elitist," it is the poor
who suffer the most. The rich have other options.

23. The more egalitarian gifted programs attempt to be, the less defensible they
are. Children in the top and bottom three percent of the population have atypical
developmental patterns and require differentiated instruction. Children in the top
and bottom 10 percent of the population are not statistically or developmentally
different from children in the top and bottom 15 percent, and it is not justifiable to
single them out for special treatment. More and more school districts are realizing
this in this new millennium, and are providing in-depth services for those who need
them the most. Self-contained, multi-age programs for the gifted and radical
acceleration are gaining in popularity.
Anxiety Linked to High IQ
Excessive worry might not be such a bad thing after all — a new small study
suggests that such anxiety may have evolved in people along with intelligence.

The results show, among people diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, high
IQ scores were associated with high levels of worry.

In addition, those with anxiety disorder tended to have higher IQ scoresthan healthy
people, as well as higher levels of activity in regions of the brain that aid in
communication between parts of the brain. These regions are thought to have
contributed to the evolutionary success of humans, the researchers say.

Although we tend to view anxiety as not being good for us, it is linked with
intelligence — a highly adaptive trait, said Dr. Jeremy Coplan, study researcher and
professor of psychiatry at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center.

High levels of anxiety can be disabling, and patients' worries are often irrational,
Coplan said. But "every so often there's a wild-card danger. Then, that excessive
worry becomes highly adaptive," Coplan said.

"People who act on the signals of that wild-card danger are likely to preserve their
lives and the lives of their offspring," Coplan said.

Because the study was small, more research is needed to confirm the findings.

Anxiety and intelligence

In the study, 26 patients with anxiety disorder and 18 healthy people completed an IQ
test, along with a questionnaire to assess their level of worry.

Among the participants with anxiety disorders, the higher their worry level, the greater
their IQ score was.

Interestingly, the opposite was seen in healthy patients: those with high IQ scores
tended to have low levels of worry, and those with low IQ scores tended to have high
levels of worry — a finding that agrees with earlier research.

Not enough worry

Too little worry can be problematic for individuals and society, Coplan said. Some
people are "incapable of seeing any danger, even when danger is imminent, he said.
"If these folks are in positions as leaders, they are going to indicate to the general
populace that there's no need to worry," Coplan said. In some situations, like the
recent real estate bubble, that lack of worry can have societal consequences, he
said.

The study was published Feb. 1 in the journal Frontiers in Evolutionary

Neuroscience.

Pass it on: In some situations, excessive worrying is advantageous, and the trait
may have co-evolved with intelligence.

What is a High IQ?

IQ tests measure intelligence level. What is a high iq score? An IQ of 115 or more can be
considered to be a high IQ (and intelligence) level. Only 15% of the population have
an IQ level of 115 or above.
An IQ of 124 is needed to become a member of the International High IQ Society. This is
the first entry-point score into high IQ societies.
At the next step up, around 2% of the population has an IQ greater than 130 which is
‗gifted‘ intelligence. This is an IQ of 2 standard deviations from the average IQ. This is
Mensa standard – IQ score on a valid, standardized IQ test required to become a
member of Mensa. (Click here for a tutorial on how to get into Mensa.)
This table can help you interpret IQ scores in terms of relative IQ rankings:

IQ Scale – Rankings Table

 High IQ & Intelligence Benefits
Intelligence benefits and the advantages of having a high IQ include the following:

Intelligence Benefits 1: Brain Fitness & Brain

Performance
Athletes have known for a long time that athletic performance benefits from targeted
training that has a scientific basis. Scientific has revolutionized sporting achievement.
The same approach is now being applied to the brain, to optimize its performance.
 The brain is a physical organ, and like other organs or muscles in the body it can
be trained to be fitter and more efficient.
 Your IQ is not just your ability to solve problems – it is a measure of your overall brain
fitness and efficiency.
There are two ways the brain can increase its power and efficiency as IQ increases:

 Brain plasticity – the ability of brain to reorganise itself by growing new brain cells or
connections.
 Energy supply to the brain - particularly when it‘s working hard.

With a smarter brain, there are all-round cognitive benefits for attentional focus and grit,
problem solving efficiency, learning capacity and memory – much like there are all-round
physical benefits to being in good shape physically. Having a higher IQ also directly
improves health and life-expectancy as this data shows:
 IQ and life-expectancy

Intelligence Benefits 2: A High IQ as Cognitive

Capital in the Knowledge Economy
According to Jerry Muller in his article Capitalism and Inequality in the March 2013 s
issue of Foreign Affairs, we live in a ‗cognitive economy‘ where cognitive ability is at a
premium:
―…a period of growing equality of access to education and increasing
stratification of marketplace rewards, both of which have increased the
importance of human capital. One element of human capital is cognitive
ability: quickness of mind, the ability to infer and apply patterns drawn from
experience, and the ability to deal with mental complexity. Another is character
and social skills: self-discipline, persistence, responsibility. And a third is actual
knowledge. All of these are becoming increasingly crucial for success in the
postindustrial marketplace.‖
Quickness of mind, the ability to infer and apply patterns and deal with mental complexity
– these are all aspects of our general intelligence. They are all critical in our knowledge
based economy.
 A high IQ in a knowledge economy benefits people for:

 Problem solving at work

 Learning at work
 Adaptability at work
 Continuous improvement at work
 Being flexible in workplace
This pays off in terms of income and professional success, as shown in this data:

IQ ranking and income

 Intelligence Benefits 3: Biohacking & Self-
Quantified Cognitive Performance
Due to its neuroplasticity effects, HighIQPro is a ‗biohack‘ – a technological intervention
to improve cognitive performance.
A biohacker (or ―wetware hacker‖) is similar to a computer hacker who creates and
modifies computer software or computer hardware as a hobby, but he or she does it with
their body, brain and biology.

Biohacking has joined forces with the self-quantification movement resulting in a

philosophy of self-experimentation and scientifically based training and technological
intervention to improve human potential and performance – both physical and cognitive.
People using the self-quantification approach track and quantify the widespread cognitive
and neuroplasticity effects of increasing IQ. Apart from the measurable effects on
learning ability, problem solving, reasoning and attentional focus, HighIQPro training has
other effects on brain performance – such as the amount of REM sleep during a night‘s
sleep. REM sleep is known to play an important role in learning and consolidating
memories.

Intelligence Benefits 4: Countering Cognitive

Aging & Loss of Cognitive Functioning
Aging entails many physical, biological, chemical, and psychological changes. The brain
is no exception to this phenomenon. As we age, particularly beyond our mid 40s, there is
a general drop in cognitive performance in problem solving and reasoning ability, spatial
ability, as well as short term memory.
 This cognitive decline is a normal process, with cognitive decline symptoms including
forgetfulness, distractability, less efficient learning and less flexibility and power in
problem solving. It is known there is a decrease in grey matter (dedicated processing
circuitry) in the brain between adulthood and old age, whereas white matter (long range
connectivity) in the brain increases from age 19-40, and decline after this age.
This natural cognitive decline benefits from HighIQPro training, slowing down the
process and in some casing reversing it.
Intelligence Benefits 5: Overcoming Attention
Disorders
Attention deficit disorders include symptoms such as inattention, easy distractibility,
disorganization, procrastination, and forgetfulness. The working memory capacity
training used in HighIQPro directly trains the executive and attentional control
mechanisms that are weakened in attention disorders. This training has been shown in
replicated studies to result in these attention-related cognitive benefits (reviews: Morrison
& Chein, 2011; Salminen, Strobach & Schubert, 2012):
 Multi-tasking – i.e. attentional selection between two sets of information associated with
different tasks.
 Detaching attention from irrelevant items and attending to new relevant items.
 Shielding against interfering information.
 Reduced symptoms of ADHD.
 Improvements for frontal lobe stroke patients.
Thus HighIQPro training can be an effective ADHD strategy, as well as a useful training
method for less pronounced attention disorders.
Clever Sillies - Why the high IQ lack common sense
Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense
Bruce G. Charlton

Medical Hypotheses. 2009;73: 867-870.

Summary

In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept ‗nutty
professor‘ stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of ‗psychological neoteny‘ whereby
intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in
a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples
of the general phenomenon of ‗clever sillies‘ whereby intelligent people with high levels of
technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish
ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has
often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‗common sense‘ – and especially
when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a
cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of
higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including
the trait of ‗Openness to experience‘, ‗enlightened‘ or progressive left-wing political
values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for
this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of
IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-
solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour
which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often
useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing
societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for
which humans have evolved ‗domain-specific‘ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved
common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that,
when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than
those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and
behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent
people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in
addition ‗advertising‘ their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a
modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-
exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among
the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong.
Hence the phenomenon of ‗political correctness‘ (PC); whereby false and foolish ideas
have come to dominate, and moralistically be enforced upon, the ruling elites of whole
nations.

***

IQ and evolved problem-solving

On the whole, and all else being equal, in modern societies the higher a person‘s general
intelligence (as measured by the intelligence quotient or IQ), the better will be life for
that person; since higher intelligence leads (among other benefits) to higher social status
and salary, longer life expectancy and better health [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. However,
at the same time, it has been recognized for more than a century that increasing IQ is
biologically-maladaptive because there is an inverse relationship between IQ and fertility
[6], [7] and [8]. Under modern conditions, therefore, high intelligence is fitness-
reducing.

In the course of exploring this modern divergence between social-adaptation and

biological-adaptation, Satoshi Kanazawa has made the insightful observation that a high
level of general intelligence is mainly useful in dealing with life problems which are an
evolutionary novelty. By contrast, performance in solving problems which were a normal
part of human life in the ancestral hunter–gatherer era may not be helped (or may
indeed be hindered) by higher IQ [9] and [10].

(This statement requires a qualification. When a person has suffered some form of brain
damage, or a pathology affecting brain function, then this might well produce generalized
impairment of cognition: reducing both general intelligence and other forms of evolved
cognitive functioning, depending on the site and extent of the brain pathology. Since a
population with low IQ would include some whose IQ had been lowered by brain
pathology, the average level of social intelligence or common sense would probably also
be lower in this population. This confounding effect of brain pathology would be expected
to create a weak and non-causal statistical correlation between IQ and social
intelligence/common sense, a correlation that would mainly be apparent at low levels of
IQ.)

As examples of how IQ may help with evolutionary novelties, it has been abundantly-
demonstrated that increasing measures of IQ are strongly and positively correlated with
a wide range of abilities which require abstract reasoning and rapid learning of new
knowledge and skills; such as educational outcomes, and abilities at most complex
modern jobs [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [11]. Science and mathematics are classic
examples of problem-solving activities that arose only recently in human evolutionary
history and in which differential ability is very strongly predicted by relative general
intelligence [12].

However, there are also many human tasks which our human ancestors did encounter
repeatedly and over manifold generations, and natural selection has often produced
‗instinctive‘, spontaneous ways of dealing with these. Since humans are social primates,
one major such category is social problems, which have to do with understanding,
predicting and manipulating the behaviours of other human beings [13], [14], [15] and
[16]. Being able to behave adaptively in dealing with these basic human situations is
what I will term having ‗common sense‘.

Kanazawa‘s idea is that there is therefore a contrast between recurring, mainly social
problems which affected fitness for our ancestors and for which all normal humans have
evolved behavioural responses; and problems which are an evolutionary novelty but
which have a major impact on individual functioning in the context of modern societies
[9] and [10]. When a problem is an evolutionary novelty, individual differences in general
intelligence make a big difference to each individual‘s abilities to analyze the problem,
and learn to how solve it. So, the idea is that having a high IQ would predict a better
ability in understanding and dealing with new problems; but higher IQ would not increase
the level of a person‘s common sense ability to deal with social situations.

IQ not just an ability, but also a disposition

Although general intelligence is usually conceptualized as differences in cognitive ability,

IQ is not just about ability but also has personality implications [17].

For example, in some populations there is a positive correlation between IQ and the
personality trait of Openness to experience (‗Openness‘) [18] and [19]; a positive
correlation with ‗enlightened‘ or progressive values of a broadly socialist and libertarian
type [20]; and a negative correlation with religiousness [21].

So, the greater cognitive ability of higher IQ is also accompanied by a somewhat

distinctive high IQ personality type. My suggested explanation for this association is that
an increasing level of IQ brings with it an increased tendency to use general intelligence
in problem-solving; i.e. to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved
behaviour which could be termed common sense.

The over-use of abstract reasoning may be most obvious in the social domain, where
normal humans are richly equipped with evolved psychological mechanisms both for
here-and-now interactions (e.g. rapidly reading emotions from facial expression, gesture
and posture, and speech intonation) and for ‗strategic‘ modelling of social interactions to
understand predict and manipulate the behaviour of others [16]. Social strategies deploy
inferred knowledge about the dispositions, motivations and intentions of others. When
the most intelligent people over-ride the social intelligence systems and apply generic,
abstract and systematic reasoning of the kind which is enhanced among higher IQ
people, they are ignoring an ‗expert system‘ in favour of a non-expert system.

In suggesting that the most intelligent people tend to use IQ to over-ride common sense
I am unsure of the extent to which this is due to a deficit in the social reasoning ability,
perhaps due to a trade-off between cognitive abilities – as suggested by Baron-Cohen‘s
conceptualization of Asperger‘s syndrome, including the male- versus female-type of
systematizing/empathizing brain [22]. Or alternatively it could be more of an habitual
tendency to over-use abstract analysis, that might (in principle) be overcome by effort or
with training. Observing the apparent universality of ‗Silly Clevers‘ in modernizing
societies, I suspect that a higher IQ bias towards over-utilizing abstract reasoning would
probably turn-out to be innate and relatively stable.

Indeed, I suggest that higher levels of the personality trait of Openness in higher IQ
people may the flip-side of this over-use of abstraction. I regard Openness as the result
of deploying abstract analysis for social problems to yield unstable and unpredictable
results, when innate social intelligence would tend to yield predictable and stable results.
This might plausibly underlie the tendency of the most intelligent people in modernizing
societies to hold ‗left-wing‘ political views [10] and [20].

I would argue that neophilia (or novelty-seeking) is a driving attribute of the personality
trait of Openness; and a disposition common in adolescents and immature adults who
display what I have termed ‗psychological neoteny‘ [23] and [24]. When problems are
analyzed using common sense ‗instincts‘ the evaluative process would be expected to
lead to the same answers in all normal humans, and these answers are likely to be stable
over time. But when higher IQ people ignore or over-ride common sense, they generate
a variety of uncommon ideas. Since these ideas are only feebly-, or wholly un-,
supported by emotions; they are held more weakly than common sense ideas, and so are
more likely to change over time.

For instance, a group of less intelligent people using instinctive social intelligence to
analyze a social situation will presumably reach the same traditional conclusion as
everyone else and this conclusion will not change with time; while a more intelligent
group might by contrast use abstract analysis and generate a wider range of novel and
less-compelling solutions. This behaviour appears as if motivated by novelty-seeking.

Applying abstract analysis to social situations might be seen as ‗creative‘, and indeed
Openness has been put forward as the major personality trait which supports creativity
[19] and [25]. This is reasonable in the sense that an intellectual high in Openness would
be likely to disregard common sense, and to generate multiple, unpredictable and
unfamiliar answers to evolutionarily-familiar problems which would only yield a single
‗obvious‘ solution to those who deployed evolved modes of intelligence. However, I would
instead argue that a high IQ person applying abstract systemizing intelligence to
activities which are more usually done by instinctive intelligence is not a truly ‗creative‘
process.

Instead, following Eysenck, I would regard true psychological creativity as primarily an

associative activity which Eysenck includes as part of the trait Psychoticism; cognitively
akin to the ‗primary process‘ thinking of sleep, delirium and psychotic illness [26] and
[27]. A major difference between these two concepts of creativity is that while ‗Openness
creativity‘ is abstract, coolly-impartial and as if driven by novelty-seeking (neophilia);
‗Psychoticism creativity‘ is validated by emotions: such that the high-Psychoticism
creative person is guided by their emotional responses to their own creative production.

Clever sillies in the IQ meritocracy

It therefore seems plausible that the folklore or stereotypical idea of the eccentric,
unworldly, absent-minded or obtuse scientist – who is brilliant at their job while being
fatuous and incompetent in terms of their everyday life [28], might be the result of this
psychological tendency to over-use abstract intelligence and use it in inappropriate
situations.

However, there is a further aspect of this phenomenon. Modern societies are

characterized by large population, extensive division of labour, and a ‗meritocratic‘ form
of social organization in which social roles (jobs, occupations) tend to be filled on the
basis of educational credentials and job performance rather than on an hereditary basis
(as was the case in most societies of the past). This means that in modern societies there
is an unprecedented degree of cognitive stratification [29]. Cognitive stratification is the
layering of social organization by IQ; such that residence, schooling and occupations are
characterized by narrow bands of intelligence. Large modern countries are therefore
ruled by concentrations of highly intelligent people in the major social systems such as
politics, civil administration, law, science and technology, the mass media and education.
Communication in these elites is almost-exclusively among the highly intelligent.

In such an evolutionarily-unprecedented, artificial ‗hothouse‘ environment, it is plausible

that any IQ-related behaviours are amplified: partly because there is little counter-
pressure from the less intelligent people with less neophiliac personalities, and perhaps
mainly because there is a great deal of IQ-advertisement. Indeed, it looks very much as
if the elites of modern societies are characterized by considerable IQ-signalling [19].
Sometimes this is direct advertisement (e.g. when boasting about intellectual
attainments or attendance at highly-selective colleges) and more often the signalling is
subtly-indirect when people display the attitudes, beliefs, fashions, manners and hobbies
associated with high intelligence. This advertising is probably based on sexual selection
[30], if IQ has been a measure of general fitness during human evolutionary history, and
was associated with a wide range of adaptive traits [31].

My hunch is that it is this kind of IQ-advertisement which has led to the most intelligent
people in modern societies having ideas about social phenomena that are not just
randomly incorrect (due to inappropriately misapplying abstract analysis) but are
systematically wrong. I am talking of the phenomenon known as political correctness
(PC) in which foolish and false ideas have become moralistically-enforced among the
ruling intellectual elite. And these ideas have invaded academic, political and social
discourse. Because while the stereotypical nutty professor in the hard sciences is a
brilliant scientist but silly about everything else; the stereotypical nutty professor social
scientist or humanities professor is not just silly about ‗everything else‘, but also silly in
their professional work.

Getting answers to problems relating to hard science is extremely intellectually-difficult

and (because the subject is an evolutionary novelty) necessarily requires abstract
reasoning [12] and [26]. Therefore the hard scientist is invariably vastly more competent
at their science than the average member of the public, and he has no need to be
novelty-seeking in order to advertise his intelligence.

But getting answers to problems in science involving human social behaviour is

something which is already done very well by evolved human psychological mechanisms
[13], [14], [15] and [16]. In this situation it is difficult to improve on common sense,
and – even without being taught – normal people already have a pretty good
understanding of human motivations, incentives and deterrents, and the basic cause and
effect processes of society. Because psychological and social intelligence expertise is so
widespread and adaptive; in order to advertise his intelligence the social scientist must
produce something systematically-different from common sense, something novel and
(necessarily) counter-intuitive. And because it goes against evolved psychology, in this
instance something different is likely to be something wrong. So, the social scientist
professional deploying abstract reasoning on social problems is often less likely to
generate a correct answer than the average member of the public who is using the
common sense of evolved, spontaneous social intelligence.

In the human and social sciences there is therefore a professional incentive to be

perversely wrong – to be silly, in other words. And this is indeed what we see. The more
that the subject matter of an academic field requires, or depends on, common sense; the
sillier it will be.

The results of cognitive stratification and IQ-advertising are therefore bad enough to
have destroyed the value of whole domains of the arts and academia, and in the domain
of public policy the results have been simply disastrous. Over the past four decades the
dishonest fantasy-world discourse of non-biological political correctness has evolved to
dominate the intellectual arena of whole nations – perhaps the whole developed world –
such that wrong and ridiculous ideas have become not just mainstream, but compulsory.

Because clever silliness is not just one of several competing ideas in the elite arena – it is
both intellectually- and moralistically-enforced with such zeal as utterly to exclude
alternatives [32]. The first level of defence is that denying a PC assertion is taken as
proof of dumbness or derangement; such that flat-denial without refutation is regarded
as sufficient response. But the toughest enforcement is moral: anyone smart and sane
who disbelieves the silly clever falsehoods and asserts something different is not just
denounced as dumb but actually pilloried as evil [33].

I infer that the motivation behind the moralizing venom of political correctness is the fact
that spontaneous human instincts are universal and more powerfully-felt than the absurd
abstractions of PC; plus the fact that common sense is basically correct while PC is
perversely wrong. Hence, at all costs a fair debate must be prevented if the PC
consensus is to be protected. Common sense requires to be stigmatized in order that it is
neutralized.

Ultimately these manoeuvres serve to defend the power, status and distinctiveness of the
intellectual elite [34]. They are socially-adaptive over the short-term, even as they are
biologically-maladaptive over the longer-term.

Conclusion

Because evolved ‗common sense‘ usually produces the right answers in the social
domain, yet the most intelligent people have personalities which over-use abstract
analysis in the social domain [9] and [10], this implies that the most intelligent people
are predisposed to have silly ideas and to behave maladaptively when it comes to solving
social problems.
Ever since the development of cognitive stratification in modernizing societies [29], the
clever sillies have been almost monopolistically ‗in charge‘. They really are both clever
and silly – but the cleverness is abstract while the silliness is focused on the
psychological and social domains. Consequently, the fatal flaw of modern ruling elites lies
in their lack of common sense – especially the misinterpretations of human psychology
and socio-political affairs. My guess is that this lack of common sense is intrinsic and
incorrigible – and perhaps biologically-linked with the evolution of high intelligence and
the rise of modernity [35].

Stanovich has also described the over-riding of the ‗Darwinian brain‘ of autonomous
systems by the analytic system, and has identified the phenomenon as underlying
modern non-adaptive ethical reasoning [36]. Stanovich has also noted that IQ accounts
for much (but not all) of the inter-individual differences in using analytic evaluations;
however, Stanovich regards the increased use of abstraction to replace traditional
‗common sense‘ very positively, not as ‗silly‘ but as a vital aspect of what he interprets as
the higher status of modern social morality.

Yet, whatever else, to be a clever silly is a somewhat tragic state; because it entails
being cognitively-trapped by compulsive abstraction; unable to engage directly and
spontaneously with what most humans have traditionally regarded as psycho-social
reality; disbarred from the common experience of humankind and instead cut-adrift on
the surface of a glittering but shallow ocean of novelties: none of which can ever truly
convince or satisfy. It is to be alienated from the world; and to find no stable meaning of
life that is solidly underpinned by emotional conviction [37]. Little wonder, perhaps, that
clever sillies usually choose sub-replacement reproduction [6].

To term the Western ruling elite ‗clever sillies‘ is of course a broad generalization, but is
not merely name-calling. Because, as well as political correctness being systematically
dishonest [33] and [34]; in relation to absolute and differential fertility, modern elite
behaviour is objectively maladaptive in a strictly biological sense. It remains to be seen
whether the genetic self-annihilation of the IQ elite will lead-on towards self-annihilation
of the societies over which they rule.

Note: I should in all honesty point-out that I recognize this phenomenon from the inside.
In other words, I myself am a prime example of a ‗clever silly‘; having spent much of
adolescence and early adult life passively absorbing high-IQ-elite-approved, ingenious-
but-daft ideas that later needed, painfully, to be dismantled. I have eventually been
forced to acknowledge that when it comes to the psycho-social domain, the
commonsense verdict of the majority of ordinary people throughout history is much more
likely to be accurate than the latest fashionably-brilliant insight of the ruling elite. So,
this article has been written on the assumption, eminently-challengeable, that although I
have nearly-always been wrong in the past – I now am right….
An Unfulfilled Life: How High
Intelligence Has Led To My Love/Hate
Relationship With Work

I don't like to write about intelligence. It is one of those topics that for
some reason seems taboo. My experience has been that people get angry,
defensive, and critical when I bring it up. But I want to break my own
rules today and talk about it because I read this article about career
advice for geniuses and began reflecting on my own unfulfilling work
history. I began to wonder if many of you read this blog because you view
the world much like I do. Many of you are probably quite intelligent and as
such have lived through a series of similarly unfulfilling jobs. I hope you
reach the end of this post and feel a sigh of relief, knowing that you aren't
the only one that has this struggle.
The post is divided into three parts. First, my own history and experience.
Secondly, why I think intelligence can be a curse at work, and why
companies don't embrace the best and brightest. Thirdly, what you can do
if you are an intelligent but unfulfilled employee and what to do if you are
a manager that needs to engage a highly intelligent individual.
I will say upfront that entrepreneurship may be an excellent path for
highly intelligent people interested in business, because it requires
analysis and decision making on many different levels with different time
frames and different problem domains – everything a genius really wants.
1. My Experience
I should have known something was wrong with me in the sixth grade
when, given the chance to present a topic to the class, I chose "Atoms
and Molecules." Most other students chose celebrities, sports figures, or
historical events. I mixed vinegar and baking soda and listened to the
class laugh as it overflowed my jug and soak the surrounding carpet. I
was always in the advanced classes and went on to a high school for
smart kids and did well but was more interested in girls and basketball
during this period of my life. Otherwise I could have applied myself much
more.
I went to college and majored in Electrical Engineering, but I often found
the classes boring. I remember sitting in the back of my Electromagnetics
class and reading a book on Fuzzy Logic because I found it more
interesting and the college didn't have a course in it. As a senior, I took an
ASIC design course and missed a key lecture on how to draw various
transistor implementations of logic gates. It was an important component
of the course, so I had to learn it on my own for the exam. A bonus
problem on the exam was some sort of funky logic equation that we had
to implement in as few transistors as possible. I was the only person in
the class to get it right, and I even beat the implementation of the
professor. Since I learned it on my own I had developed a different way of
thinking about these problems, and he was so impressed he offered me a
scholarship to grad school to come work in his lab. This was the late 90s
though, and tech was lucrative so I wasn't going to give up good money
for more schooling.
During my college years I also managed a restaurant that had lost money
for three years and had it's first profitable quarter about six months after I
came on board. I started to think that maybe I had unconventional ideas
because I was smart, and not because I was crazy.
I started my professional work career and found that I had problems. I
loved to tackle new things, unique problems, and I loved to debug
hardware. But I hated doing many of the tasks that seemed to be part of
the job. I didn't relate well to others when it came to unspoken
expectations. If I was given lots of leeway in how to do something it was
almost certain to turn out in a way that my manager did not anticipate. It
seemed that I never had the same set of assumptions about a problem as
anyone else.
I did some excellent things and I flopped on some things. Whether I was a
good or bad employee depended on who you talked to. I didn't deal well
with the structure. The career path was pretty much the same for
everybody and I didn't have the chance to pursue projects that I found
interesting. I was just given stuff that managers thought I should be doing
based on my experience level and were the internal openings were.
After awhile I finally went to see a psychologist. I told him I thought I had
problems because my worldview seemed to be so dramatically different
than everyone else I knew. He suggested I take an intelligence test, which
is how I ended up in MENSA. For the first time in a long time, I breathed a
sigh of relief. It didn't fix anything, but it did give me some external
verification that helped me deal with everything.
Throughout my career, I have felt, and still feel, like I could contribute so
much more if given the chance. I feel like I live in a world where everyone
expects things to work a certain way but to me the rules seem arbitrary
and in some ways that makes it much more difficult to fit in. I have not
had a normal career path, and by and large this is seen as a negative
rather than a positive. I'm not sure where I will end up, but I keep looking
for that job where I get paid to work on really hard really unique
problems.
The irony in the fact that I am usually bored with my jobs is that I really
love to work. My hobbies usually consist of side projects and businesses
that are fun and challenging. My parents joke that the things I do for fun
are things most people consider work. That is the love/hate relationship I
am talking about. I love to do things. I love to think, analyze, discuss,
debate, research, build, debug, etc. When I get home from work, I blog, I
work logic puzzles, I study Chinese, I read (mostly non-fiction and lots of
textbooks). I don't like to do things that don't require my brain to be
engaged. But I end up hating most jobs because it seems that companies
try to take all the thinking out of the work – probably because most
people don't like it.
The one deviation was my first major foray into entrepreneurship. I
thoroughly enjoyed the challenge of it all but, for various reasons,
eventually sold my stake to my business partner.
2. Intelligence as a curse at work.
Out of all the possible tests you could give someone, the single best
predictor of on the job success is raw intelligence. If you don't believe me,
look it up. The problem is that even intelligence only has a weak
correlation with job success (which means that we are really not very
good at predicting who will be successful in what positions, without
spending a lot of time and money looking at many different components of
the person and the job). Add to that the fact that even intelligent people
are frequently wrong (though statistically they may fare better than
others), and you see why the value in hiring really smart people might not
be readily evident to most companies.

Intelligent people often understand counterintuitive ideas that don't make

sense to others. They often see complex interactions between things that
others don't see or understand. On average, they are quicker to change
views and less tied to a specific ideology. This is a big problem in the
workplace because most everyone has their pet theories that they hold
dear. Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Myers-Briggs
disciples, Predictive Index disciples, and on and on… people believe many
things that they will never let go of, regardless of the evidence. Intelligent
people just don't care as much about ideologies and the idols and gurus
that promote them as others do.
Just last week during coffee with some friends, one guy turned to the
other and said "if there is anyone you admire don't tell Rob about it. He'll
boot them right off of the pedestal." It's not that I do it intentionally, I
just like to present a balanced view of an issue which often surprises
people who haven't been exposed to the full story about something.
Intelligent people tend to be ambivalent about a broad number of topics.
While this stems from being informed and having a good understanding of
the complexity of most situations, it is often seen in the workplace as
being wishy-washy. That doesn't help careers in an age where decisive
inspirational leaders are worshipped by the business media. (Keep in mind
as I go through these that I'm not speaking in absolutes about
intelligence. There are smart people that are charismatic and decisive, but
by and large they aren't.)
Intelligent people can master many domains, and they can do it quickly. If
you go to a MENSA meeting, you will meet many people that don't stick to
one thing very long. In part it is because most workplaces won't advance
them quickly enough to keep up with the pace of their learning. It's part
of the problem with school too. I don't usually need a 16 week course to
learn something. I need a faster pace.
I read job postings all the time that sound fun and interesting but I know I
don't have a shot because I don't have "7 years experience" in whatever.
Yet at the same time I have worked with people that are shocked at how
quickly I came up to speed on something. Career changes for smart
people often stem from connections with people that realize their
potential.
Intelligent people often have many interests, and they go through them
quickly because once they have learned about a domain, it loses its allure.
This often gets them lumped with "flighty" people that can't stick with
anything, even though what really happens is that smart people don't
need a ten year career in something before they realize they don't like it.
They figure it out quickly and move on. They like to learn new things, but
tend to have long-term careers in areas that are complex and rapidly
changing. I think the reason business and neuroscience are two fields that
have continued to fascinate me for years is that they are both so complex
and multi-disciplinary. There is so much to learn, and there are macro and
micro problems within many sub-disciplines of these fields.
3. What to do if you are an employer or employee.
If you are highly intelligent, I would encourage you to apply for MENSA.
Their meetings are one of the few places you can go and speak your mind
without getting strange looks. If you read lots of non-fiction and you
always wonders who else is buying those books, you will find some
kindred spirits there. But keep in mind it is a social club for smart people,
and many of the events consist of smart people drinking and eating junk
food while rapidly changing discussion topics.
I would also encourage you to seek work in a multidisciplinary and/or
entrepreneurial environment. Jobs that don't have a standard career path
are much easier to obtain. By contrast, if you suddenly find managerial
accounting to be interesting, you are out of luck. You better go get an
accounting degree, a CMA license, and start in an entry level position. (Or
like a former professor of mine with a PhD in biochemistry, you could go
back and get an accounting PhD, but then most companies will consider
you overqualified.)
If you are stuck in a position and you think people just don't get you,
there are a few options. The best is probably to figure out how you can
contribute to some side project. It is risky to come out of the blue with
some sort of new report/analysis/software/etc, that no one asked you to
do, but there is always the chance that it could be a big hit and people will
start to understand what you are capable of. I wish I had done more of
this early in my career. Your next best bet is probably to try to make
games out of your work. Sometimes I take long tasks and see if I can
complete them in a 30 minute window. It helps me focus and gives me a
challenge. Your other option is to keep your eyes open for unique
opportunities. There are people out there that care more about your ideas
and your ability to learn than about what you have done in the past. There
are people that will tailor jobs to individuals instead of individuals to jobs.
Target small businesses instead of large companies. They are more likely
to appreciate your flexibility. Keep in mind though, that there are lots of
flighty, unfocused, inexperienced people that want good jobs too and
think they deserve them, and that most employers fear they are getting
that type of person, not someone with unusual intellect.
If you are an employer, keep an eye out for people that seem to
consistently have unique perspectives. People often think high intelligence
means "has memorized more facts," but that isn't it at all. It has to do
with the way someone thinks, not necessarily what they know. Highly
intelligent people have the ability to filter information rapidly to get to the
crux of an idea. You can tell this because they ask good questions –
questions that show they understand the idea and are testing its limits
and applicable contexts. Watch for this.
Also remember that highly intelligent people still make mistakes. Be
tolerant of that. Michael Jordan missed a lot of shots during his career
with the Bulls, but you still wanted the ball in his hands with the game on
the line. Nothing is worse than being expected to know everything
because "you're supposed to be a genius."
Give your best and brightest some flexibility. When that bright
programmer wants to move into business development, it might be best
to give him or her a shot. Not everyone is successful at transitioning
domains, but intelligent people will usually rise to the challenge, and you
will be amazed at how much they will learn in a few months.
I could go on and on but this post is already longer than I intended. The
last thing I will say is that employers and employees need to remember
that intelligence is just one component of success. Undisciplined
intelligence is wasteful because intelligence needs to be directed at a
problem. Many very smart people can't focus long enough to solve
something. But if you can harness the power of a highly intelligent
employee, you will undoubtedly appreciate his/her fantastic contributions.
I encourage you to check out , if you want more on this topic. Search
through Mark's archives too, he has written a lot about education and
intelligence.

Visual Test Associated With High IQ

Optical illusions have long been used in neuroscience to point out perceptions into how
the brain functions, and now a visual test can detect impaired abilities to see large
motions in high-IQ people, according to a new study.

The finding, published in Current Biology reveals that people who have high IQ scores process
sensory information differently.

The brains of people with high IQ were automatically more selective when they perceived objects
in motion. More specifically, they are more likely to suppress larger and less important
background motion.

Duje Tadin of the University of Rochester said:

"It is not that people with high IQ are simply better at visual perception. Instead, their visual
perception is more discriminating. They excel at seeing small, moving objects but struggle in
perceiving large, background-like motions."

The study was composed of two series of tests on 67 people with an average IQ score of 100
(each participant took one of two forms of the IQ test), which is normal.

The participants watched a visual test where they were shown movies of circular grids, large and
small, that look as if they are moving to the right or left. Volunteers were asked how many frames
of the movie they needed to see to find the motion.

Results revealed that people with high IQ can detect the movement of small objects faster
than low-IQ people can.

These results were expected, however, it was surprising to see that those with high IQs were
slower to see what was already in front of them.

Tadin explains, "There is something about the brains of high-IQ individuals that prevents them
from quickly seeing large, background-like motions."

Therefore, the authors believe it is not a conscious strategy but instead something automatic and
fundamentally different about the way their brains work.

The skill to eliminate distraction could be helpful in a world filled with more information than we
can possibly absorb. It explains why some brains are more efficient than others.

Tadin concludes an efficient brain "has to be picky."

Relationship between personality adjustment and

high intelligence: Terman versus Hollingworth.

Despite over 50 years of published research, the relationship between personality

adjustment and high intelligence continues to be a topic of controversy (Janos &
Robinson, 1985). Early views (e.g., Lombroso, 1891) held that high intelligence was
associated with insanity or a propensity for adjustment problems. This negative
stereotype was largely refuted by Lewis Terman's longitudinal studies (Terman et al.,
1925-1959). Terman and colleagues demonstrated convincingly that highly intelligent
children, defined by Stanford-Binet IQs greater than 140, tended to be better
adjusted than the norm on a wide range of adjustment variables. Research with other
samples has supported this view (Kelly & Colangelo, 1984; Lehman & Erdwins, 1981;
Reynolds & Bradley, 1983).

Concern over the adjustment of gifted-level children, however, has not abated. Even
at the time of Terman's landmark work, another respected authority in the field, Leta
Hollingworth (1942), contended that highly intelligent children were prone to develop
social and emotional adjustment problems. Similar concerns have been repeated by
many others (Austin & Draper, 1981; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Lajoie & Shore, 1981;
Powell & Haden, 1984; Roedell, 1984; Schauer, 1976).

Thus, it appears that two distinct, seemingly antithetical, views exist regarding the
adjustment of highly intelligent children. Research in the Terman tradition generally
indicates that high intelligence is associated with healthy adjustment. What might be
termed the Hollingworth perspective regards high intelligence as associated with
adjustment problems (Hollingworth, 1942). (Note: The point of this article is not to set
the personal views of Terman and Hollingworth at opposite ends of continuum,
creating a strawman argument. Rather, the influential contributions and status of both
authorities make their names convenient guideposts for identifying--and legitimizing--
two contrasting perspectives on the relationship between adjustment and IQ.)

Taken to its logical conclusion, one view leads to the hypothesis that there is a
positive correlation between intelligence and adjustment. In contrast, the other view
suggests that the correlation would be negative.

One possible explanation is that the relationship between IQ and adjustment is

curvilinear, changing from positive to negative at some point within the gifted range.
However, determination of the point at which IQ becomes a liability rather than an
asset to healthy adjustment is difficult. In the space of a few pages, Hollingworth
(1942, pp. 264-265) mentioned possible cutoff scores of 170, 160, and 150. It should
be noted that Hollingworth's scores were ratio IQs based primarily on the 1916
Stanford-Binet. Ratio and deviation IQs are not equivalent. For example, according to
the manual for the third revision of the Stanford-Binet (Terman & Merrill, 1973), a
ratio IQ of 180 for an 11-year-old would correspond to a deviation IQ of 171, and a
ratio IQ of 150 would be comparable to a deviation IQ of 144 (using Pinneau norms).

A number of studies have claimed poor adjustment in very high IQ children, but these
studies were based on uncertain adjustment criteria and typically did not include
appropriate comparison groups (Kincaid, 1969; Selig, 1951; Zorbaugh, Boardman, &
Sheldon, 1951). Studies that contrasted higher and lower IQ groups directly suggest
a different view. Gallagher and Crowder (1957) found that 35 children with 150+ IQs
were generally well adjusted, despite a few exceptions. Gallagher (1958) found that
150+ IQ (Stanford-Binet) children were among the most popular children in their
respective classes and found no differences between subgroups of 150-164-IQ and
165-205-IQ children. Lewis (1943), however, did report greater maladjustment and
underachievement in a higher (145+) IQ group than in a lower (125-144) IQ group.

Freeman (1979) contrasted a "High IQ" group (IQs of 141-170, mean 155) with a
"Moderate IQ" group (IQs of 97-140, mean 120) on both parent- and child-report
measures of adjustment. Results were generally favorable in both groups, and there
was little indication that the High IQ group was less well adjusted.

Janos (1983) compared 32 "highly gifted" children (IQs above 164) and 49
"moderately gifted" (IQs of 120-140) on several standard adjustment measures. On
Achenbach and Edelbrock's Child Behavior Checklist, there were not significant
differences between groups. Interestingly, even within the highly gifted group, higher
IQs were associated with better adjustment on the Behavior Problems subscale (r = -
.518). There were no differences between groups on the Connor's Teacher Rating
scale, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior scales, or the Piers Harris Children's Self-
Concept scale. However, Janos did conclude that a "significant minority (20-25%)" (p.
96) of highly gifted children suffered adjustment problems.
Feldman (1984) reviewed follow-up data on the 26 subjects in Terman's project who
scored above 180 IQ and 26 subjects with lower, but still gifted-level, IQs (mean
150). There were few differences between the two groups; and he concluded that
exceptionally high IQs did not truly distinguish these individuals from other, more
moderately high IQ subjects.

In summary, there are persistent reports of adjustment problems among the highest IQ
groups, but the evidence is contradictory and largely unpersuasive. Some very high IQ
children with adjustment problems may be expected by chance without the existence of a
specific relationship between IQ and adjustment. One problem is that the use of widely
varying cutoff scores makes comparison across studies difficult. An alternative approach
would be to investigate the direction and magnitude of correlations between IQ and
adjustment within the gifted range, eliminating the need for an arbitrary cutoff.

A second problem is that most studies consider the relationship between IQ and adjustment
in isolation and do not control for possible confounding variables that could obscure the
relationship. Two kinds of confounding variables are considered in the present study:
respondent bias or defensiveness in reporting adjustment problems, and overall family
adjustment. In previous work Cornell and Grossberg (1986) found that controlling for
respondent bias through validity scales associated with the adjustment instrument altered the
pattern of results in a meaningful way. Cornell and Grossberg (1987) also found that family
adjustment, as assessed by the family Cohesion scale of the Family Environment Scale
(Moos & Moos, 1981), was consistently related to both parent and child measures of child
adjustment.

METHOD

Subjects

Parents of 7- to 11-year-old children enrolled in either a public or private school gifted

program were contacted by letter inviting them to participate in the study. Of 153 families
contacted through the private school, 51 (33%) agreed to participate, while 32 of 93 (34%)
families contacted through the public school agreed to participate in the study. The final
sample consisted of 83 children.

All 83 children received individual IQ testing with either the Stanford-Binet (65 children) or the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised (WISC-R; 18 children). Mean IQ for the
entire sample was 139.95 (SD, 11.3). There was no significant difference between children
tested with the STanford-Binet and the WISC-R. The mean IQ for public school children
(143.3) was significantly higher than that for the private school children (137.7), t = 2.29, p *
.05. This mean IQ difference appears to be attributable to a difference in selection criteria for
the gifted programs by the two schools. The policy for the public school was not to include
children with IQs below 130, while the private school admitted children with IQs as low as
120, provided that there was evidence of exceptional talent or ability in some area (e.g.,
creative writing).

In preliminary analyses, there were no differences between public and private school children
in any of the 12 adjustment measures. Simple correlations were calculated between IQ and
each adjustment measure separately for public and private school children. When
correlations were compared by r to z transformation, there were no significant differences
between groups. For these reasons, public and private school children were combined in the
data analyses to follow.

The families were predominantly white, middle-class families residing in suburban Southeast
Michigan. On the 7-point Hollingshead scale for educational attainment (Hollingshead, 1975),
mothers obtained a mean score of 5.77 and fathers a mean score of 6.16. Additional
demographic data and methodological information are reported elsewhere (Grossberg,
1985).

Instruments and Procedures

The Revised Personality Inventory for Children, Short Form (PIC) (WIRT, Lachar, Klinedinst,
& Seat, 1977) is a 280-item true-false questionnaire completed by the child's parent. The PIC
scales selected for use in this study are the Adjustment Scale, a screening measure of
overall psychological adjustment, and 9 of the 12 standard clinical scales (see Table 1).

In addition to scales assessing the child's adjustment, the PIC contains three validity scales,
which are designed as measures of distortion or bias. The Lie scale attempts to identify
parents with a defensive response set that involves describing the child in extremely virtuous
terms and denying minor, commonly occurring problems. The Defensiveness scale assesses
the parent's tendency to minimize the child's problems. The F scale is constructed to identify
exaggeration of problems or random responding.

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory School Form (Self-Esteem) (Coopersmith, 1981) is

a 58-item like-me/unlike-me questionnaire completed by the child. It provides an overall
measure of Self-Esteem as a well as a Lie scale score. The Revised Children's Manifest
Anxiety Scale (Anxiety) (Reynolds & Paget, 1983) is a 37-item yes/no questionnaire also
completed by the child. It provides an overall Anxiety score and a Lie scale score. The
Family Environment Scale (FES) (Moos & Moos, 1981) is a 90-item true/false questionnaire
completed by one or more family members. Only the Cohesion scale was selected for use in
the present analyses. Cohesion is defined as "the degree of commitment, help, and support
family members provide for one another" (Moos & Moos, 1981, p. 2).

Parents (primarily mothers) competed the PIC, FES, and a family background questionnaire
in group meetings held at school. They were given explicit instructions on having their
children complete the Self-Esteem and Anxiety measures independently at home and return
them in stamped, addressed envelopes provided for them.

RESULTS

A series of simple correlations were calculated between IQ and each of the adjustment
measures (see Table 1). Eleven of 12 correlations for the full sample of 83 children (IQ range
120-168) were in the direction of more favorable adjustment for higher IQ children, but only 3
were statistically significant.

One possibility was that there were significant negative correlations between IQ and
adjustment in the higher IQ ranges which were masked by correlating across the full 120-
168-IQ range. As a result, additional correlations were calculated for successively smaller IQ
ranges, omitting lower IQ groups. The second set of correlations was for the 65 children
falling into the 130-168 range, and the third set was for 21 children in the 145-168-IQ range.
None of these correlations were significant.

Next, multiple-regression analyses on the relationship between IQ and adjustment were

calculated after controlling for the effects of respondent bias (validity scales for each
measure) and family Cohesion. Using the MIDAS (Fox & Guire, 1976) REGRESSION
command, the appropriate validity scales and Cohesion were entered into the analyses as
"fixed" variables, followed by IQ as a "free" variable. All 12 multiple-regression analyses were
significant, with multiple rs ranging from .43 to .78 (see Table 2). For each adjustment
measure, one or more of the validity scales were significant correlates, and for four
adjustment measures, Cohesion also was a significant correlate. After controlling for these
effects, IQ was partially correlated with four of the adjustment measures beyond the .05
level, and with three more of the adjustment measures beyond the .10 level.

DISCUSSION

The present study finds modest support for the view that IQ is positively related to healthy
personality adjustment within the gifted range. Concerns raised by the Hollingworth view that
very high IQ is associated with poor adjustment were not supported. Children with higher IQs
tended to be less anxious and nervous (Anxious, child report). According to parent report on
the PIC, they were less likely to evidence problems in physical or cognitive development
(Development scale) or exhibit behavior and discipline problems (Delinquency scale).

The IQ-adjustment relationship was reexamined after controlling for the influence of both
respondent bias and family Cohesion through multiple-regression analyses. As reported in
Table 2, this combination of predictor variables (validity scales and Cohesion entered
together, followed by IQ) was significantly related to each of the 12 adjustment measures
beyond the .01 level. Multiple correlations ranged from .43 to .78, indicating that these
predictors account for 18.5% to 60.8% of the variance in adjustment for this sample. This
procedure resulted in somewhat stronger support for the Terman hypothesis, with the
addition of a significant partial correlation between IQ and PIC Adjustment.

Limitations of the Present Study

Several qualifications to the present findings are in order. The sample consists of children 7
to 11 years old and therefore the results do not exclude the possibility of high-IQ-related
problems at other ages. Also, the 83 children ranged from 120 to 168 IQ, including 4 children
scoring at the ceiling for the WISC-R or Stanford Binet norm tables. It is possible that the
serious adjustment problems hypothesized to be associated with high IQ in fact only occur in
children with IQs beyond the norm tables (essentially 4 or more standard deviations from the
mean). Scores at this level, however, should be regarded with great caution. Standard IQ
tests are not designed to discriminate at such a high level, and these scores may be
unreliable and of questionable meaning.

Moreover, it should be noted that, in principle, only a fraction of the gifted population should
fall beyond the range included in this study. If one takes an IQ score of 2 standard deviations
above the mean as an arbitrary cutoff, then in accord with the normal distribution, about
2.27% of the population falls into the gifted range. Those 4 or more standard deviations
above the mean would make up only .0000317/.0227 or 0.14% of those in the gifted IQ
range.

Another limitation to the present study is that all subjects were already enrolled in gifted
programs. To the extent that adjustment problems arise from the high-IQ child's difficulties in
coping in a regular classroom, these problems would be ameliorated in this sample. Only
further work comparing gifted-level children in regular and gifted programs (or before and
after placement in a gifted program) can adequately address this question. There is reason
to believe, however, that placement in a gifted program is not entirely facilitative of the child's
self-esteem. Studies by both Rodgers (1979) and Coleman and Fults (1982) reported a
decline in self-concept scores following placement in a gifted program.

Why Do High-IQ Children Suffer Adjustment

Problems?

Although high IQ appears to be associated with better adjustment, it clearly does not render
the child invulnerable to adjustment problems. Several hypotheses concerning the reasons
why high-IQ children suffer adjustment problems can be considered.

The most parsimonious explanation is that high-IQ children develop adjustment problems for
reasons (social, familial, intrapsychic) no different than do other children. The child's high IQ
is such a remarkable attribute that it may be falsely perceived as associated with any
adjustment problems the child develops. The "contrast effect" of high IQ coupled with
maladjustment has an ironic, compelling quality that draws attention and may lead to
superstitutious reasoning about a causal connection between them. Society's ambivalent
attitudes toward high-IQ individuals also may foster a willingness to cast giftedness in a
negative light (Cornell, 1984). Finally, it may be that a troubled child would emphasize his or
her talents defensively--for example, affecting an overintellectualized, arrogant manner--
thereby creating a link between maladjustment and intelligence that is secondary, not
primary.

An alternative explanation is that high intelligence does place some children at risk for
adjustment problems. Here again, however, it is not necessary to assume that intelligence
per se directly fosters maladjustment. Family members, teachers, peers, or others may
respond to the child's intelligence with rejection, jealousy, fear, or other negative attitudes.
The absence of an appropriate school program or lack of intellectual peers also may have
adverse effects. Not high intelligence, but rather the consequences of high intelligence in
some social environments, may have a negative effect on personality adjustment. These
factors need to be studied systematically and ruled out before accepting the hypothesis that
high intelligence is a direct, primary source of maladjustment.

Can we Increase our Intelligence?

There are certainly ways to increase one‘s intelligence, also called intelligence amplification/ enhancing, by

practicing many proven cognitive tools such as mnemonics, problem-solving heuristics, creativity techniques and

decision-making tools. An increase in the intelligence level can only result in a better life, health, and standard of
living. Below you will find some simple intelligence boosters:
Deep thinking: in life it‘s not enough to just react to events, and situations, rather we should have a conscious
objective and select our actions to get nearer our objective. Also it‘s important to think about consequences of our
actions, to minimize the possibilities of errors and regret. Deep thinking would normally help you live better, and
reach your goals.

Good reasoning: it is the key to success, especially if performed consciously and in the proper order: 1) have an
objective, 2) make a general sensing about it, 3) determine your decision based on your sensing, 4)
make alternate plans (along the main objective), 5) select the best response/ plan. 5) start by carrying out your
plan, 6) observe results, 7) store experiences (for future reference).

Learning from past experience: it is believed that many inventions were actually re- nventions; for example
Egyptians 2000-4000 years ago were using some unique techniques to build their temples, buildings… but since
the early Egyptians were not good at keeping records of what they were doing, many of their inventions/
techniques were lost, and they had to be reinvented many centuries after them, which means that we had to start
from point zero again because we didn‘t keep records of our discoveries. You can apply that to your own life,
learning from the past experience either bad or good is very beneficial, and can save you a lot of time and effort.
A good way to do that is journal writing which is a useful way to develop self understanding, and to analyze
events, in addition to provide a record of how we change over time.

Practice: you cannot learn swimming from a book, the same thing should be taken into consideration when
dealing with ―thinking‖; you cannot learn to think without practicing. And as mentioned earlier, a good way to start
is with cognitive tools such as brain exercises: mnemonics, problem-solving heuristics, creativity techniques,
brainstorming, puzzles, brain teasing games… etc.

Intelligence Pills? Smart Drugs?

It would sure be nice if we just take a smart pill and get smarter, instead of going through all those brain teasers
and problem-solving training. In fact, scientists are indeed studying substances that may improve mental abilities.
These substances are called ―cognitive enhancers‖ or ―smart drugs‖. The supposed effects of these intelligence
drugs can be several things, for example, it can improve memory, learning, attention, concentration, problem
solving, reasoning, social skills, decision making and planning. In most cases, smart drugs have been used to
treat people with neurological or mental disorders, but there is a growing number of healthy, ―normal‖ people who
use these substances in hopes of getting smarter. However it‘s arguable if the cognitive enhancers have some
effects if any. Results from different laboratories show mixed results; some labs show positive effects on memory
and learning; other labs show no effects. The intelligence pills are supposed to work by increasing brain
metabolism, increasing cerebral circulation, or protection of the brain from physical and chemical damage, and as
a consequence they result in increased mental energy, increased alertness, decreased depression, improved
memory, and improved learning ability. There are many names in the market of these smart pills, and the number
is growing bigger day after day. Many of them are made of herbal as well as chemical substances. Below is a
list of some intelligence enhancers in their natural state:

Ginko Biloba extracts: apparently have vasodilatory effects, and have in some studies shown it could treat some
symptoms of Alzheimer‘s disease. They also appear to have some effects on short term memory. But no study to
confirm these results yet.
Choline: A natural amine, often classed in the vitamin B complex. There is evidence that drugs that stimulate the
cholinergic systems improve certain memory tasks, and there is much speculation that adding extra choline to the
diet would lead to better general memory performance.

Caffeine: caffeine acts as a mild stimulant to the nervous system, blocking the neurotransmitter adenosine and
resulting in a feeling of well-being and alertness. It increases the heart rate, blood pressure. Although it‘s not
smart to take it as a smart drug, it is however probably relevant anyway, simple, relatively safe if not taken
excessively. May be one cup or less a day is considered to be within the safe range.

Glucose: has been shown to improve memory when given in certain dosages in association with a learning task;
how to exploit this to improve cognition in general is a more complex problem, because it can have negative
effects as well.

Definitions related to Intelligence:

Gifted : used to describe individuals having great natural ability or talent, usually the equivalent of ―intelligent‖,
this term is used often with children ‖a gifted child‖, also other possible equivalent words are ―smart‖, ―nerd‖,
―brainy‖, ―genius‖…etc.

Giftedness : is an intellectual ability significantly higher than average. The fact of having a mind ahead of the
physical growth, and could be simply the equivalent of ―intelligence‖.

Creativity: mental process of generating new ideas or concepts,or new associations between existing ideas or
concepts.

Superhuman:

Super-brain : also called mega-brain is used as a term to refer to machines or individuals who can perform/
process complicated tasks in a relatively faster speed.

High Intelligence Society : usually refers to a community where people with higher I.Q/ geniuses meet and
exchange their ideas for the benefit of humanity, and to encourage the uses of intelligence. Usually a certain I.Q
score should be obtained to join one of those societies.

What is it Like to Have a High IQ?

Hint: It's not all that great, really.....

I recently found out that I have a very high IQ: high enough to qualify for Mensa, the
international high IQ society. I am relieved. I am relieved because I have always felt
"different" and actually thought that there might be something "wrong" with me.

Just because you have a high IQ, it does not mean that you will be rich or famous, or
even happy. It does mean that you probably feel different than most other people. And,
if there is no one else to help you to understand that and to guide you, you may feel
confused and lonely. Yes, really!

Trying to Understand

My goal in writing this is to help people understand how it

can feel to have a high IQ. I feel that it is very confusing to the general population. People think of it
as "being smarter" and, therefore, being "better" in some way. This is not the case, as I will explain. I
also want to help others who have found that they have a high IQ and are still trying to figure "it" all
out. This will be an adventure and an exploration for me as I share with you what I am discovering
that is true for me.

Here is a long phrase someone used recently to search for information on the web. Their search
landed them here on this page. How very accurate this statement is!

"people with a high iq often find themselves a little lonely among people who just don't think in the
same ways. people with high iq's are in no way better than others. they just think in different ways"
There is No Perfection
High IQ does NOT make you perfect, or even close

One thing I know is that your IQ is only part of who

you are. It does not determine your wealth or your happiness. It does not make your life
easier and it does present many challenges, especially if you don't know why you are
different.

Many times in my life I have thought to myself, "I just want to be normal"! I felt so often
unhappy, isolated and misunderstood. In my teenage years, I would stay up late at night
gazing out the windows of our house and thinking, "Is there something wrong with me? Why
can't I just live a 'normal' life? If I could only find someone who thinks like I do....".

You might have said to me, "But, there is no normal. Everyone is different. The idea of
'normal' is flawed". But, I would say to you, now, that when you think differently than most
of those around you, when you see the world through an alternate lens, when you "see"
even more than meets the eye, and no one else can understand you, you FEEL less than
normal. People don't relate to you. Some may even scorn or laugh at you. And, it can stop
you in your tracks. If you do not know what is happening and why, your self esteem can
suffer and you can become paralyzed. You can fail to move forward. You can give up.

This is why I want to help others who are also dealing with having a high IQ. When only 2%
or less of the population can think the way that you do, you DO feel different and if you do
not know why, it can be hard to find your way. It may be that the way you need to steer your
"boat" is much different than the way most others do it. You may need a guide to help you
learn to navigate effectively.

Yes, Indeed, It Will Not Make You Wealthy

"If you're so smart, what aren't you rich?"
You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Rich, Study Finds
 From the archives of Ohio State University, this article reports on research that was
done regarding the financial success of those with a high IQ versus those with
average IQs. This research, conducted by Jay Zagorsky, supports my claim that having
a high IQ does NOT make you rich. So, to all of you out there who have asked me, "If
you're so 'smart' why aren't you rich?", this will back me up.

A Perfect Description of Having a High IQ

from the late author and philanthropist, Pearl Buck

"The truly creative mind in any field is no more than

this:
A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive.
To him...
a touch is a blow,
a sound is a noise,
a misfortune is a tragedy,
a joy is an ecstasy,
a friend is a lover,
a lover is a god,
and failure is death.
Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create - - -
so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of
meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. He must create, must pour out creation. By
some strange, unknown, inward urgency he is not really alive unless he is creating."
-Pearl Buck-
There is so Much Beauty in the World
I want to take it all in...

...roll it around in my mind, hold it, know it,

understand it, relish in not understanding it, and....I want, so much, to help others see it,
too.

Characteristics of Gifted Adults

From the Gifted & Creative Services of Australia
Here is a list of characteristics of gifted, or high-IQ adults. I definitely have felt and do
experience everything on this list. You will see that it's about much more than "being smart".
It is really more about being highly aware and able to easily see connections between ideas,
events, people and on and on.

This list is from the Gifted & Creative Services of Australia, which offers information on the
experience of being a gifted child or adult. Click on the link in the following section for
expanded info from this group.

 perfectionistic and sets high standards for self and others

 has strong moral convictions
 feels outrage at moral breaches that others seem to take for granted
 is highly sensitive, perceptive or insightful
 is a good problem solver
 has unusual ideas or connects seemingly unrelated ideas
 thrives on challenge
 fascinated by words or an avid reader
 learns new things rapidly
 has a good long-term memory
 is very curious
 has an unusual sense of humor
 has a vivid and rich imagination
 feels overwhelmed by many interests and abilities
 loves ideas and ardent discussion
 can't switch off thinking
 is very compassionate
 has passionate, intense feelings
 has a great deal of energy
 feels driven by creativity
 needs periods of contemplation
 searches for answers in life
 feels out-of-sync or out-of-step with others
 feels a sense of alienation and loneliness
More High IQ Traits
The following are links to website pages which offer good lists of or comments on the
personality characteristics and common life experiences of gifted adults, or people with a
high IQ. I can identify with them all. Note how there are several I've already suspected and
mentioned in regard to feeling lonely, misunderstood and isolated. I don't think most people
realize that these are major issues for those of us who have a high IQ.

Gifted & Creative Services of Austrailia

Click this link to read more about the list included in the section above.

Characteristics of Gifted & Creative Adults

The list here is adapted from "Gifted Adults: Their Characteristics and Emotions" by
Annemarie Roeper, and is included on the website of Lynne M. Azpeitia, M.A., a
counselor from Santa Monica, CA.

The list begins..."Gifted adults differ intellectually from others and are more
sophisticated, more global thinkers who have the capacity to generalize and to see
complex relationships in the world. Gifted adults have a heightened capacity to
appreciate the beauty and the wonderment in our universe...."
Click on the link above to visit and to read the entire list.
How Being Gifted Means Being Different
Oh my, this is a wonderful essay written by Rebecca Trotter back in 2008 on the site
called Word Press. Here is a quote lifted from the essay, but please click on the link
and read the entire piece.

"This fundamental different-ness combined with a lack of insight into the reality of
the how other people's minds work underlies a lot of the social difficulties which
highly intelligent people often experience. Unfortunately, the social problems that
unusually intelligent people, particularly kids, commonly experience are usually
pinned on some failure on their own part." ~ Rebecca Trotter

Expression of Intelligence: Men vs Women

A Highly Intelligent Woman Speaks Out

This is a link to a very interesting opinion piece by Amy Sundberg on her blog The
Practical Free Spirit. She talks about how men and women are very different in the
way that they display their intelligence.

When and How Did I Learn of My High IQ?

Because I was having a bit of trouble with my

memory, my doctor referred me to a specialist for psycho-neurological testing. The tests
revealed that my memory was normal, however, we had to check my IQ because memory
correlates to IQ. In other words, if you have a high IQ, your memory should be similarly high.

The testing revealed a very high IQ and indicated that I was, indeed, having problems with
my memory, after all. My memory should have been above normal to correspond with my
IQ. It also showed that I did not have any degenerative neurological illnesses. That was good
news. And, through a process of elimination, it was determined that lack of sleep was the
culprit in terms of memory issues.

I do remember my mother telling me, when I was in high school, that I had a high IQ, but I
never heard any numbers and it never occurred to me that it might be something to pay
attention to. In fact, I had forgotten all about it. Now I knew about my high IQ and I
wondered what, at this point in my life, it might mean to me and what I could do with it.

Mensa International
A Resource for IQ Testing and more
Here is one of the sources for determining your IQ. Mensa, the well-known international
high IQ society, offers their own IQ test which is administered, in person, by one of their
representatives. I have encountered people who thought that Mensa was a social group in
that you had to receive an invitation to join. This is not the case. The social aspect of Mensa
is tha,t once you are a member, you have an opportunity to socialize and interact with other
members if you choose to do so. Belonging to Mensa makes it easier to find and socialize
with others who have a high IQ, but the only qualifying guideline for membership is having
an official IQ of 130 or higher.

Mensa International

In order to belong, you must provide proof that you have taken a qualified IQ test
and achieved a specific IQ score, or higher. There are several different tests which
can be used as proof and each one has slightly different scoring. As I mentioned, you
may also arrange to take, in person, a test administered by Mensa for purposes of
qualifying you for membership.

Is It Really Good to Be Gifted?

Unique challenges of the highly gifted
I can track what people who view this page have searched for in order to find it. And, well,
guess what...most of those searches have read as follows:

"children with high iq missing out on life"

"does high iq makes you feel less"
"very high iq problems"

Like me, it seems others have had a difficult time of it with their high IQ trait. Here is some
information to help you understand what those difficulties can be and to learn how you can
cope with them.

<i>Optimal IQ and the Flipside to Giftedness</i>, by David Palmer Ph.D

This interesting site has quite an array of information about raising a gifted child, and
this particular article helps to explain, even more than I have already, just how
challenging it can be to be "gifted" with a high IQ.
<i>Misdiagnosis of the Gifted</i>, an article for Mensa by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary
Rocamora, M.A.
People with a high IQ face many challenges and one of them is that it is easy to
misunderstand and misdiagnose a person who is gifted in this way. Because we make
up only 2-3% of the population, getting correctly identified by psychotherapists and
others as gifted is unusual. More often, our uniquely sensitive nature is
misinterpreted for something else, resulting in a diminishment of self-understanding
and self esteem.

<i>Challenges for Gifted & Creative Adults</i>, by Lynne Azpeiti

"Gifted, Talented & Creative Adults need: multiple sources of stimulation for their
curiosity, talents and abilities; a safe environment in which they can fully be
themselves; to feel understood, accepted, respected and valued by others; to
understand themselves...."
Navigate to this page to read the remainder of this intriguing article written by Lynne
Azpeitia, a therapist in California who works with gifted adults.

A New Book
I have read this book and commented on it in the next section. It's great.
The Gifted Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for Liberating Everyday Genius(tm)
by Mary-Elaine Jacobsen

From the book jacket: "Demystifying what it means to be a gifted adult, this book
offers practical guidance for eliminating self-sabotage and underachievement,
helping Everyday Geniuses and those who know, love, and work with them to
understand and support the exceptional gifts inherent in these unique personality
traits."

Buy Now
Book Review
The Gifted Adult

I received my copy of The GIfted Adult and have

finished reading it. Much of it confirms what I have been experiencing my whole life. For
instance, being overwhelmed by lots of sound and activity is a common occurrence for me,
but I hadn't realized that it might be due to having a high IQ. Now it makes sense. With a
higher IQ, the book explains, you tend to have a greater sense of awareness and notice many
more things than most people. What might be perceived as fun for the people you are with,
can, instead, be overwhelming for you. At times like those, I felt like there was something
wrong with me. It's great to have an explanation now.

There is, included in the book, a self-scored test which you can take to determine what some
of your personal characteristics are. I do feel that the test is too simplistic and too
dependent upon you being very self-aware and very honest with yourself, but that is minor.

The Gifted Adult is a great book and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Mensa Art
For Artists with a High IQ as well as those interested in their work
I am a visual artist, so I was very pleased to find this site. It offers a look at Mensa members
who are fine artists, and includes a profile of each artist with a gallery of their work. Exciting,
huh? Check it out. Work is offered for sale, as well.

The Official Home Page of Mensa's Art Lovers

Members of Mensa share their passion for art on this website. There is art for
expression, art for investment, and art for art's sake.

Why So Sensitive?
It's All About a High Level of Awareness
Do you often ask yourself why you have to be so sensitive? Do you introvert yourself in order
to avoid feeling overwhelmed or frustrated? Do people often tell you to just "get over it"?
Being extra-sensitive goes hand-in-hand with having a high IQ. It can be very disorienting.
Until you understand it better, it can be downright confusing. But, once you understand this
as a trait, you can try and turn it into an advantage.
I can remember telling one of my bosses that, within the company, I was like the canary in a
coal mine. I knew this was true. I would tend to be sensitive to and aware of a problem long
before others. I wanted to help by sharing what I could so easily see. How presumptuous of
me. She did not want to hear it. There were, indeed, big problems which finally surfaced and
the business eventually had to be sold, but not before much discord and unhappiness for
everyone.

At least I understood what was going on and was able to keep things in perspective. And, I
"got out" before the changes took place.

Here is some information to help you better understand this trait.

Emotional intensity in Children with a High IQ

Here is an interesting article by Lesley K Sword of Gifted & Creative Services in

Australia, about one of the least-understood traits of people with a high IQ:
hypersensitivity. This particular piece focuses on children, but I find it is true for
adults, as well.

Gifted Children: Emotionally Immature or Emotionally Intense?

And here is an even more explicit and appropriate article from the same person who
wrote the one above, but each article has it's own merits.

Children and High IQ

High IQ Kids: Collected Insights, Information, and Personal Stories from the Experts
Look what I found. I have not read this yet, but I am going to now and I will give you a
report on it. It sounds as if it would be very interesting. Check back later for my
review. I wish I had known, as a child, that I had such a high IQ.
Buy Now
Childhood Memories
Examples of how a child with a high IQ can feel

When I was about 7 or 8 years old, home

alone with my mother and feeling bored, I decided to write some poetry. I remember that
one of the poems was about a parrot. I wish I could read it now, but I destroyed it soon after
I wrote it. I had shown it to my mother and she told me that I hadn't written it -- that I must
have copied it from somewhere. I was bewildered and confused, feeling as if I had somehow
done something wrong. It may sound odd that I would have that reaction, but I was young
enough to not understand what was happening. I admired my mother and felt that I had
disappointed her.

In 4th grade I made a 3-dimensional map of the US out of homemade play-doh-like clay for a
class homework assignment. I carefully shaped all the states, including elevations, and added
color. I worked very hard at it and had a great time doing it. I proudly took the map into class
and my teacher failed me on the project. She told me that my mother must have made it for
me and that I had cheated. I was very confused and I couldn't convince her otherwise. Even
after my mother called her to complain, she still insisted that I couldn't have made it.

During classes in elementary school, when the teacher would ask the class a question, I
always knew the answer, but was careful to not raise my hand. I didn't want to be different.
Initially, I had felt that when no one else in class raised their hand, I must be wrong. If no one
else knew, and if what I thought was the answer had come so easily and obviously to me, it
must not be correct, but it always was. Eventually, I didn't want to draw attention to myself
and I didn't want to get in trouble for always knowing the answers when none of my
classmates did. Elementary school was very, very confusing for me.

Am I Good Enough, Smart Enough?

A confused and misunderstood mind can create a mental block which keeps you from
achieving success.
The Trouble With Bright Kids - Heidi Grant Halvorson - Harvard Business Review

Business bloggers at Harvard Business Review discuss a variety of business topics

including managing people, innovation, leadership, and more. Here Heidi Grant
Halvorson cites research and writes about problems in self-esteem that can develop
among intelligent young students.

Helping Gifted Children

I feel that the best kind of person to recognize a high IQ child is a high IQ adult. When I see
and recognize a child with what I can see as a high IQ, and I know that they have no one
helping them cope with it, my heart breaks a little.

I was intrigued to find this school which caters to profoundly gifted young people.

Davidson Academy of Nevada - Reno, Nevada

The Davidson Academy of Nevada is a free public school for profoundly gifted middle
and high school students. Located at the University of Nevada, Reno, Davidson
Academy students can develop their intellectual abilities at an appropriately
challenging pace and access college courses when ready.

I am not personally familiar with this school, but found it in my search for
information. If anyone has feedback on the Davidson Academy or other programs for
gifted children, please post at the end of this article.

More Good Reading

Check out these two books for more on what it feels like to be gifted and how it can affect
your life.
Living With Intensity: Understanding the Sensitivity, Excitability, and the Emotional
Development of Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Adults
Quote from the book regarding gifted children and adults: "Their excitement is viewed
as excessive, their high energy as hyperactivity, their persistence as nagging, their
questioning as undermining authority, their imagination as not paying attention, their
passion as being disruptive, their strong emotions and sensitivity as immaturity, their
creativity and self-directedness as oppositional. They stand out from the norm. But
then again, what is normal?"
Buy Now
Gifted Grownups: The Mixed Blessings of Extraordinary Potential
by Marylou Kelly Streznewski

Author, Marylou-Kelly-Streznewski, teaches gifted high school students and, in this

book, presents interviews she has conducted with 100 gifted people of various
backgrounds. Reading this book is a great way to learn more about the common
experiences of highly gifted people.
Buy Now
What You All Want to Know
...makes me feel sad

As I already mentioned, I am able to view the words

people have typed into the search engines in order to find this page. They confirm what I
have been experiencing in my life--that having a high IQ is not easy. Here are more of the
phrases used in readers' search for information:

Does having a high IQ make you lonely?

Feeling isolated with high IQ
High IQ feeling different
Does having a high IQ make it hard to have friends?
How to cope with high IQ
How to feel normal with High IQ
Help for high IQ feeling lonely
Hard to communicate because of high IQ
Gifted adults misunderstood isolated
High IQ guide to living well
I just found out I have a high IQ
Gifted adults lonely misunderstood
Higher IQ higher standards in love
Vivid imagination high IQ
Self esteem in adults and IQ

Generally speaking, I find people will make jokes about my high IQ or feel threatened by it.
Because of this, I hesitate to let others know about it. Most people have a preconceived idea
about what it means to have a high IQ and it is nowhere near the truth. I hope that by
writing this, there can be a greater understanding among those who read it. Please pass it
on!!

The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being

Printer Friendly Version

Neihart, M.
Roeper Review
Vol. 22, No. 1
September 1999

This article by Maureen Neihart reviews the empirical research regarding

the connection between being gifted and psychological well-being. The
research reviewed suggests that being gifted in and of itself does not
affect a child's psychological well-being. However, the author points out
that there are some correlations between adult psychological disorders
and high IQ and creativeness, which the author addresses in a lengthy
discussion. There is also a discussion of the factors involved in creating (or
avoiding) psychological distress among gifted students.

There is evidence to support two contrasting views about the

psychological well-being of gifted children; that giftedness enhances
resiliency in individuals and that giftedness increases vulnerability. There
is empirical and theoretical evidence to support both views. It is clear that
giftedness influences the psychological well-being of individuals. Whether
the psychological outcomes for gifted children, adolescents, and adults are
positive or negative seems to depend on at least three factors that
interact synergistically: the type of giftedness, the educational fit, and
one's personal characteristics.

There is a long history of interest in how giftedness affects psychological

well-being (Berndt, Kaiser, & Van Aalst, 1982; Eysenck, 1995; Freeman,
1983; Hollingworth, 1942; Parker & Mills, 1996; Ramaseshan, 1957;
Reynolds & Bradley, 1983; Richards, 1989; Strang, 1950; Watson, 1965).
During the last 50 years, two conflicting views prevailed. The first is that
gifted children are generally better adjusted than their nongifted peers;
that giftedness protects children from maladjustment. This view
hypothesized that the gifted are capable of greater understanding of self
and others due to their cognitive capacities and therefore cope better with
stress, conflicts and developmental dyssynchrony than their peers.
Studies supporting this view report that gifted children demonstrate better
adjustment than their average peers when measured on a variety of
factors (Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Kaiser, Berndt, & Stanley, 1987;
Neihart, 1991; Ramasheshan, 1957; Scholwinski & Reynols, 1985).

The second view is that gifted children are more at-risk for adjustment
problems than their nongifted peers, that giftedness increases a child's
vulnerability to adjustment difficulties. Supporters of this view believe that
gifted children are at greater risk for emotional and social problems,
particularly during adolescence and adulthood. Their hypothesis is that the
gifted are more sensitive to interpersonal conflicts and experience greater
degrees of alienation and stress than do their peers as a result of their
cognitive capacities.

Historically, one view prevails over the other. In the late 1800's, it was
widely accepted that giftedness increased vulnerability (Lombroso, 1889).
However, this view was later traded for the notion that the gifted are
better adjusted when Terman and his associates' (1925, 1935, 1947)
longitudinal research suggested that people of high ability exhibited less
incidence of mental illness and adjustment problems than average. In
1981, a gifted high school student named Dallas Egbert killed himself. His
highly publicized suicide increased awareness that gifted children can have
psychological difficulties, that they are not immune to problems. People no
longer assumed that the gifted were superior in their psychological
functioning. The phrase, "social and emotional needs of the gifted" was
coined at this time. There was a surge of research attempting to measure
the adjustment of gifted children (Berndt, Kaiser, & Van Aalst, 1982;
Freeman, 1983; Janos, Marwood & Robinson, 1985; Lajoie & Shore, 1981;
Leroux, 1986; Prentky, 1980; Reynolds & Bradley, 1983 ; Richards, 1989;
Scholwinski & Reynolds,1985; Tomlinson-Keasey & Warren, 1987).
Suicide, delinquency, anxiety, and depression were some of the specific
factors investigated in gifted populations during this period.

During the nineties, the debate continues regarding whether gifted people
are more or less at-risk than their nongifted peers. Interestingly, there is
research support for both views. How then, do we reconcile them? What
can we say about the impact of giftedness on psychological wellbeing?
Researchers are increasingly examining smaller and smaller pieces of the
gifted experience (Baker, 1995; Cross, Cook & Dixon, 1996; Dixon &
Scheckel, 1996; Gust & Cross, 1997; Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996;
Jackson, 1998; Jamison, 1989, 1993; McCallister, Nash, & Meckstroth,
1996; Parker & Mills, 1996; Rothenberg, 1990; Richards, 1989).
Investigators employ a variety of approaches to evaluate the impact of
giftedness on children's adjustment. Some examined global measures of
adjustment such as self concept. Many measured specific factors known to
be associated with either positive or negative adjustment such as
depression, anxiety, delinquency, or social coping. The aims of this article
are to highlight the research that supports these contrasting views and to
suggest ways to reconcile the paradox.

Giftedness and Global Measures of Adjustment

Many writers concluded that high ability children are at least as well, if not
better, adjusted than other children (Colangelo & Zaffrann, 1974; Gallucci,
1988; Grossberg & Cornell, 1988; Howard-Hamilton & Franks, 1995; Nail
& Evans, 1997; Olszewski-Kubilius, Kukieke, & Krasney, 1988; Parker,
1996; Ramaseshan, 1957; Witty, 1955). Adjustment refers to an individual's
pattern of responding to environmental demands. Persons with positive
adjustment are able to cope effectively with the demands of life. Persons
with negative adjustment have maladaptive coping strategies or lack
enough coping skills to deal effectively with stress. The finding that high
ability (typically defined as high IQ) individuals demonstrate superior
adjustment is supported by empirical research (Freeman 1979; 1983,
Grossberg & Cornell, 1988; Kaufmann, 1981; McCallister, Nash, &
Meckstroth, 1996; Metha, McWhirter, 1997; Neihart, 1991; Reynolds &
Bradley, 1983; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985; Witty, 1951; 1955). For
example, Freeman found no differences in rates of emotional deviance
when she compared 70 high ability children with two matched control
groups. When Kaufmann (1981) studied Presidential Scholars, she
observed that high ability subjects in her study rated themselves higher
on positive personality traits than did average ability subjects. Grossberg
and Cornell (1988) also found a positive correlation between high
intelligence and adjustment.
Early research on psychological well-being used broad measures of
personality or behaviors such as the Rorschach, the MMPI, or a behavior
checklist. For example, Ramaseshan (1957) compared the social and
emotional adjustment of gifted students with a normative group on the
Washburne Social Adjustment Inventory and a five-point teacher rating
scale. Ramaseshan asked teachers to rate all subjects on a five point scale
for the following traits: Personality, Responsibility, Adjustment, Initiative,
Work Habits, Cooperation, Attendance, and Social Tendency. The gifted
group was shown to be superior as compared to the norms predicted for
social adjustment on the Washburne. She concluded, "The gifted and the
average are separate groups. The gifted give better evidence for social
adjustment" (p. 91). However, Ramaseshan (1957) did not explain how
subjects for the gifted sample were originally screened. It is likely that
they were originally nominated by teachers which probably biased the
sample.

Welsh (1969) used the MMPI and the Adjective Checklist to measure
adjustment of more than 1000 high ability adolescents who attended the
Governor's School of North Carolina. There was no tuition fee for the
program so his results were not confounded by socioeconomic factors, as
is often the case in studies done with summer programs. However, the
selection criteria for the governor's program likely excluded any child who
manifested behavioral or emotional problems. Welsh found no indicators
of deviance in the sample.

Gair (1944), Gallagher and Crowder (1957), Mensh, (1950) and Jacobs
(1971), each studied the psychological wellbeing of high ability children by
analysis of Rorschach responses. Gair determined that his adolescent
subjects showed better emotional adjustment and greater maturity of
personality than same-age peers of average intellectual ability. However,
subjects for his study were initially selected via teacher recommendations
which may have precluded any distressed students from participating.
Jacobs (1971) concluded that gifted kindergartners demonstrated greater
awareness of self. "The gifted children's greater utilization of color
supports the conclusions from the F% factor that the gifted demonstrate
greater awareness of self" (p.198). In addition, his results indicated that
personality development of the gifted subjects was advanced over that of
the nongifted sample he included. He stated that the difference was not a
qualitative one, but rather a quantitative difference in that the personality
development of the young gifted child is more similar to that of an older
child.

More recent research continues to examine global measures of

adjustment. Howard-Hamilton and Franks (1995), for instance,
administered the Ego Identity Scale (EIS) to 167 gifted high school
seniors and observed that EIS scores overall were above normative mean
scores. They concluded, "The results from this study show that these
students are not only functioning at an elevated intellectual level, but are
successfully coping with adolescent psychosocial growth and
development" (p. 190).

Cornell (1989) compared the adjustment of 482 gifted children, grades 5-

11 whose parents used the label, gifted, with those whose parents did not.
Subjects were enrolled in a summer enrichment program in Virginia.
Cornell administered the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children,
sociograms, and the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale, and found
that use of the gifted label was negatively correlated with indicators of
adjustment. In other words, children whose parents used the gifted label
were more likely to report adjustment difficulties than children whose
parents did not use the label. Cornell's results also indicated that
adjustment was not related to educational placement, cognitive abilities,
or achievement and supported the idea that the gifted are a diverse group
when it comes to psychological well-being.

Gallucci (1988) administered the Children's Behavior Checklist (CBCL) to

90 gifted children with IQ 135 or more who were participants in a summer
enrichment program. The CBCL is widely used in educational and clinical
settings to obtain a global assessment of adjustment in children. Overall,
results fell within normal limits of the instrument, and gifted children with
IQ's above 150 did not show greater levels of psychopathology. This latter
finding is of particular interest given the widely held belief that highly
gifted children are at-risk for more social and emotional difficulties than
are moderately gifted children. Of course, Gallucci's study is limited by the
use of summer enrichment participants. It is possible that children with
more severe difficulties are not referred for such programs or are not
admitted.
Nail and Evans (1997) compared 115 gifted adolescents with 97 nongifted
students from high schools in Atlanta on the Self-Report of Personality
(SRP) of the Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC). One of
the significant differences between the two groups was that the gifted
showed fewer indicators of maladjustment. Both groups, however, yielded
scores that fell within normal limits of test norms. The gifted subjects
were volunteers from the gifted programs while the nongifted were
randomly assigned from English classes so it is likely that the gifted group
does not accurately represent the total pool of identified gifted students.

These and other studies of global measures of adjustment help illustrate

the multidimensionality of psychological well-being. To improve our
understanding of the impact of gifted-ness on well-being, it is more useful
to examine specific dimensions of adjustment.

Giftedness and Self-Concept

Self-concept is the collection of ideas one has about one-self, an essential
component of what is usually called personality. The development of self-
concept is a cognitive task, changing as an individual's cognitive capacities
change over time. It is widely regarded as being directly related to
adjustment and psychological health (Bee & Mitchell, 1984; Weiner,
1982).
There have been numerous attempts to measure the self-concepts of
gifted children. All studies were conducted with academically or
intellectually gifted youth who were identified by their performance at or
above two standard deviations on a measure of IQ or academic
achievement. The results of these studies are mixed.

Some studies concluded that there are no differences between the self-
concepts of gifted and nongifted children (Bracken, 1980; Hoge &
McSheffrey, 1991; Maddux, Scheiber, & Bass, 1982; Tong & Yewchuk,
1996). Other studies demonstrated that intellectually or academically
gifted children report more positive self-concepts (Ablard, 1997; Chan,
1988; Colangelo & Pfleger, 1978; Janos, Fung & Robinson, 1985; Milgram
& Milgram, 1976), and a few found lower self-concepts for gifted students
(Coleman & Fults, 1982; Forsyth, 1987; Lea-Wood & Clunies-Ross, 1995).

Ablard (1997) administered the Adjective Checklist to 174 academically

gifted eighth grade students and found that they demonstrated more
positive self-confidence than the normative group on this instrument.
Colangelo and Pfleger (1978) found academically gifted students had
higher academic self-concepts than nongifted high school students. Chan
(1988) concluded that intellectually gifted students in upper primary
grades in Australia had higher measures of general self-worth, as
measured by the Harter's Perceived Competence Scale for Children, than
did the nongifted students.

In contrast, Bracken (1980) found no differences in self-concept measures

among gifted students when he compared gifted, regular and French
immersion students in Canada. Lea-Wood and Clunies-Ross (1995)
administered the School Form of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
to 81 gifted and 77 nongifted junior high girls near Melbourne, and
observed that the nongifted students scored significantly higher in total
and social self-esteem measures than the gifted at all age levels.

Quite a few studies compared the self-concepts of gifted children in

different educational placements (Coleman & Fults, 1985; Karnes &
Wherry, 1981; Kolloff, 1989; Maddux, Scheiber, & Bass, 1982; McQuilkin,
1981; Vaughn, Feldhusen & Asher, 1991). Results of these studies are
also mixed, but do support the idea that the type of educational
placement affects a gifted child's self-concept.

For example, several studies concluded that students in full time,

segregated gifted classrooms have lower self-concepts or lower perceived
competence than those enrolled in part-time options (Chan, 1988;
Coleman, & Fults, 1985; Feldhusen, Sayler, Neilsen & Kolloff, 1990;
Kolloff, 1989; Karnes, & Wherry, 1981).

However, in their meta analysis and review of the research on the

effectiveness of nine pull-out programs, Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher
(1991) concluded that self-concepts were not affected, positively or
negatively, by program placement. They only investigated studies that
had control groups and used true quasi- or experimental design.

It is impossible, then, to make any generalizations regarding the self-

concepts of gifted children because it is clear from more than a dozen
studies that numerous factors affect one's self-concept. Also, self-concept
changes with developmental levels, making it impossible to generalize
findings with one age group to other age groups. The research seems to
suggest that it is not useful to assess self-concept as a criterion to
compare gifted children's psychological well-being; there are too many
confounding variables, making generalizations very difficult. We need to
consider other criteria.

Depression, Anxiety, and Suicide

During the 80's and 90's there began a trend to examine specific
indicators of positive adjustment rather than global measures of
adjustment in gifted children. Several investigators attempted to examine
psychological well-being in gifted children by measuring specific variables
known to correlate with psychological health and illness: depression,
anxiety and suicide (Baker, 1995 ; Bartell & Reynolds, 1986; Berndt,
Kaiser, & Van Aalst, 1982; Gust & Cross, in press; Jackson, 1998; Kaiser
& Berndt, 1985; Kaiser, Berndt & Stanley, 1987; Neihart,1991; Parker,
1996; Reynolds & Bradley; 1981; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1983).
The literature on depression does not support a correlation between high
IQ and depression among children and adolescents (Mash & Barkley,
1996). All empirical studies examining depression among gifted children
have found gifted students to exhibit levels of depression similar to, or
lower than their nongifted peers (Baker, 1995; Bartell & Reynolds, 1986;
Berndt, Kaiser & Van Aalst, 1982; Kaiser & Berndt, 1985; Kaiser, Berndt,
& Stanley, 1987; Neihart, 1991; Parker, 1996). There is no empirical
support for higher levels of depression among gifted children and
adolescents.

Kaiser, Berndt, and Stanley (1987) measured symptoms of depression

among high-ability adolescents. They drew their sample of 248 junior and
senior high school students, ranging in age from 14-17 from those who
attended the Governor's School of South Carolina, a select summer
program. Students enrolled in this program were ranked at or above the
top 5% of their class or had attained equivalent scores on standardized
tests of achievement. The investigators administered The Multiscore
Depression Inventory (Berndt, 1986) and concluded that the high ability
adolescents did not report any more depression than their peers, but 14%
of their sample did report moderate levels of depression, as is typical of all
adolescents. Since the subjects came from a select summer program,
however, it is very possible that gifted teens with significant levels of
depression or other emotional problems already had been screened out.

Neihart (1991) compared gifted junior high students with average

students on standardized, objective measures of depression and found no
differences among groups. Three groups of 30 adolescents were
administered the Multiscore Depression Inventory (MDI): high-ability
youth who were placed in gifted programs, high-ability youth who had not
been placed in gifted programs, and average-ability youth. Neither high-
nor average- ability children demonstrated symptoms severe enough to
cause concern or require intervention. In addition, when significant
differences did arise between scores of high ability and average ability
adolescents, the differences were in the direction of positive mental health
for the high ability group.

Jean Baker (1995) administered the Reynolds Adolescent Depression

Scale (RADS) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) to 58
moderately academically gifted students (top 5% class rank or earning
total score of 600 or less on SAT at age 13), 56 average students (middle
class rank) and 32 exceptionally gifted (total score of 900 or more on SAT
at age 13) from midwestern junior high and high schools. "The major
finding from this study is that academically able and exceptionally able
students are not distinguishable from average students by differences in
levels of depression or suicidal ideation" (p. 222). Baker acknowledged
that she may have undersampled distressed children in this study because
of the parental consent requirement, but she did not think selection bias
influenced her results. However, she did stress that her study evaluated
depression and suicidal ideation among highly achieving students from
schools with gifted programs in place. Different results might be expected
from samples with students who are not so high achieving.

At one time there was speculation that the gifted are overrepresented
among suicide attempters (Delisle, 1982; 1986;1990; Lajoie & Shore,
1981). Delisle stated that perfectionism, fear of failure or success, and
social isolation may be predilections leading to suicide among gifted
adolescents. Lajoie and Shore (1981) reviewed the literature linking high
ability and suicide and concluded that there may be some link between
the two. Grueling and Deblassie (1980) stated that suicide attempts are
most prevalent among females under twenty with an above average IQ.
Hayes and Sloat (1990) observed that 8 out of 42 reported incidents of
suicidal gestures in 69 schools involved academically gifted students.
There is no clear evidence, however, that gifted youth are
overrepresented in the numbers of suicidal teens (Dixon & Scheckel,
1996; Gust & Cross, in press). In a study mentioned previously, Baker
(1995) found no differences in suicidal ideation among moderately gifted,
highly gifted, and average adolescents. There is clear evidence, however,
creatively gifted adults, writers in particular, commit suicide at rates
higher than the general population. This finding is discussed in more detail
in a later section.

Personality theorists have suggested that management of anxiety plays a

primary role in positive adjustment (Dollard & Miller, 1950; Freud, 1962;
Sullivan, 1953). Dirkes (1983) suggested that anxiety might be more
prevalent among gifted children. "Although all children are faced with
anxiety, the gifted must often deal with it at younger ages than other
children, and with a keener sense of the possibilities open to them"
(p.70). She added that gifted children's anxiety may be proportional to
the acceptance they receive for their unique abilities and to the coping
skills they can use. She further suggested that this anxiety may
accumulate and become more manifest during adolescence.

At adolescence, however, many of these gifted students relieve

pressures through withdrawal or through overt rejection of adult
values. When nothing but the best is good enough, the highest of
goals is established whether or not it is appropriate for individuals: the
need to be class valedictorian, and perceived entrance requirements at
the only college acceptable ( p. 68).

However, empirical research has not demonstrated that anxiety is a

greater problem for gifted children than it is for children who are not
gifted. In fact, there is empirical evidence that intellectually or
academically gifted children experience lower levels of anxiety than their
nongifted peers.

For example, Reynolds and Bradley (1983) conducted one of the few large
scale studies that involved a comparison group. They evaluated 465 gifted
children ranging from grades 2 through 12 and compared them to a
random sample of 329 average ability children. Using the Revised
Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985),
they found a statistically significant difference in anxiety scores between
the two groups, with the gifted group earning lower scores on every scale.
They concluded that gifted children as a group experience emotional
problems less frequently than their average ability peers and that existing
problems are less severe for the gifted group.

Scholwinski and Reynolds (1985) expanded upon this study and tested
more than 5000 gifted and average ability children between the ages of 6
and 19 with the RCMAS. They sampled all geographic regions of the
United States and selected subjects from urban as well as rural and inner
city schools. Out of the total sample, 584 children were identified as gifted
(IQ 130 or more). In their investigation, the higher IQ subjects
demonstrated significantly lower levels of anxiety than their average IQ
peers. Both the Reynolds and Bradley (1983) and Scholwinski (1985)
studies were limited in that the gifted children were originally identified
through teacher nominations, perhaps biasing the sample against children
with emotional or behavioral problems. Also, since scores were summed
for all age ranges, it is not possible to determine whether there were
significant differences in adjustment among age groups. However, these
studies tend to support the view that intellectually gifted children
experience superior psychological adjustment.

In the study by Neihart (1991) mentioned earlier, levels of anxiety among

high-ability junior high students and average students were also
compared using the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Score (RCMAS).
She observed no significant differences in anxiety levels among high-
ability students who were in gifted programs and those who were not and
aver-age-ability students.

Derevenksy and Coleman (1989) compared the fears of 70 gifted children,

ages 8 to 13, (IQ at least 130) with those of children with average
intelligence. Subjects were asked to respond in writing to the question,
"What are the things to be afraid of?" They concluded that the gifted
children have realistic fears and "...their fears closely resemble those of
older 'normal' children" (p. 67). The authors also noted significantly
different results across age groups, reflecting developmental differences.

Only one empirical study found gifted students to have significantly higher
levels of anxiety than regular students. Tong and Yewchuk (1996)
administered the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale to 39
academically gifted students and 39 nongifted students in a Canadian high
school. The gifted group yielded significantly higher levels of anxiety than
the nongifted group. This finding may be different from the findings of all
other studies because Tong and Yewchuk's subjects were high school
students. All other studies of anxiety either focused on younger children or
aggregated their results across age groups. Perhaps anxiety among gifted
students does dramatically increase in high school.

The above studies suggest that there are developmental differences in

anxiety levels among academically or intellectually gifted students and
that educators can expect to observe depressive symptoms and suicidality
in these students at rates similar to their nongifted peers. This research
also refutes the notion that intellectually gifted students are more at-risk.
In the future, studies need to be done with larger samples and with
children who are gifted in domains other than intellectual or academic.

Giftedness and Social Competence

Strategies people use to cope with feeling different and to negotiate social
relationships are one indicator of psychological well-being. Peer relations
and social competence are two factors that are frequently evaluated when
efforts are made to get a general picture of a child's psychological
adjustment. It is no surprise, then, that many investigators have
attempted to understand a gifted child's adjustment by measuring their
social status, social coping skills, or perceived social competence (Barnett
& Fiscella, 1985; Buescher & Higham, 1989; Chan, 1988; Cross &
Coleman, 1988; 1995; Dauber & Benbow, 1990; Galloway & Porath,
1997; Janos, Fung & Robinson, 1985; Janos, Marwood & Robinson, 1985;
Janos & Robinson, 1985; Lupowski, 1989; Swiatek, 1995). Some studies
found the gifted to be advanced in their social adjustment and
development, and other studies observed certain subgroups of gifted
students to have more difficulties socially. Hence, empirical research
indicates that the gifted are a diverse group when it comes to social
competence. As the following studies illustrate, whether gifted students
have the social skills necessary to cope with the demands in their lives
appears to depend on additional factors such as their specific domain of
talent, their degree of giftedness, and their self-perceptions or other
personal characteristics.
Barnett and Fiscella (1985) compared 15 intellectually (IQ >130) gifted
preschool children with 20 average intelligence children on dimensions of
play behavior. They found that the gifted sample exhibited significantly
more prosocial behavior. The gifted children interacted more cooperatively
and demonstrated more sharing of playthings than did the average
children. In this study gifted children demonstrated advanced social skills.

Cross, Coleman, and Stewart (1995) compared two groups of high ability
teenagers who attended Tennessee Governor's Schools. They compared
94 students who reported themselves as similar to peers and 379 who
reported themselves as different from peers. Subjects responded to a 75-
item questionnaire and were asked to indicate how they would respond in
each of three scenarios where the potential for being stigmatized existed.
The authors found that gifted students vary considerably in how different
or similar they feel to their nongifted peers and that regardless of these
feelings of difference, both groups indicated they would use a variety of
coping strategies in potentially stigmatizing situations. There were
significant differences between the two groups in responses to two of the
three scenarios. Those who reported feeling different were more likely to
use truth telling as a strategy than were those who reported feeling the
same. "It is not clear at this time how personal characteristics of the
subjects influence self-perceptions and behaviors. It does, however, make
a case for the existence of psychosocial developmental differences among
gifted students" (p. 185).

Dauber and Benbow (1990) compared highly gifted and moderately gifted
adolescents (mean age 13.7) on measures of social relations and found
significant differences. Subjects were identified as gifted or average by
scores on the SAT. The highly gifted sample included approximately 200
students who scored at least a 700 on the SAT math, and about 100
students who scored at least a 630 on the SAT verbal. The moderately
gifted sample included approximately 100 students whose combined score
on the SAT was 540. Subjects completed a lengthy questionnaire with
items relating to personality and social relations. The authors found
significant differences between verbally and mathematically precocious
students, the former reporting the lowest social status and lowest feelings
of importance. The authors also observed that the moderately gifted
subjects reported more favorable profiles overall than did the highly gifted
group. "The extremely gifted students viewed themselves as more
introverted, less socially adept, and more inhibited. The extremely gifted
adolescents also reported that their peers saw them as much less popular,
less socially active, less athletic, and less active in leading the crowd.
Thus, extremely precocious students may be at greater risk for social
problems than modestly gifted students" (p. 13).

Swiatek (1995) examined five coping strategies: denial of giftedness, fear

of failure, extracurricular involvement; denying concern about possible
social rejection, and minimizing the visibility of giftedness in 238
academically talented (top 1% in math or verbal reasoning) junior high
students who were participants in a summer enrichment program in Iowa.
Using the Affiliation subscale of the Adjective Checklist and the Social
Coping Questionnaire, Swiatek found that verbally gifted students
perceived themselves as less accepted than did the mathematically gifted
students. Swiatek noted, "One serious limitation to the generalizability of
the present study is the heterogeneous socio-economic status of the
normative group and the relatively homogenous and affluent socio-
economic status of the mathematically gifted sample" (p. 156).

Giftedness and Deviant Behavior

A few investigators have examined specific deviant behaviors as a means
to determine the incidence and nature of emotional stability among high
ability children. For example, Ken Seeley (1984) examined delinquency.
He conducted two years of research on juveniles involved with the court
system to examine the relationship between superior ability and
delinquency. From a sample of 100 youths involved with the courts, he
looked for gifted teens and found the incidence of high ability to be lower
than it is in the normal adolescent population. Other authors have
examined delinquency and have drawn similar conclusions (Eisenman,
1991; Haarer, 1966; Hirwschi & Hindeland, 1977; Parker, 1979). Lajoie
and Shore (1981) found average and bright delinquents to be similar in
social and criminological characteristics.
Ludwig and Cullinan (1984) assessed the behaviors of 111 pairs of
matched gifted and nongifted elementary students using the Behavior
Problem Checklist (BPC), a 55-item rating scale. Teachers rated the
subjects as no problem, a mild problem or severe problem for each
behavior. Ludwig and Cullinan observed that gifted students had fewer
behavior problems than their nongifted classmates, though the differences
were not significant. Further, they noted that "...behavior problems of
gifted children may be underestimated because poorly adjusted gifted
students might be excluded a priori" (p. 39).

Giftedness and Psychiatric Disorders

Some researchers looked at the psychological well-being of gifted children
and adults by examining the incidence of specific psychiatric disorders
among gifted populations or the incidence of giftedness among
populations with certain illnesses. Much of the empirical evidence for
increased vulnerability among gifted persons comes from clinical studies
that have taken this approach. In contrast to the previously mentioned
studies which looked at children and adolescents, the majority of these
studies focused on adults.
For example, the intellectual functioning of people with eating disorders
was measured in a number of studies. Dally and Gomez (1979) observed
that 90% of their adolescent eating disordered patients had an IQ of 130
or more. Rowland (1970) found that one third of the eating disordered
patients in his study had IQs of 120 or above. These findings suggest that
there is a correlation between high intellectual functioning and eating
disorders. Other researchers, however, (Touyz, Beumont, and Johnstone,
1986) have found that the IQs of eating disordered patients have not
differed from the statistical distribution one finds in the population.

David Garner (1991) reviewed the literature on the relationship between

eating disorders and intellectual functioning and argued that being gifted
may render some people vulnerable to the patterns associated with eating
disorders, especially during adolescence. Specifically, Garner suggests
that early labeling of children as gifted may increase parental expectations
for performance, contributing to perfectionist behaviors. Or, parents may
overvalue their gifted child and intensify the child's expectations to meet
parental needs, which can especially create problems during adolescence.
Perfectionism, competitiveness, and high performance expectations from
others are characteristics of the gifted that are viewed as possible
contributors to the onset of eating disorders.
Gowan and Demos (1964) reported that 6.5% of 587 cases of
maladjusted children seen at a clinic in a large metropolitan area had IQs
of 130 or more on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. This percentage
is double what one would expect given the distribution of the gifted within
the population. However, this difference could reflect a selection factor.
For example, it may be that the parents of gifted children are more likely
to refer their children for professional assistance than other parents.

Parker (1996) found mathematically gifted students yielded scores

significantly lower than the normative group on all subscales of the Brief
Symptom Inventory (BSI) except the Obsessive-Compulsive scale.
Subjects were in grades 7-9 and tended to come from affluent, well
educated families. Parker further compared moderately gifted (SAT scores
500-690) with highly gifted (SAT scores above 700) and found no
significant differences.

A large number of studies examined the relationship between artistic

giftedness and mood disorders in adults (Feldman, 1989; Greenacre,
1957; Jamison, 1993; Lowenfeld, 1941; Niederland, 1976; Panter, Panter,
Virshup and Virshup, 1995; Pickford, 1981; Richards, 1981; Rothenberg,
1990). Mental disorders in which the primary feature is a mood
disturbance include major depression, dysthymia and bipolar disorder
(also popularly known as manic-depressive illness). Results of these
studies suggest that there is a significantly greater rate of depression,
manic-depressive illness, and suicide in eminent creative adults, writers
and artists especially (Andreasen, 1988; Jamison, 1993; Richards, 1981;
Rothenberg, 1990). The incidence of mental illness among creative artists
is higher than in the population at large. Some studies link creativity with
bipolar disorders specifically (Andreasen, 1988; Jamison, 1989; Richards;
1989). Observations from psychiatric studies suggest that disturbance of
mood, certain types of thinking processes, and tolerance for irrationality
are three characteristics common to both highly creative production and
psychiatric problems. Perhaps the most interesting finding from clinical
studies is that there are similarities in the thought processes of manic,
psychotic, and highly creative people (Prentky, 1980; Rothenberg, 1990;
Rothenberg & Burkhardt, 1984). Specifically, Rothenberg (1990)
compared the cognitive processes of persons with psychotic disorders with
those of creatively gifted writers and concluded that translogical types of
thinking characterize both psychotics and highly creatives. Translogical
thinking is a type of conceptualizing in which the thinking processes
transcend the common modes of ordinary logical thinking.

Andreasen, Stevens, and Powers (1975) investigated conceptual

overinclusiveness (i.e. the tendency to combine things into categories that
blur conceptual boundaries) in a sample of writers, manic depressives and
schizophrenics. They found that the conceptual styles of only the first two
groups were similar. Kay Jamison's research (1989; 1993) also supports
the idea that there is a cognitive link between creativity and
psychopathology. She noted that many of the cognitive changes that
characterize mania and hypomania are also typical of creativity:
restlessness, grandiosity, irritability, intensified sensory systems,
quickening of thought processes, and intense feeling.

Discussion
The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being has often been
examined as a dichotomous question. "Are gifted children more, or less
at-risk for psychological problems than their nongifted peers?" The
research reviewed here suggests that neither conclusion can be drawn for
gifted children. Rather, the research suggests that the psychological well-
being of a gifted child is related to the type of giftedness, the educational
fit, and the child's personal characteristics such as self-perceptions,
temperament and life circumstances.
When global measures of adjustment are used, overall results suggest
that gifted children are at least as well adjusted than their nongifted peers
(Gallucci, 1988; Howard, Hamilton & Franks, 1995; Nail & Evans, 1997).
There is little evidence of psychological risk among academically or
intellectually gifted children when global measures of adjustment are
examined. For example, results of studies investigating self-concept of
gifted children are mixed and difficult to generalize because self-concept
changes with development. The studies do seem to suggest that
educational placement, or the educational fit influences the adjustment of
the child. Specifically, the findings of several studies demonstrated that
gifted children in full time, segregated classrooms have either lower self-
concepts or lower perceived competence than do gifted students in part
time options (Chan, 1988; Coleman & Fults, 1985; Feldhusen, et al, 1990;
Kolloff, 1989; Karnes & Wherry, 1981).

When specific factors associated with maladjustment are investigated,

results of empirical studies are more consistent and find academically or
intellectually gifted children to be at least as well adjusted as their
nongifted peers. For instance, there is no empirical support for the belief
that gifted children experience depression or suicidal ideation more often
than do nongifted children. Rates of depression and suicide appear to be
similar for gifted and nongifted children (Baker, 1995; Bartell & Reynolds,
1986; Berndt, Kaiser & Van Aalst, 1982; Kaiser & Berndt, 1985; Kaiser,
Berndt & Stanley, 1987; Mash & Barkley, 1996; Neihart, 1991; Parker,
1996) Also, most of the empirical evidence suggests that levels of anxiety
are similar among average children and intellectually gifted children
(Derevensky & Coleman, 1989; Neihart, 1991; Reynolds & Bradley, 1983;
Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985). Only one empirical study found higher
levels of anxiety among gifted students (Tong & Yewchuk, 1996). The
available research on anxiety, depression and suicide in academically or
intellectually gifted students refutes the notion that these children are at
risk for problems with adjustment.

In contrast, when social competence is examined in the gifted, they

appear to be a very diverse group. Subgroups within the population
emerge and we begin to see relationships between social coping and the
domain or degree of ability, or the child's personal characteristics. For
example, there is evidence that the social adjustment of verbally
precocious students is more negative than that of mathematically
precocious students (Dauber & Benbow, 1990; Swiatek, 1995) And gifted
students who report "feeling different" from their peers also report more
negative perceptions of their social adjustment (Cross, Coleman, &
Stewart, 1995; Janos, Fung & Robinson, 1985).

It is when the number of high ability persons with specific psychiatric

disorders is assessed that the empirical support for the idea that gifted
people are at risk for problems with emotional or social adjustment
emerges. It is important to note that such studies were only conducted
with adult populations. There is limited evidence, for example, of a
relationship between higher IQ and eating disorders among adult clinical
populations. There is however, compelling evidence for higher rates of
mood disorders and suicide among creatively gifted writers and visual
artists. There do appear to be psychological risks associated with creative
giftedness and with the pursuit of exceptional artistic achievement among
adults. However, there is no research available to indicate whether this
association might exist among creatively gifted adolescents. Such
research is needed. We should not conclude that creatively or artistically
gifted children are at-risk for social or emotional problems. It simply has
not been investigated. It might be wise for teachers, counselors and
parents to be aware that vulnerability might be associated with creative
talent. Eysenck (1995) observed that the number of people making claims
about the psychology of gifted children is greater than the number of
people who bother to verify such claims. It is clear from the studies
referenced here that there are some claims we should stop making. One is
that highly gifted children (IQ above 160) are more vulnerable to social
and emotional problems. The research does not support the broad
conclusion that there's a level of IQ at which problems in adjustment
significantly increase. Rather, it seems that there's a level of IQ at which it
becomes very difficult to find appropriate educational services and it may
be the lack of good educational fit that most often contributes to the
difficulties some highly gifted children encounter (Baker, 1995; Dauber &
Benbow, 1990; Gallucci, 1988; Gross, 1993; Hollingworth, 1942; Parker,
1996; Witty, 1955). Future research will need to control for educational
placement when comparing the psychological well-being of highly gifted
children in order to clarify the role of "fit".

We ought to put an end to advancing claims based on sylloisms.

Syllogistic reasoning argues that if 'a' leads to 'b' and 'b' leads to 'c', then
'a' must lead to 'c' too. For example, one common syllogism argues that
gifted children experience more stress as a result of being different, and
high levels of stress are known to contribute to a wide variety of health
problems, therefore gifted children must be prone to problems (Altman,
1981; Chen, 1980; Ferguson, 1981; Silverman, 1993; Webb, Meckstroth
& Tolan, 1982). Another syllogism has to do with developmental
dysynchrony or developmental gaps. Gifted children often exhibit
differences in some domains of development. Developmental dysynchrony
is believed to be an etiological factor in psychopathology (Peterson &
Craighead, 1986). Therefore, it is argued, gifted children are at greater
risk for psychopathology. There are other syllogisms related to
perfectionism and feeling different. The relationships among these factors
have not been shown to be linear. More importantly, claims made based
on syllogisms have not been supported by research.

What do we know? Intellectually or academically gifted children who are

achieving, and participate in special educational program for gifted
students are at least as well adjusted and are perhaps better adjusted
than their nongifted peers. These children do not seem to be any more at-
risk for social or emotional problems. It is clear from the research that
giftedness does influence psychological outcomes for people, but whether
those outcomes are positive or negative seems to depend on several
factors that interact synergistically. These factors are the type and degree
of giftedness, the educational fit or lack thereof, and one's personal
characteristics.

Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis of Gifted Children

Authors: James T. Webb, Edward R. Amend, Nadia E. Webb, Jean Goerss, Paul Beljan, F.
Richard Olenchak

Citation: Abstracted from Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults:
ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. (2004) Scottsdale: Great
Potential Press. Available from the publisher.

Many gifted and talented children (and adults) are being mis-diagnosed by psychologists,
psychiatrists, pediatricians, and other health care professionals. The most common mis-
diagnoses are: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder
(OD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and Mood Disorders such as Cyclothymic
Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Depression, and Bi-Polar Disorder. These common mis-diagnoses
stem from an ignorance among professionals about specific social and emotional characteristics
of gifted children which are then mistakenly assumed by these professionals to be signs of
pathology.

In some situations where gifted children have received a correct diagnosis, giftedness is still a
factor that must be considered in treatment, and should really generate a dual diagnosis. For
example, existential depression or learning disability, when present in gifted children or adults,
requires a different approach because new dimensions are added by the giftedness component.
Yet the giftedness component typically is overlooked due to the lack of training and
understanding by health care professionals (Webb & Kleine, 1993).

Despite prevalent myths to the contrary, gifted children and adults are at particular psychological
risk due to both internal characteristics and situational factors. These internal and situational
factors can lead to interpersonal and psychological difficulties for gifted children, and
subsequently to mis-diagnoses and inadequate treatment.

Internal Factors
First, let me mention the internal aspects (Webb, 1993). Historically, nearly all of the research on
gifted individuals has focused on the intellectual aspects, particularly in an academic sense. Until
recently, little attention has been given to personality factors which accompany high intellect and
creativity. Even less attention has been given to the observation that these personality factors
intensify and have greater life effects when intelligence level increases beyond IQ 130
(Silverman, 1993; Webb, 1993; Winner, 2000).

Perhaps the most universal, yet most often overlooked, characteristic of gifted children and adults
is their intensity (Silverman, 1993; Webb, 1993). One mother described it succinctly when she
said, ―My child‘s life motto is that anything worth doing is worth doing to excess.‖ Gifted children
— and gifted adults– often are extremely intense, whether in their emotional response, intellectual
pursuits, sibling rivalry, or power struggles with an authority figure. Impatience is also frequently
present, both with oneself and with others. The intensity also often manifests itself in heightened
motor activity and physical restlessness.

Along with intensity, one typically finds in gifted individuals an extreme sensitivity–to emotions,
sounds, touch, taste, etc. These children may burst into tears while watching a sad event on the
evening news, keenly hear fluorescent lights, react strongly to smells, insist on having the tags
removed from their shirts, must touch everything, or are overly reactive to touch in a tactile-
defensive manner.

The gifted individual‘s drive to understand, to question, and to search for consistency is likewise
inherent and intense, as is the ability to see possibilities and alternatives. All of these
characteristics together result in an intense idealism and concern with social and moral issues,
which can create anxiety, depression, and a sharp challenging of others who do not share their
concerns.

Situational Factors
Situational factors are highly relevant to the problem of mis-diagnosis (Webb, 1993). Intensity,
sensitivity, idealism, impatience, questioning the status quo–none of these alone necessarily
constitutes a problem. In fact, we generally value these characteristics and behaviors–unless they
happen to occur in a tightly structured classroom, or in a highly organized business setting, or if
they happen to challenge some cherished tradition, and gifted children are the very ones who
challenge traditions or the status quo.

There is a substantial amount of research to indicate that gifted children spend at least one-fourth
to one-half of the regular classroom time waiting for others to catch up. Boredom is rampant
because of the age tracking in our public schools. Peer relations for gifted children are often
difficult (Webb, Meckstroth and Tolan, 1982; Winner, 2000), all the more so because of the
internal dyssynchrony (asynchronous development) shown by so many gifted children where their
development is uneven across various academic, social, and developmental areas, and where
their judgment often lags behind their intellect.

Clearly, there are possible (or even likely) problems that are associated with the characteristic
strengths of gifted children. Some of these typical strengths and related problems are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Possible Problems That May be Associated with Characteristic Strengths of

Gifted Children
Strengths

Acquires and retains information quickly.

Inquisitive attitude, intellectual curiosity; intrinsic motivation; searching for significance.

Ability to conceptualize, abstract, synthesize; enjoys problem-solving and intellectual activity.

Can see cause–effect relations.

Love of truth, equity, and fair play.

Enjoys organizing things and people into structure and order; seeks to systematize.

Large vocabulary and facile verbal proficiency; broad information in advanced areas.

Thinks critically; has high expectancies; is self-critical and evaluates others.

Keen observer; willing to consider the unusual; open to new experiences.

Creative and inventive; likes new ways of doing things.

Intense concentration; long attention span in areas of interest; goal-directed behavior; persistence.

Sensitivity, empathy for others; desire to be accepted by others.

High energy, alertness, eagerness; periods of intense efforts.

Independent; prefers individualized work; reliant on self.

Diverse interests and abilities; versatility.

Strong sense of humor.

Adapted from Clark (1992) and Seagoe (1974)

Lack of understanding by parents, educators, and health professionals, combined with the
problem situations (e.g., lack of appropriately differentiated education) leads to interpersonal
problems which are then mis-labeled, and thus prompt the mis-diagnoses. The most common
mis-diagnoses are as follows.

Common Mis-Diagnoses
ADHD and Gifted. Many gifted children are being mis-diagnosed as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD). The gifted child‘s characteristics of intensity, sensitivity, impatience, and high
motor activity can easily be mistaken for ADHD. Some gifted children surely do suffer from
ADHD, and thus have a dual diagnosis of gifted and ADHD; but in my opinion, most are not. Few
health care professionals give sufficient attention to the words about ADHD in DSM-IV(1994) that
say ―…inconsistent with developmental level….‖ The gifted child‘s developmental level is different
(asynchronous) when compared to other children, and health care professionals need to ask
whether the child‘s inattentiveness or impulsivity behaviors occur only in some situations but not
in others (e.g., at school but not at home; at church, but not at scouts, etc.). If the problem
behaviors are situational only, the child is likely not suffering from ADHD.

To further complicate matters, my own clinical observation suggests that about three percent of
highly gifted children suffer from a functional borderline hypoglycemic condition. Silverman (1993)
has suggested that perhaps the same percentage also suffer from allergies of various kinds.
Physical reactions in these conditions, when combined with the intensity and sensitivity, result in
behaviors that can mimic ADHD. However, the ADHD-like symptoms in such cases will vary with
the time of day, length of time since last meal, type of foods eaten, or exposure to other
environmental agents.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Gifted. The intensity, sensitivity, and idealism of gifted children
often lead others to view them as ―strong-willed.‖ Power struggles with parents and teachers are
common, particularly when these children receive criticism, as they often do, for some of the very
characteristics that make them gifted (e.g., ―Why are you so sensitive, always questioning me,
trying to do things a different way,‖ etc.).

Bi-Polar and other Mood Disorders and Gifted. Recently, I encountered a parent whose highly
gifted child had been diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder. This intense child, whose parents were
going through a bitter divorce, did indeed show extreme mood swings, but, in my view, the
diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder was off the mark. In adolescence, or sometimes earlier, gifted
children often do go through periods of depression related to their disappointed idealism, and
their feelings of aloneness and alienation culminate in an existential depression. However, it is
not at all clear that this kind of depression warrants such a major diagnosis.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Gifted. Even as preschoolers, gifted children love to

organize people and things into complex frameworks, and get quite upset when others don‘t
follow their rules or don‘t understand their schema. Many gifted first graders are seen as
perfectionistic and ―bossy‖ because they try to organize the other children, and sometimes even
try to organize their family or the teacher. As they grow up, they continue to search intensely for
the ―rules of life‖ and for consistency. Their intellectualizing, sense of urgency, perfectionism,
idealism, and intolerance for mistakes may be misunderstood to be signs of Obsessive-
Compulsive Disorder or Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. In some sense, however,
giftedness is a dual diagnosis with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder since
intellectualization may be assumed to underlie many of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for this
disorder.

Dual Diagnoses
Learning Disabilities and Giftedness. Giftedness is a coexisting factor, to be sure, in some
diagnoses. One notable example is in diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities. Few
psychologists are aware that inter-subscale scatter on the Wechsler intelligence tests increases
as a child‘s overall IQ score exceeds 130. In children with a Full Scale IQ score of 140 or greater,
it is not uncommon to find a difference of 20 or more points between Verbal IQ and Performance
IQ (Silverman, 1993; Webb & Kleine, 1993; Winner, 2000). Most clinical psychologists are taught
that such a discrepancy is serious cause for concern regarding possible serious brain
dysfunction, including learning disabilities. For highly gifted children, such discrepancy is far less
likely to be an indication of pathological brain dysfunction, though it certainly would suggest an
unusual learning style and perhaps a relative learning disability.

Similarly, the difference between the highest and lowest scores on individual subscales within
intelligence and achievement tests is often quite notable in gifted children. On the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children – III, it is not uncommon to find subscale differences greater than
seven scale score points for gifted children, particularly those who are highly gifted. These score
discrepancies are taken by most psychologists to indicate learning disabilities, and in a functional
sense they do represent that. That is, the levels of ability do vary dramatically, though the range
may be ―only‖ from Very Superior to Average level of functioning. In this sense, gifted children
may not ―qualify‖ for a diagnosis of learning disability, and indeed some schools seem to have a
policy of ―only one label allowed per student,‖ and since this student is gifted, he/she can not also
be considered learning disabled. However, it is important for psychologists to understand the
concept of ―asynchronous development‖ (Silverman, 1993), and to appreciate that most gifted
children show such an appreciable, and often significant, scatter of abilities.

Poor handwriting is often used as one indicator of learning disabilities. However, many and
perhaps most gifted children will show poor handwriting. Usually this simply represents that their
thoughts go so much faster than their hands can move, and that they see little sense in making
writing an art form when its primary purpose is to communicate (Webb & Kleine, 1993; Winner,
2000).

Psychologists must understand that, without intervention, self-esteem issues are almost a
guarantee in gifted children with learning disabilities as well as those who simply have notable
asynchronous development since they tend to evaluate themselves based more on what they
cannot do rather than on what they are able to do. Sharing formal ability and achievement test
results with gifted children about their particular abilities, combined with reassurance, can often
help them develop a more appropriate sense of self-evaluation.

Sleep Disorders and Giftedness. Nightmare Disorder, Sleep Terror Disorder, and Sleepwalking
Disorder appear to be more prevalent among gifted children, particularly boys. It is unclear
whether this should be considered a mis-diagnosis or a dual diagnosis. Certainly, parents
commonly report that their gifted children have dreams that are more vivid, intense, and more
often in color, and that a substantial proportion of gifted boys are more prone to sleepwalking and
bed wetting, apparently related to their dreams and to being more soundly (i.e., intensely) asleep.
Such concordance would suggest that giftedness may need to be considered as a dual diagnosis
in these cases, or at least a factor worthy of consideration since the child‘s intellect and sense of
understanding often can be used to help the child cope with nightmares.

A little known observation concerning sleep in gifted individuals is that about twenty percent of
gifted children seem to need significantly less sleep than other children, while another twenty
percent appear to need significantly more sleep than other children. Parents report that these
sleep patterns show themselves very early in the child‘s life, and long-term follow up suggests
that the pattern continues into adulthood (Webb & Kleine, 1993; Winner, 2000). Some highly
gifted adults appear to average comfortably as few as two or three hours sleep each night, and
they have indicated to me that even in childhood they needed only four or five hours sleep.

Multiple Personality Disorders and Giftedness. Though there is little formal study of giftedness
factors within MPD, there is anecdotal evidence that the two are related. The conclusion of
professionals at the Menninger Foundation was that most MPD patients showed a history of
childhood abuse, but also high intellectual abilities which allowed them to create and maintain
their elaborate separate personalities (W. H. Smith personal communication, April 18, 1996).
Relational Problems and Giftedness. As one mother told me, ―Having a gifted child in the family
did not change our family‘s lifestyle; it simply destroyed it!‖ These children can be both
exhilarating and exhausting. But because parents often lack information about characteristics of
gifted children, the relationship between parent and child can suffer. The child‘s behaviors are
seen as mischievous, impertinent, weird, or strong-willed, and the child often is criticized or
punished for behaviors that really represent curiosity, intensity, sensitivity, or the lag of judgment
behind intellect. Thus, intense power struggles, arguments, temper tantrums, sibling rivalry,
withdrawal, underachievement, and open flaunting of family and societal traditions may occur
within the family.

―Impaired communication‖ and ―inadequate discipline‖ are specifically listed in the DSM-IV (1994)
as areas of concern to be considered in a diagnosis of Parent-Child Relational Problems, and a
diagnosis of Sibling Relational Problem is associated with significant impairment of functioning
within the family or in one or more siblings. Not surprisingly, these are frequent concerns for
parents of gifted children due to the intensity, impatience, asynchronous development, and lag of
judgment behind intellect of gifted children.

Health care professionals could benefit from increased knowledge concerning the effects of a
gifted child‘s behaviors within a family, and thus often avoid mistaken notions about the causes of
the problems. The characteristics inherent within gifted children have implications for diagnosis
and treatment which could include therapy for the whole family, not in the sense of ―treatment,‖
but to develop coping mechanisms for dealing with the intensity, sensitivity, and the situations
which otherwise may cause them problems later (Jacobsen, 1999).

Conclusion
Many of our brightest and most creative minds are not only going unrecognized, but they also are
often given diagnoses that indicate pathology. For decades, psychologists and other health care
professionals have given great emphasis to the functioning of persons in the lower range of the
intellectual spectrum. It is time that we trained health care professionals to give similar attention
to our most gifted, talented, and creative children and adults. At the very least, it is imperative that
these professionals gain sufficient understanding so that they no longer conclude that certain
inherent characteristics of giftedness represent pathology.

- What good is a high IQ?

Everyone in the developed world is aware of the term IQ. There is a certain mystique attached to the
concept. Somehow, in a single number, is embodied a substance known as "intelligence". I use the word
"substance" deliberately, for the way people speak of it, it is as if it is some concretely measurable,
verifiable thing that is present in a person in varying quantities. At least, that is the common view of this
magic number.

Yet what, practically speaking, does IQ mean? I intend not to look at the common way of regarding it,
which is a measure of rarity in the population, but in a practical sense. What real life difference does IQ
make to a person?

There are two practical facets I wish to look at, two which are relatively little known. Firstly, when given
a problem to solve and the time taken to complete the problem is measured, research has shown that a
10 point drop in IQ corresponds to a DOUBLING of the time taken to complete the problem. That fact
needs some consideration before we move on.

What does a doubling in the time to solve a problem mean for an IQ drop of 10 points? Well, think of it
this way: with a 10 point drop, the time taken is double; with a 20 point difference, the time taken is
four times; with a 30 point drop it is eight times; and so on. This difference can become truly huge for
large differences in IQ. If there is a 100 point drop, the difference in time is 1,024 times. (This assumes,
of course, that the relationship holds across all levels of human IQ - but that is the only assumption
being made for this to be true.)

It is easy to understand how this is so if we compare the problem solving skills of a person with "genius
IQ" and someone who is subnormal, say comparing an IQ of 150 with an IQ of 50. It would be no
surprise at all if it took a 1,000 times longer for the person of 50 IQ to solve a problem which challenged
the genius.

This has very real practical implications and allows us to better understand the meaning of IQs in a real
way. Someone with a higher IQ than someone else will, generally, solve a particular problem more
quickly. If the IQ difference is huge, the time to solve can be very different indeed. In the real world,
given our finite lifetimes and shortage of time in general, this can mean that, practically speaking, even if
the person of lower IQ would eventually solve the problem, that they won't: there simply won't be the
time. In a time critical job, like air traffic controller, or stock trader, or surgeon, a higher IQ can be the
difference between success and failure, profit and loss, life and death.

I want you to think about this again: a person of IQ 200, can solve problems a thousand times faster
than the average person. (Obviously we would have to use a hard enough problem to see the difference,
at work: something easy for both levels of intelligence would not distinguish them.)

There is another difference in problem solving revealed by IQ. Any given problem of fixed difficulty will
be open to solution by a spread of IQs. What differs is the chance of the problem being solved. At the
lower IQs the chance of a solution is correspondingly less, until at a certain fixed IQ, NO-ONE below that
IQ can solve the problem. At the other end, there is an IQ above which EVERYONE solves the problem.

This again has real world applications. If you have a hard problem to solve, there will be a minimum IQ
required to solve it, below which no-one can do so, no matter how much time they have to do so. It
should also be noted that for very high IQs almost all real world problems will be susceptible to their
intelligence, and readily solved.

I think this way of looking at IQ is much more valuable for understanding what they mean, than the
conventional one of looking at rarity. It tells us in a very real way, what can be expected of people of
different IQ levels, in practical terms.

Mental Illness and High IQ

It is said that people who visit mental health services have Low IQs and thus are predisposed to
mental illness.

Is it only true because they literally test the subjects when they are in thier stages of illness.

Since depression is decremental to the brain , one could believe they have low scores.

If testing before , or testing one's that are predisposed they are likely to have relatively higher
IQs.

Has there been research that tests otherwise seemingly healthy people that are predisposed to
depression , and then test them after?

There has been on Premorbid IQ and Schizophrenia:

 Quote:
In order to test the hypothesis that acute schizophrenia episodes have a negative impact on
cognitive function, 35 consecutive non-abuse schizophrenia outpatients (age < 60) were
enrolled in this study. All subjects for whom grades from the 9(th) year of the Swedish
school system were available, had to complete a comprehensive computerized
neuropsychological test session. Symptoms were rated by PANSS and GAF, previous
episodes were tallied, and medication was logged. A premorbid cognitive score was
calculated on the basis of school grades and validated by comparison with academic
career and current cognitive performance (r = 0.56). Half had college level studies or
higher, and the overall school grades for the group were above average. PANSS (sum =
59) and GAF [59] ratings as well as medication (M = 230 CPZ units) suggested a moderate
symptom level. Two patients had no neuroleptic drugs, 16 had atypical and 17 had
conventional neuroleptics. Vocabulary was intact. On average, patients had lost 1 standard
deviation (SD) in most cognitive tests but response time slowing amounted to 3.5 SD.There
were no differences in cognition between drug types and no correlation with CPZ dose.
The number of previous episodes was positively correlated with reaction time prolongation
and negatively correlated with short-term verbal memory, consistent with a previous study
suggesting that acute episodes cause specific cognitive reduction.

If intelligent people are less at risk at developing more serious disorders , what this suggests also
is that some of the same genetic and brain differences that lead to mental illness may also cause
lower IQ (again, in some but not all people) - which is a more logical explanation of the
correlation of low IQ and mental illness.

High IQ and real life functioning is shown , where "They have demonstrated that the symptoms of
schizophrenia are less severe and the ability to function in daily living is better for those with a
higher IQ."

Some it seems High IQ acts like a buffer , one that protects from more devasting symptoms and
increasing functioning in society despite being mentally ill , which makes them more resilent.

What research shows is that a lower IQ means a greater disposition for schizophrenia but this
does not imply that all people with mental illness have low IQ , because the exception of John
Nash contradicted it.

But Higher IQs are still exposed to these disorders , in conclusion it only effects the prognosis
because of service utilization and reduced impact on social outcome because of taking
medication.
-----

Quote:
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
- Ernest Hemingway, author and journalist, Nobel laureate (1899-1961)

Hemingway, who took his own life in 1961, knew his share of both intelligent
people and of unhappiness. He lived through two world wars, the Great Depression, four
wives and an unknown number of failed romantic relationships, none of which would help
him to develop happiness if he knew how. As Hemingway's quote was based on his life
experience, I will base the following speculation on both my personal and my professional
experience as a sociologist. Not enough study exists to quote on this subject.

Western society is not set up to nurture intelligent children and adults, the wayit dotes over
athletes and sports figures, especially the outstanding ones.While we have the odd notable
personality such as Albert Einstein, we also have many extremely intelligent people working
in occupations that are considered among the lowliest, as may be attested by a review of
the membership lists of Mensa (the club for the top two percent on intelligence scales).

Education systems in countries whose primary interest is in wealth accumulation encourage

heroes in movies, war and sports, but not in intellectual development. Super intelligent
people manage, but few reach the top of the business or social ladder.

Children develop along four streams: intellectual, physical, emotional

(psychological) and social. In classrooms, the smartest kids tend to be left outof more
activities by other children than they are included in. They are "odd," they are the geeks,
they are social outsiders. In other words, they do not develop socially as well as they may
develop intellectually or even physically where opportunities may exist for more progress.

Their emotional development, characterized by their ability to cope with risky orstressful
situations, especially over long periods of time, also lags behind that of the average person.

Adults tend to believe that intelligent kids can deal with anything because they are
intellectually superior. This inevitably includes situations where the
intelligent kids have neither knowledge nor skills to support their experience.
They go through the tough times alone. Adults don't understand that they need help and
other kids don't want to associate with kids the social leaders say are outsiders.

As a result we have many highly intelligent people whose social development

progresses much slower than that of most people and they have trouble coping with the
stressors of life that present themselves to everyone. It should come as no surprise that the
vast majority of prison inmates are socially and emotionally underdeveloped or
maldeveloped and a larger than average percentage of them are more intelligent than the
norm.

Western society provides the ideal incubator for social misfits and those with
emotional coping problems. When it comes to happiness, people who are socially inept and
who have trouble coping emotionally with the exigencies of life would not be among those
you should expect to be happy.
This may be changing in the 21st century as the geeks gain recognition as people with great
potential, especially as people who might make their fortune in the world of high
technology. Geeks may be more socially accepted than in the past, but unless they receive
more assistance with their social and emotional development, most are destined to be
unhappy as they mature in the world of adults.

People with high intelligence, be they children or adults, still rank as social
outsiders in most situations, including their skills to be good mates and parents.

Moreover, they tend to see more of the tragedy in the communites and countriesthey live
in, and in the world, than the average person whose primary source of news and
information is comedy shows on television. Tragedy is easier to find than compassion, even
 though compassion likely exists in greater proportion in most communities.

Can You Outsmart Addiction?

By DAVID SACK, M.D.

Every parent wants to raise a smart kid. It seems logical that

intelligence would correlate to better grades, a higher paying job and improved
satisfaction with life. Yet studies show that a high IQ can get us into all kinds of trouble.
Not only are brainiacs more likely to max out their credit cards and declare bankruptcy,
but they‘re also at greater risk for substance abuse.

According to the National LongitudinalStudy of Adolescent Health, a high IQ in childhood

is associated with a higher risk of getting drunk and binge drinking. Youth who were
―very bright‖ (with an IQ over 125) engaged in binge drinking roughly once every other
month while children with an IQ below 75 engaged in binge drinking less than once a
year. Similarly, the NationalChild Development Study in the U.K. showed that the more
intelligent participants were in childhood, the more alcohol they consumed in adulthood.

People with high IQs are also more likely to smoke marijuana and take other illegal drugs
compared with those who score lower on intelligence tests, according to a study from
Cardiff University in Wales. Researchers speculated that individuals with a higher IQ are
more willing to experiment and seek out novel experiences. In addition, smart teens
aren‘t likely to see occasional drug use as particularly harmful, though they may not
understand the serious risk of addiction or be able to accurately assess their own risk
factors.

‘Too Smart’ to Be an Addict

In addition to being more likely to use drugs, people of high intelligence are typically less
willing to admit a problem and seek professional help and harder to treat when they
arrive in treatment. Here are a few reasons that intelligence can actually become a
handicap to recovery:

Intellectualization. Intellectualization is a defense mechanism in which addicts argue

over logical flaws and over-analyze insignificant details to prove they do not have a
problem. What they discover in treatment is that addiction is not an illness that can be
approached intellectually. Smart people do foolish things in the pursuit of a high. Even
years into recovery, extremely bright people relapse because they tell themselves, ―I can
handle one drink/hit. I‘m a new person and I know too much about my disease to ever
go back to where I was.‖

Clinton McCracken, a research scientist who specializes in addiction, learned this lesson
the hard way. In 2010, he published a cautionarytale called ―Intellectualization of Drug
Abuse‖ in The Journal of the American Medical Association documenting his own drug
problem. Believing that his intelligence and training would protect him from addiction,
McCracken was disillusioned when his daily marijuana habit and intravenous opiate abuse
led to the death of his fiancée and loss of his postdoctoral fellowship.

Although tragic, McCracken‘s story is not unusual. Like many doctors, lawyers and other
high-functioning addicts, he was able to continue functioning at a high level until
something happened that shook his illusion of control and almost overnight ruined his
personal and professional life.

Overconfidence. Well-educated professionals, and particularly health care workers with

expertise in addiction, tend to believe their own intelligence will allow them to control a
drug or alcohol habit. Since their best thinking has paid off for them in the past, they
believe, ―Others can‘t control their drug use, but I know more than them. I can.‖

Perceived Incompatibility with the 12 Steps. In the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous

and related 12-Step programs, it is sometimes said that everyone has enough
intelligence to be able to follow the Steps, but some have too much. There are a number
of reasons highly intelligent addicts believe themselves to be at odds with 12-Step
recovery. For one, they resist the wisdom of others. Rather than taking recommendations
at face value (e.g., advice to avoid people, places and things that trigger the urge to
use), they want to learn and experience every lesson for themselves – sometimes the
hard way. Highly intelligent addicts, who tend to over-analyze every aspect of addiction
and recovery, may have difficulty embracing concepts like humility, powerlessness and
surrender, believing firmly in their own willpower and logic.

Because the intellectually gifted face unique obstacles in overcoming addiction, they
often fare best in specialized addiction treatment programs for professionals. In these
programs, care is provided by a team of fellow professionals who understand when to
challenge defenses and when to offer support. Particularly for those who are treatment-
resistant, general and profession-specific support groups can help them remain open to
feedback from peers who are also in recovery.

A Loftier Pursuit: Emotional Intelligence

Where IQ falls short in furthering our health and happiness, research suggests emotional
intelligence could pick up the slack. Defined, in part, as the capacity to identify and
regulate one‘s emotions, emotional intelligence improves our interactions with others and
equips us with the skills to navigate a changing world. It is also a protective force against
addiction.

In a study from a university in Barcelona, researchers found that students with high
emotional intelligence were less likely smoke tobacco or marijuana than those with fewer
emotion regulation skills. Emotional intelligence has also been linked to lower rates of
stress and depression and better overall satisfaction with life.

Addiction doesn‘t care how smart you are or how much money you make. Your wits may
serve you well in many areas of life, but you simply can‘t think your way out of a drug or
alcohol problem. Certainly, learning about the disease and understanding its biological
roots is an important part of recovery. But a much bigger – and more challenging – goal
is developing the emotional intelligence and practical coping skills to change your daily
life

People with Very-High IQ (Smartest-to-Genius) Are Not the

Highest Achievers in Business…Try Normal
“When you’re one step ahead of the crowd you’re a genius. When you’re two steps
ahead you’re a crackpot.” ~ Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
The good news is that the real world accomplishments are not made by those with the
very highest level IQs (intelligence quotient) or smartest in the world, but achieved by
those who are considered to have normal or slightly above normal intelligence. Many
so called smartest people on the planet were known to have problems that make us
wonder what is the benefit to be the smartest person if the individual cannot even
manage his/her life properly, Mozart is said to have a very high IQ, however he was
financially very poor and full in debt, and there are many other example of people
with genius level IQs that have not succeeded. The real question is what are the
boundaries for real world success? It turns out that there are actually two: one for
practical real world achievements, and a second for theoretical accomplishments.
The first consists of solving real life problems, concrete issues. And the second one
consist of solving theoretical problems, some people are good at the first part (real
world achievement), and they‘re usually people with average or slightly above average
intelligence, the latter (the theoretical accomplishments) are for those with very high
IQs who can solve complex theoretical problems mainly on tests, but don‘t do as well
in real world achievements. However, there are critics who do not dispute the
stability of IQ test scores or the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement
rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on IQ
test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability. Psychologist
Peter Schönemann was also a persistent critic of IQ, calling it ―the IQ myth‖.
In the article “What Different IQ Scores Mean” by James Neill writes: What is a good
IQ score? What is a high IQ score? What is a low IQ score? These are common
questions, particularly after someone finds out their score from an IQ test. Lewis
Terman (1916) developed the original notion of IQ and proposed this scale for
classifying IQ scores:
 Over 140 – Genius or near genius
 120 – 140 – Very superior intelligence
 110 – 119 -Superiorintelligence
 90 – 109 -Normalor average intelligence
 80 – 89 – Dullness
 70 – 79 – Borderline deficiency
 Under 70 – Definite feeble-mindedness
The properties of the normal distribution apply to IQ scores:

 50% of IQ scores fall between 90 and 110

 70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115
 95% of IQ scores fall between 70 and 130
 99.5% of IQ scores fall between 60 and 140
5% of people have an IQ under 70 and this is generally considered as the benchmark
for ―mental retardation‖, a condition of limited mental ability in that it produces
difficulty in adapting to the demands of life. Severity of mental retardation can be
broken into 4 levels:

 50-70 – Mild mental retardation (85%)

 35-50 – Moderate mental retardation (10%)
 20-35 – Severe mental retardation (4%)
 IQ < 20 – Profound mental retardation (1%)
‗Genius IQ‘ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145, representing ~.25% of
the population (1 in 400). Here‘s a rough guide:

 115-124 – Above average (e.g., university students)

 125-134 – Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
 135-144 – Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
 145-154 – Genius (e.g., professors)
 155-164 – Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners)
 165-179 – High genius
 180-200 – Highest genius
 >200 - Immeasurable genius
Note: Einstein was considered to ―only‖ have an IQ of about 160.

In the article “Identifying the Most Intelligent Person in the World” by Dayahka
writes: Howard Gardner, Harvard educational psychologist, has identified nine (9)
types of intelligence. Traditional education (and IQ tests) have measured only two of
these types (mathematical and linguistic). All people have these nine types of
intelligence, but they develop usually only one or two of them. No one is known to
have mastered all nine (none of the great masters or gurus or buddhas).The most
intelligent person in the world would have to be the person with the most
development of all nine intelligences (Gardner calls them smarts). Since IQ measures
only two types of smarts, we‘d first need IQ tests for the other seven before we could
begin to identify the smartest person in the world. However, since no one (according
to Gardner) has developed more than two or three smarts, we would end up in
endless wrangling over which of the nine is the best type of smart. Then we could end
in meaningless discussions like asking if someone with a 138 IQ in linguistics is
smarter than someone with a 137 IQ in mathematics. The highest IQ score recorded
was 228 by Marilyn Vos Savant (at age 10). However, high IQs are notoriously
difficult to measure meaningfully. There are many critics who doubt the ability of
modern IQ tests to meaningfully measure intelligence…
In the article “Genius Isn’t About Intellect As Most People Believe, It’s More About
The Way The Brain Works” by Devon K writes: Contrary to popular
belief, genius isn‘t about intellect as much as most people believe. Even though they
rate genius based on IQ, there are some very smart people who are not geniuses and
some very dumb people who are. The reason for this is that genius is actually more
about how the brain/mind works than how smart someone actually is. The brain can
be trained to focus on intelligence and thus allow the genius to become exceptionally
smart. However, the brain can also be applied (or not applied) too many other things
and thus lead to many, many other outcomes (besides intelligence). Don‘t confuse all
of this with people being called a ―musical genius‖ or other such thing. In many ways
that‘s a label people use to try and make the person ―more than‖. That isn‘t to say
they are not a genius, only that the word ‗genius’ is being used in an arbitrary fashion
without regard for what it actually is.
In the article “Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned?” by John Cloud writes: Is it
possible to cultivate genius? Could we somehow structure our educational and social
life to produce more Einsteins and Mozarts — or, more urgently these days, another
Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes? How to produce genius is a very old question,
one that has occupied philosophers since antiquity. In the modern era, Immanuel
Kant and Darwin‘s cousin Francis Galton wrote extensively about how genius occurs.
Pop-sociologist Malcolm Gladwell addressed the subject in his book Outliers: The
Story of Success. The latest, and possibly most comprehensive, entry into this genre
is Dean Keith Simonton‘s book ‗Genius 101: Creators, Leaders, and Prodigies’. For
most of its history, the debate over what leads to genius has been dominated by a
bitter, binary argument: is it nature or is it nurture — is genius genetically inherited,
or are geniuses the products of stimulating and supportive homes? Simonton takes
the reasonable position that geniuses are the result of both good genes and good
surroundings. His middle-of-the-road stance sets him apart from more ideological
proponents like Galton (the founder of eugenics) as well as revisionists like Gladwell
who argue that dedication and practice, as opposed to raw intelligence, are the most
crucial determinants of success. And, Anders Ericsson who has become famous for
the 10-year rule: the notion that it takes at least 10 years (or 10,000 hours) of
dedicated practice for people to master most complex endeavors.
“Geniuses are those who have the intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance to
acquire the needed expertise in a broadly valued domain of achievement” and who
then make contributions to that field that are considered by peers to be both
“original and highly exemplary.” ~ Simonton
In the article “Top 5 Mad Geniuses” by Jane McGrath writes: Is insanity the secret
companion to genius? It turns out some of the world‘s greatest geniuses were quite
mad. In fact, some scientists claim that a far greater percentage of creative types
(poets, painters, musicians and the like) have been afflicted with bipolar disorder
than the general population. Some of the world‘s most renowned creative minds,
including writers Mary Shelley, Virginia Woolf, and Ernest Hemingway; composers
Irving Berlin and Sergey Rachmaninoff; and painters Paul Gauguin and Jackson
Pollock are all believed to have suffered from the illness Despite evidence of a link
between genius and madness, no one has proved that such a link exists. However,
scientists at the University of Toronto have discovered that creative people possess
little to no ―latent inhibition‖, that is, the unconscious ability to reject unimportant or
irrelevant stimuli. As University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson
puts it, ―This means that creative individuals remain in contact with the extra
information constantly streaming in from the environment. The normal person
classifies an object, and then forgets about it, even though that object is much more
complex and interesting than he or she thinks. The creative person, by contrast, is
always open to new possibilities.”
Think you are smart? Well, if your IQ is 130, that puts you ahead of 98% of people. Of
course that means there are still 120 million people who are smarter than you (the
other 2%). Also, recent research shows that a person‘s level of self-discipline is more
predictive of success than their IQ level. In other words, don‘t take too much meaning
from your score on an IQ scale. IQ scores measure the ability to carry out symbolic
thinking, while intelligence is a multidimensional entity, a human characteristic too
complicated to be accurately and sufficiently measured by any IQ test. IQ tests merely
photograph one‘s cognitive level/mental performance… Being a genius and being
successful are two different things, although they can be combined in many
individuals…

Do Atheists Really Have

Higher IQs than Believers?
Some atheists maintain their non-belief comes through superior intelligence. In particular,
many online atheists like to quote, ―A fool says in his heart there is a God.‖ He reads only those
sources which confirm and conform to his view and eschews those which do not. And he isn‘t shy
about telling you how dumb it is not to believe as he does.
But consider: nearly all the greatest, best, highest, most beautiful minds that ever existed were
theists. Aristotle? Augustine? Confucius? Aquinas? Bonaventure? Copernicus? Bruno? Kepler?
Galileo? Pascal? Descartes? Newton? Bach? Mendel? The list is endless. Most people were and
still are theists of one sort or another. It is only in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries where
atheism picked up steam.
If one is to study the association between intelligence and religious belief it is clear that
one must account for history. The year 1928 is not the same as 1978 particularly in countries
like Vietnam, where in 1928 many theists lived, but where in 1978 they have mostly disappeared.
The date is especially important if we define theist as one who publicly checks ―Believer‖ on a
survey, a survey the government may soon learn about. (For 1978 Vietnam did not take kindly to
discover believers in its midst.)
In the above example, I did not choose the year 1928 arbitrarily. It was the time of the first study
in the dataset reanalyzed (for the umpteenth time) by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and
Judith Hall in their paper ―The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and
Some Proposed Explanations‖ in Personality and Social Psychology Review. The conclusions in
this paper have recently gone viral around the Internet.
One problem, however, is that in their study, Zuckerman et alia don’t recognize historyas
much as do Richard Lynn, John Harvey, and Helmuth Nyborg in their original analysis (data
here). In their ―Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations‖ in Intelligence,
they say:

"Two of the most anomalous are Cuba and Vietnam, which have higher percentages disbelieving
in God (40% and 81%, respectively) than would be expected from their IQs of 85 and 94
(respectively). This is likely attributable to these being former or current communist countries in
which there has been strong atheistic propaganda against religious belief. In addition, it has
sometimes been suggested that communism is itself a form of religion in which Das Capital is the
sacred text, Lenin was the Messiah who came to bring heaven on earth, while Stalin, Mao, Castro
and others have been his disciples who have came to spread the message in various countries."

Too bad they still used the data in their analysis. But then so did Zuckerman.
Here‘s the picture of the data (the news media and Wikipedia have this backwards; the authors
call atheism ―non-religiosity‖, a category which is fuzzy and which probably includes some theists,
of a sort):
If we accept the data as is we learn that for IQs around 100, percent atheism runs from
near 0% to over 80%. This means, of course, that IQ has little to say about percent atheism
when IQs are around 100, which is defined as the mean. The USA, incidentally, has IQ 98.5 and
percent atheism 10.5%.
The bottom IQs, and also lowest percent atheists, belong to Cameroon, Central African Rep,
Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Guinea, Haiti,
Liberia. You get the idea; many from the 1960s and 1970s, some earlier. But is it fair to compare
Africa to modern Europe?
Another serious problem is that Zuckerman and friends cobbled together over sixty
studies. Their Table 1 shows that the mechanism to measure IQ was different in different
locations. The proportion of males varied from unknown, to low, to 100%. The measures of
religiosity differed at different locations. Religions were also hugely different (is it the same to
believe in animism as Protestant Christianity?). The samples, particularly in developed countries,
were college kids, but elsewhere more non-college and precollege people were used. The lowest
sample size was 22, but most were a hundred or so, with one topping out at over 14 thousand.
And we already mentioned the widely disparate years the samples were taken.
Data of every flavor was observed, data that should not be mixed without an idea of how to
combine the uncertainty inherent in each study and in how, say, kinds of IQ measurements map
to other kinds of IQ measurements. In other words, they mixed data which should not be mixed,
because nobody has any idea how to make these corrections.
But suppose somebody did know how. Then what? What could we possibly learn? Nothing. Or
nothing of any use, except perhaps the extent which enculturation works (to convert people to
atheism and theism). Look: we have already agreed that many people much smarter than us
have been theists, but we also know that some clever folks have been non-theists. If we‘re after
raw body counts, the theists win handily.
Just because a person is or isn’t intelligent contributes nothing, not a thing, to the truth or
falsity of any proposition (not related to the individual). Does God exist because Aristotle,
perhaps the greatest intelligence of all, said so? Of course not. Is relativity true because Einstein,
no small brain, thought it up? Again no. If it were true that merely being intelligent conferred truth
then we would never have political disagreements, because all we‘d have to do is give everybody
an IQ test and put whoever scored highest in charge.

Except that highly intelligent people believe stupid and false things. And at a rate too

depressing to contemplate.

I Am Not Your Stereotypical Anything

I Have a High Iq and Yet I Feel Stupid

I am a member of Mensa. I have an IQ of 152, and yet, I feel stupid and worthless.

I was an underachiever when I was in gradeschool and in high school. I cannot keep my mind
on one thing. School bored me. I'd often play hookey. I'd go home after recess and read the
books that I wanted to read.

I'm good at a lot of things, but I'm "a jack of all trades and a master of none," as Shakespeare
would put it. Most of the time, I just feel like a jackass.

Nobody thought that I would be a college dropout. I was a full scholar at the Ateneo de
Manila University, one of the top universities in our country. I didn't graduate from college
because I couldn't focus on my studies. A lot of things vied for my attention, which was
scattered all over the place.

Last year, I had a major depressive episode. I was a call center professional. I knew I was
good at my job, but for some reason, I felt stupid. I also had this nagging feeling that I was
about to lose my job although there was no reason for me to worry. I was always anxious. I
felt that I was always doing something wrong.
I'm now staying in my hometown, in a province hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest
city. Jobs are scarce for college dropouts like me, but I have Internet access so I
telecommute. I do have a job. I work as a transcriptionist, and again, I have this nagging
feeling that I am about to lose my job. I have been making a lot of mistakes and sometimes,
I'm late in submitting my transcripts because I can't focus on my job. I need to keep this job
because I'm the breadwinner of our family.

I went to a psychiatrist last year and I was told that I may have attention deficit disorder
(ADD). She prescribed some medications but I decided against taking them because of the
side effects. I have had gastrointestinal problems before and the medicines she prescribed has
some adverse effects on the gastrointestinal system. Besides, I cannot afford to buy the
medicines.

I don't know what to do. Is there any treatment for ADD that does not require oral
medications?

I want to stop feeling like a failure. Most of my former classmates are now successful
professionals here and abroad. I envy them. The future seems to be so bleak for me. I don't
know what to do. Please help me.

Higher intelligence associated with

"thinking like an economist"
As the world economy dusts itself down and edges towards recovery, a provocative new paper
claims that people with higher intelligence are more likely to think like economists. That is, they're
more likely to be optimistic about the economy; to recognise the economic advantages of markets
free from government interference, and the advantages of foreign trade and foreign workers; and
to appreciate the economic benefits of achieving greater productivity with less man-power. The
lead author is Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University. Past essays
by him include 'The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters (And we're all stupid voters.)'

Prior research has established that the more time a person spends in education, the more likely
their broad economic views are to match that of the typical economist (pdf). Caplan and his
colleague Stephen Miller point out that these studies failed to take into account the influence of
intelligence. After all, it's known that people with higher IQ tend to spend longer in education and
intelligence itself may also directly influence economic beliefs.

To overcome this problem, Caplan and Miller have focused on answers to the General Social
Survey, a massive US poll of national opinions performed every two years. Crucially, it includes
questions about the economy and a small test of verbal IQ.

Caplan and Miller's finding is that the link between educational background and 'thinking like an
economist' is weakened when IQ is taken into account because IQ is the more important factor
associated with economic beliefs. It's a complicated picture because IQ and education may be
mutually influential. However, if one assumes that education is unable to raise IQ, but that IQ
affects time spent in education, then the researchers said 'the net effect on economic beliefs of
intelligence is more than double the net effect of education.' Even if one assumes that education
can also affect IQ, 'intelligence still has a larger estimated effect [on economic beliefs],' they said.

Does the link between higher intelligence and 'thinking like an economist' mean that economists
are generally right and the public wrong? In answer to this question, Caplan and Miller cite Shane
Frederick, a decision-making scholar at Yale's School of Management, who's previously
argued that it depends on the type of question. For financial issues, he argued, it pays to emulate
those 'with higher cognitive abilities'. However, Frederick noted that 'if one were deciding between
an apple or an orange, Einstein's preference for apples seems irrelevant.'

Caplan and Miller say they agree with Frederick about this, before concluding boldly: 'The fact
that the beliefs of economists and intelligent non-economists dovetail is another reason to accept
the "economists are right, the public is wrong" interpretation of lay-expert belief gaps.'
_________________________________

Dyslexia

People who experience reading difficulty without being otherwise intellectually

disabled are said to suffer from dyslexia. Studying dyslexia is very valuable for
understanding intelligence and creativity. It illustrates the power of inborn wiring
of the brain in developing mental skills. At the same time it can show how inborn
limitations can be overcome by using the compensatory power of the brain.
Dyslexia is caused by an inability to handle linguistic information in visual form.
5-15% of the population can be diagnosed as suffering from various degrees of
dyslexia. Its main manifestation is a difficulty in developing reading skills in
elementary school children. Those difficulties result from reduced ability to link up
visual symbols with sounds. In the past, dyslexia was mistakenly thought to have a
motivational background. Researchers studying the brains of dyslectics have,
however, found that in reading tasks dyslexics show reduced activity in the left
inferior parietal cortex. Otherwise, dyslectics are known to often show higher than
average intelligence. A number of bright brains are said to have suffered from
varying degree of dyslexia. Those include Einstein, Edison, Alexander Graham
Bell, Faraday and many others. Dyslectics may show a natural dislike of reading
and, in consequence, compensate by developing unique verbal communication
skills, inter-personal and leadership skills. Hence so many prominent CEOs list
minor to severe dyslexia among their childhood disabilities. Those include Richard
Branson (Virgin Enterprises), Henry Ford, Ted Turner (AOL - Time Warner), John
Chambers (Cisco), as well as prominent statesmen: Winston Churchill, George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy and others. Perhaps for similar
reasons, many dyslexics tend to take on arts (e.g. Tom Cruise or Whoopi Goldberg)

The list above indicates that those who show reading difficulties in childhood can
also cope well with their deficiency later in life and become avid readers and
skilled writers. Research shows that intense training in dyslectics helps them use
the right part of their brain to take over the limited functionality in the left part.
Even a few weeks of intense phonological training (e.g. breaking down and
rearranging sounds to produce different words) can help noticeably improve
reading skills. Unlike normal adults, phonological training shows increase in the
activity in the right temporoparietal cortex. This part of the brain works in spatial
tasks and may be the main compensatory structure in phonological training. This is
the sister region of the left temporoparietal cortex responsible for visual motion
processing which is underactive in many dyslexics. The earlier the phonological
regimen is taken on, the better the overall result. Advanced brain scans could
identify children at risk of dyslexia before they can even read.

In 1979, anatomical differences in the brain of a young dyslexic have been

documented. Albert Galaburda of Harvard Medical School noticed that language
centers in dyslectic brains showed microscopic flaws known as ectopias and
mycrogyria. Both affect the normal six-layer structure of the cortex. An ectopia is a
collection of neurons that have pushed up from lower cortical layers into the
outermost one. A microgyrus is an area of cortex that includes only four layers
instead of six. These flaws affect connectivity and functionality of the cortex in
critical areas related to sound and visual processing. These and similar structural
abnormalities may be the basis of the inevitable and hard to overcome difficulty in
reading.

Several genetic regions on chromosomes 1 and 6 have been found that might be
linked to dyslexia. In all likelihood, dyslexia is a conglomeration of disorders that
all affect similar and associated areas of the cortex. With time, science is likely to
identify and classify all individual suborders with benefits to our understanding of
how low-level genetic flaws can affect the wiring of the brain and enhance or
reduce a particular component of human mental capacity.

Whether today's models of dyslexia are correct or not, the main lesson of dyslexia
is that minor genetic changes affecting the layering of the cortex in a minor area of
the brain may impose inborn limitation on the overall intellectual function. At the
same time, dyslexia shows that the brain exhibits a strong ability to compensate for
its inborn or acquired limitations, and intense training can often result in
miraculous turnabouts

High IQ in high demand

Intelligence, creativity and genius are generally regarded as highly valuable assets
of the human mind. As a strong positive correlation exists between IQ and the
median earned income, most people would gladly boost their IQ, improve creativity
or accept being called a genius. Exceptions to this rule are few and most revolve
around a claim that intelligence may be an obstacle on the way towards universal
happiness. Here are a few exemplary arguments against human intelligence listed
by the detractors of genius:

 high intelligence reveals existential truths and as such is highly depressive

 high intelligence prevents atavistic enjoyment of relationships
 high intelligence is a source of envy and other bad feelings in others
 high intelligence leads to inhuman behaviors and most sophisticated forms
of evil

In this article, I will tacitly ignore the above claims and assume that you would
gladly become more intelligent, creative or innovative. I believe it can be shown
that an increase in knowledge and creative power can statistically leads to more
"goodness" (see: Goodness of knowledge). I will tacitly assume throughout this text
that achieving creative genius is a desirable goal.

What is intelligence?

You will find many definitions of human intelligence of which three make the most
of the daily use of the word:

1. problem solving ability - the power of the human mind to process

information and solve problems. When you see a bright scientist with wide
knowledge and numerous discoveries to his credit, you may say: This person
is really intelligent! Look at his record! To use a computer metaphor, the
scientist is endowed with the best hardware and software money can buy.
He or she is optimally equipped for problem solving
 2. processing power - the raw nimbleness and agility of the human mind.
When you see a smart student quickly learn new things, think logically,
solve puzzles and show uncanny wit, you may say: This guy is really
intelligent! See how fast his brain reacts! The student has a fast processor
installed and his RAM has a lightning access time. He may though still need
a couple of years to "build" good software through years of study. IQ tests
attempt to measure this sort of intelligence in abstraction of knowledge.
The difficulty of improving processing power by training comes for similar
reasons as the fact that programming cannot speed up the processor
3. intelligence potential - the potential to develop intelligence in senses listed
above. When you see a young child that shows a number of talents and
seems to be on a straight path to become a nimble student or a prolific
scientist, you may say: This kid is really intelligent! The sky is the limit for
him. The kid is equipped with high quality extensible hardware
infrastructure. He is on the best path to reach highest intelligence both in
terms of processing power (Definition 2) and problem solving ability
(Definition 1)

In this article, I will focus on ways towards developing the intelligence in the sense
of problem solving ability (i.e. Definition 1). After all, the whole purpose of
education is to improve our problem solving ability, i.e. the ability to optimally
answer questions such as What to eat for dinner? What job to take? How to build a
better mouse-trap? What should my position on abortion be? Which party should I
vote for? etc.

High IQ is welcome but it makes up for only a fraction of intelligence (Definition

1). As much as a fast processor stands only for a fraction for what we expect of a
good computer.

Later in the article, I will argue in support for the scientifically obvious
statement: well-designed training can produce amazing results in enhancing
intelligence(Definition 1). However, this statement is surprisingly little understood
in general population. It falls into the category of scientific facts that may find more
skeptics than believers. Naturally, vox populi does not detract from the merits of
evolution, genetic engineering, human cloning, Big Bang theory, sociocybernetics,
neuropsychological interpretation of the thought and consciousness, etc. However,
to make the obvious more digestible, I will use the computer metaphor to illustrate
the building blocks of intelligence and genius

The computing brain

The neural network of the brain can be seen as mental hardware. It includes inborn
ROM memory as well as highly plastic RAM. The inborn wiring and structure of
the brain may roughly be compared to a ROM memory. If you stop eating for a
day, program stored in your ROM will make you experience hunger. Things we
learn in life can be considered software that is stored in your RAM.

If you doubt a mental ROM exists try the following experiment: look at the
computer screen, keep your eyes open, stay conscious and yet try not to perceive
the picture of the screen. Seems impossible? Now try to superimpose the face of a
loved person by using the power of your imagination. This is easy for most people.
Here is your RAM in action superimposing over a ROM-enforced perception. You
can even imagine touching parts of the imaginary face. Yet the screen underneath
does not seem ready to go away. The impulses from the retina hit the visual cortex,
and you can do little about it.

Knowledge is encoded in the modifiable strength of connections between neurons

in a similar way as bits are stored by electrical charges in cells of RAM memory.
Our software can roughly be compared to an expert system. An expert system is a
software application that can be used in problem solving such as producing a
medical diagnosis. An expert system is built of two components: factual
knowledge and an inference engine. They roughly correspond to data and
software in a computer or to knowledge and reason in the human brain.

Biological basis of genius

Humans do differ in their brain power. Some get a biological head start, others get
handicapped from early childhood. In cannot be stressed enough though that the
optimum path towards maximum achievement is always through training. The
starting point is not relevant for choosing hard-work learning trajectory. It is also
important to know, that in majority of cases, mental limitations can be overcome.
Some major disabilities, such as Down syndrome or brain injury can pose a
formidable challenge. However, practice shows that a huge proportion of the
population see a problem where it does not exist. Many people write to me about
their memory problems just to discover (e.g. with SuperMemo analytical tools) that
qualitatively their memory does not differ from their peers. What usually prevents
people from reaching intellectual heights is personality and the environment
(school, family, etc.). Many do not live up to their potential simply because of
insufficient motivation or belief in their own powers. Others fail due to parental
inattention. Those factors are statistically by far more important than inborn
limitations.

Scientists have studied Einstein's brain to look for the clues as to his genius. On
cursory examination, they could hardly find any. Later it transpired that some areas
of his brain were indeed better developed and nourished by a rich fabric of glial
cells, i.e. brain cells that are, among others, responsible for the right environment
for neurons to work in. Yet it is difficult to predicate as to whether all these
differences were inborn or were rather a result of his training in abstract thinking.
Anatomical studies show that various areas of the human brain may substantially
differ in size between individuals. Yet it is not easy to find correlations between
these difference and mental powers. In people with a normal range of IQ, the
volume of cerebral cortex may vary twice between one person and the next. So may
the extent of differences in metabolic rates in the same organ. Similar differences
have been found between such critical brain structures as the hippocampus,
entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala. Connections between the hemispheres can
dramatically differ in volume (e.g. seven-fold difference for the anterior
commissure). The left inferior-parietal lobule (located just above the level of the
ears in the parietal cortex) is larger in men, and was also found to be larger in
Einstein's brain as well as in the brains of mathematicians and physicists. On the
other hand, the two language area of the cortex: Broca and Wernicke areas are
larger in women, which may explain why women might be superior in language
processing and verbal tasks. Bigger men have bigger brains but are not smarter.

A racially sensitive subject of lower SAT test scores among blacks and Hispanics
in the US has been a matter of debate for a number of years. The differences could
not be explained by the material status of families or the neighborhood factor.
Stanford psychology professor Claude Steele has conducted revealing experiments
in which black students could do equally well on the test as long as they were not
told they are being scored.

Although we can point to differences based on sex or ethnicity, the ultimate

difference in the creative potential is by far more dependent on the upbringing,
education and student's personality. As explained in Genius in Chess, despite chess
being a "male game", female chess player, Judit Polgar, developed skills that are
superior to those of 99.99997% of the male population.

When we tried to see if student IQ makes it easier to do well in learning and in

exams, we found that some personality factors matter more. A small group of
students learned with SuperMemo, and the main success factor was the
perfectionism trait, not the actual IQ (Wozniak 1994, Gorzelanczyk et al.
1998). Most optimistically,SuperMemo and memory research show that our
memory works in the same way at the very basic molecular and synaptic level. Our
forgetting is described by the sameforgetting curve whose steepness is mostly
determined by knowledge representation. As the analysis of success stories with
SuperMemo shows, main learning differences between individuals can be found in
(1) personality (perseverance, delayed gratification, optimism, etc.) and (2)
knowledge representation skills. A week-long course in mnemonic techniques
immediately illustrates that knowledge representation skills can be learn very fast
indeed. Those skills also develop in proportion to the amount of learning as
demonstrated by differences between primary, secondary, undergraduate and
graduate levels. All users of SuperMemo, unless primed beforehand, start with
building clumsy collections of learning material that is quite difficult to retain in
memory. Within months, most users develop reasonable strategies on how
knowledge should be represented to minimize the effort of learning (see: 20 rules
of formulating knowledge in learning).

Predicting the future

The ability to "see" the future is one of the best tests for genius. The nature of
spacetime does not seem to make it possible to probe the future like we can probe
the past via historical records. However, the laws of physics provide a strong
platform for peeking into what may happen. A ball falling freely to earth may be an
easy guess based on the Newtonian laws of gravity. However, the true difficulty in
predicating the winner of Gore-Bush clash in October 2000 came out only after the
election day on November 7. Guessing the winner of the 2004 election today would
be yet harder. Guessing on the state of mankind beyond 2100 is a game reserved
for only the best-equipped futurist minds. Predictive powers are so good in probing
genius because they test all of these: (1) nimbleness of the mind, (2) extensive
knowledge on the mechanics of the universe and the society, and (3) the
abstractness of reasoning rules. Write down your predictions of the future today. In
five years you will be amazed with your own predictive lapses. When will we be
able to cure AIDS or cancer? When will we talk freely to computers? What job will
you land after graduation? Would you predict the web explosion in 1990 (i.e.
before the publishing of the web protocols)? Or in 1994 (i.e. already after Filo and
Yang started collecting their Yahoo links)? What knowledge do you think you lack
today to make your predictions more accurate?

Predictive powers are the cornerstone of success in business. Those who can see
the technologies and trends that will shape a market in 3-5 years are posed to do
well. Here comes the value of basic sciences such as math and physics in extracting
trends from the chaos of the modern world. The value of math and physics comes
from the fact that it equips you with highly abstract rules with a wide range of
applications. This is why it pays highly to learn artificial intelligence, neural
networks, sociology, neurophysiology, systems theory, statistics, evolutionary
psychology, history, etc. Those sciences formulate rules that make it possible to
better understand the reality, and most of all, draw conclusions about the reality.
Those rules are the tools of computation for processing the picture of reality in your
mind.

Here is an example: when Alan Turing developed the concept of his Turing
machine, he equipped his genius brain with the tool for understanding computation.
The Turing machine is a sort of a toy computer that scans a tape of symbols and
stamps the tape depending on the currently read symbols and its own state. Turing's
early intuition was that his toy computer, given enough time, could compute
everything that is computable. If future was deterministically computable from the
quantum states of subatomic particles, the Turing machine could compute it. If
future was non-deterministic, the density function of individual outcomes could be
computed too. The Turing machine became the simplest possible metaphor for the
human brain. Turing could see the parallel between the shifting states of the Turing
machine and the states of the human mind, including emotional states and the most
complex computations of the human thought. Turing could then state boldly that
one day machines will be as intelligent as humans. The famed Turing test is based
on putting a computer in one room, a human in another, and testing if outside
observers could distinguish between the two by means of a conversation (e.g. via a
computer terminal). Once computers become indistinguishable from humans, they
will have been said to have passed the Turing test. Most of people living at Turing's
time (the 1930s) would disagree, but their predictive powers were limited by lack
of tools for understanding the mind and computation. Turing machine and basic
truths about its properties, equipped Turing's brain with tools that made it easy for
him to see the simple parallel between the mind and the machine. For most
researchers in the area of artificial intelligence, it is obvious that the Turing test will
be passed sooner or later. Perhaps in 2010, perhaps in 2040, but it will happen. In
the 1950s, Herbert Simon, using the same abstract rules related to computation,
spoke loudly about his belief that the computer will beat the world chess champion
within ten years. He was off by thirty years. This illustrates the difficulty in
predicting the future, as well as the power of some basic abstract rules. In this case,
Simon concluded that given the appropriate objective function for evaluating chess
positions, it is only the matter of the number of moves the computer can process
before it can produce better moves than a human being. He underestimated the
power of human brain in simplifying (read: representing) the chessboard situation.
Yet the ultimate outcome of Simon's prediction was inevitable and obviously true.
This example illustrates how a simple abstract tool (Turing Machine) can be used
to predict the future (fate of the Turing test) by providing a simple model of
complex reality (human brain and its behavioral characteristics).

Ray Kurzweil is probably best know for his improbable-sounding predictions of the
future. Machine intelligence is not only obvious to him. It should also come sooner
than most AI researchers predict. Kurzweil's predictive powers come from
immense knowledge of technology, sciences, and the society. Kurzweil's case
shows how extensive learning equips the brain with genius powers of which
predictive powers are so noticeable. Kurzweil predictions (including world wide
web) have already materialized in a number of cases. Read Kurzweil's lips. That
could be the shortest way towards reading the future save your own years of heavy
learning.

In 1977, the bright mind of Ken Olson, President of the Digital Equipment
Corporation, committed a notorious blunder expressed at the Convention of the
World Future Society. Olson said: There is no reason for any individual to have a
computer in their home. Possibly reading this text on your home PC, you may
wonder how Ken Olson could possibly be considered bright if he could not see an
obvious value of the PC? His blunder does not detract a bit from Olson's brain
powers. After all, he did not reach the top of DEC by chance or connections. He
built it from the ground up. His creative powers were in this particular case
curtailed by his own experience with computing (fascination with the power of
VAX and VMS in juxtaposition to a weakly microcomputer). Yes, knowledge can
be detrimental too. Einstein's relativity theory gained him the most identifiable
status of the ultimate genius of science mostly due to the fact that he was able to
extricate himself from the Newtonian mold that is so natural to our day-to-day
thinking. Not being able to break the mold is not a sign of lacking genius! It is
simply a sign of being burdened with the prejudice of one's current knowledge. In
no way should this mean that learning on its own can be detrimental. It never is as
long as we do not apply the creative mold to the learning process itself. One of the
most important rules your genius brain needs to store in the very beginning is that:
no rule is true for ever. Rules can be added, modified, deleted or replaced. You
need to strengthen your rules related to fuzzy logic. In simple words, you have to
learn to think in terms of the probability of truth

What is creativity?

Creativity is usually defined as the ability to generate new ideas that are both
highly innovative as well as highly useful. A new idea will not be called creative
unless it is quite hard to come by. For example, if you decide to paint your car
orange with little blue ants all over it, you won't fall into a highly creative field.
After all, everyone can paint her car like this. That you do not see blue ants in the
streets comes from the fact that a number of objects that could take ants' place is
near to infinite. An art expert passing a judgment on your car's artistry could
perhaps change the verdict. On the other hand, if you keep on churning dozens of
ideas which have little or no practical value, few will consider this a highly creative
effort. Similarly, potentially valuable ideas that live and die in your brain without
ever being converted into a practical application will not pass the test of the
definition used herein. In this article, we will adhere to the pragmatic criterion in
judging creativity. Let us analyze the basis of creativity and ways to improve
creativity via training and application of relevant tools and/or techniques. We will
skirt around artistic creativity, which falls out of my own professional focus, and is
by far more relativistic: artistic creativity is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

Personality factor

In the 1970s, Laszlo Polgar, a teacher from Hungary, concluded that all normal
children could be driven to a genius level with sufficient attention and training. If
this does not happen on a regular basis, he claimed, it only comes from parental
inattention and lack of patience. An average parent is busy with her or his own life
and does not devote sufficient time to raising the kids. According to Polgar, it is
easy for a parent to say: "Oh, this child has no genius!" and do nothing further.
Interestingly, Polgar had no impressive scientific credentials in the field of child
care and education (unlike Boris Sidis), so when he decided to experiment with his
own kids, many accused him of using dictatorial methods for the case of a genius
show. Few would take Polgar seriously, his methods even led to a clash with the
Hungarian government. For details of Polgar experiment see Polgar sisters.

Polgar's optimistic claim does not leave much place for genetics. Throughout
history, most prodigy training occurred in families with high average IQ. Hence it
is again hard to separate nature from nurture.

If genetics comes into play in limiting genius, it is less so in the area of the sheer
brain power, processing speed, associative power, number of neurons, creative
power, etc. Human genius seems to be by far more limited by the personality
profile which has a strong genetic background. In simple terms, if the child is ready
and willing to be trained for genius, it will likely succeed. The main obstacle is in
the fact that a child may not want to accept a heavy load of training.

Except for mental disorders, important personality factors that limit overall
creativity include low stress tolerance, aggression, impulsivity, depression, and the
resulting poor motivation. On the other hand, traits such as curiosity, perfectionism,
runaway creativity, and compulsiveness may enhance development if properly
channeled and rationalized.

Such largely inborn factors as the overall level of serotonin or dopamine in the
brain can determine stress tolerance, probability of suicide, as well as aggressive
and violent behaviors.

Destructive personality factors are highly correlated with each other. For example,
non-virgin adolescent girls are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide, 6 times more
likely to use alcohol, and 18 times as likely to run away from home as compared
with their counterparts who were able to delay their early sexual experience.

One of the basic premises of developing a genius brain is: learn to capitalize on
positive emotions and circumvent negative emotions.

Emotion management skills may actually be the most important factor that will
determine if a person will or will not develop its full genius potential. As argued
throughout this article, personality factor seems overall more important than low-
level information processing powers of the brain. Negative emotions are probably
the number one cause of the scarcity of genius in industrialized nations.

The power of emotion comes from the fact that they are wired into the low-level
brain structures that cannot easily be controlled by rational thinking originating in
the prefrontal cortex. An angry individual can command its brain to cool down;
however, it cannot instantly reduce the level of adrenaline that has already been
 released into the bloodstream. A drug addict can decide rationally to give up drugs,
but when the physical effects of craving hit his system, his rational brain is often
powerless.

In the course of evolution, the emotional circuits of the brain played a critical role
in survival. Emotions help translate the inner needs of the organism into behavioral
modes and actions. Once your blood glucose level drops down, one of the
outcomes will be the activation of the appetite center. As a result, thinking of food
will pervade all your actions. With time, all your attempts at genius endeavor may
fade into insignificance as your brain will keep on reverberating the hunger
message. In this case, your need for food is converted into hunger, and your brain is
turned into a food-hunting mode. Similar mechanisms are involved in satisfying
thirst or reproductive needs.

Mental Illness And High IQ Scores: One

And The Same?
 6 years ago by Alicia Sparks, Mental Health Notes
 41 Comments
 Share a Tip


Yesterday I asked you to take an IQ test; not because I want to see how smart you all are, but
because I want you to have some loose idea of your own IQ before I tell you the story of one
man’s IQ and how it affected the entire first part of his life.
I want to note that this is not a professional case study – which, after reading, I’m sure you’ll
agree! This story does, however, include the ―facts‖ as they were presented to me.

This man – we’ll call him Bob – was born in the mid to late 1960s, so mental health care wasn’t
quite what it is today and parents didn’t have as much information about about mental health –
especially the mental health of their children – as they do today; his parents were taking him to a
psychiatrist by age two.
Bob continued to show signs of ―mental illness‖ throughout childhood and adolescence. By his
early teens, the mental health professionals he saw during this time didn’t seem to ―help,‖ i.e.
change his ―strange‖ behavior. His parents grew frustrated, and even though he showed no signs
of learning disabilities, by age 14 they enrolled Bob in a special school for the mentally
handicapped.

From age 14 to age 18 he attended this school. Shortly after he graduated, he and his longterm
girlfriend (who was not thought to have a mental health condition) broke up. Bob was extremely
distressed. His parents assumed his sadness was some sort of mental breakdown, so they sent him
to a state mental institution.
Once Bob entered the working adult world, he faired as any other adult would. He lived on his
own, became employed, had romantic relationships, traveled, etc. Because of the stress and
confusion brought on by the events of, well, his entire life up until that point, Bob sought the
services of other mental health care professionals – professionals who could not find anything
―wrong‖ with him.

Bob is now an adult in his late 30s/early 40s. Aside from a mild, situational depression due to the
recent death of his best friend, Bob still functions ―normally.‖ He doesn’t see any psychiatrists or
other mental health professionals, and he isn’t on any kind of medication for mental illness. Bob
doesn’t feel anything is mentally ―wrong‖ with him at all, and he attributes anything he feels
about his mental health in his childhood and teenage years to the way his parents reacted to him.

At some point during this story, Bob’s IQ was tested. It was over 170. Despite varying theories on
IQ scores and what they mean, an IQ of over 170 is still thought to be ―genius,‖ or close to it.

Now, I realize many folks with mental illness have high, even extremely high, IQs. However,
most of these folks also still display symptoms of whatever mental illness they have – whether it
be bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism, etc. According to no one but his parents, Bob showed
no signs of a mental health problem.

Could Bob’s behavior as a child simply been that of one with great intelligence? Did Bob’s brain
activity confuse his parents and the staff of the school for the mentally handicapped? Was Bob’s
mind lacking the stimulation it needed? Given the fact that mental health care of the 1960′s left
much to be desired – compared to that of today – could Bob’s intelligence have been repeatedly
confused with mental illness?

Is it possible that Bob slipped through the cracks of the mental health care system – only, in the
reverse?

I’m not a psychiatrist; I can only speculate about this situation. I want to know what you all think
about it. Chime in. Let’s discuss.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using
the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more
detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional
rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4add9230-23d5-11de-996a-
00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2rN5iFoAL
Is a high IQ a burden
as much as a blessing?
By Sam Knight

Marilyn vos Savant with husband Robert

Jarvik outside New York‘s Metropolitan Club

T he Metropolitan Club, on Fifth Avenue at 60th street, is a palazzo in the mighty

Manhattan style. Damn the expense. That‘s what J.P. Morgan is supposed to have
said when he commissioned Stanford White, the city‘s most flamboyant architect, to
build him a private gentleman‘s club in 1894. Inside, on a Monday evening in late
January, only a few members drifted over the red, monogrammed carpets, but it was
still early, only a little after seven. This, however, is when Marilyn vos Savant likes to
show up.
Savant, who has the world‘s highest recorded IQ, is fond of dancing. She took it up
seriously a few years ago with her husband, Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik
artificial heart, and they get to the club about once a month. If they arrive early
enough, they can have the dance floor to themselves. And so it proved that Monday.
The room was largely empty, the band were playing ―Anything Goes‖ and once a
happy, though quivering, old man was led from the floor by his partner, Savant and
Jarvik could foxtrot wherever they pleased. A slim, prosperous couple in their sixties,
they moved easily: she with a simple precision, he with the odd heel-tap, a bit of dash.
After a time, though, as the floor filled up and became a carousel of perfectly tailored,
carefully moving couples, they came back to their table. ―It‘s a social scene,‖ said
Savant, who is 62, with a smile. ―But it‘s not our social scene. Let me just say that.‖ A
 few minutes later, when a serious-looking man happened to make a goofy swish right
in front of them, Savant and Jarvik caught each other‘s eye and couldn‘t help
laughing. Not long afterwards, they took a taxi home, to their midtown penthouse.
―We usually dance more, a lot more,‖ said Savant as they are leaving. It is only
8.30pm. ―And then we go back to the office.‖




More

ON THIS STORY
 A taste of honey
 Twelve days in west Africa
 Twelve days in west Africa Abuja-Lagos
 Q&A Twelve days in west Africa
 Twelve days in west Africa Port Harcourt, Nigeria

IN FT MAGAZINE
 Give that Stonyhurst couple a gold
 Do we need to focus?
 What makes us happy?
 The Inventory – Alain Ducasse

Savant – the surname is real, it was her mother‘s maiden name – has had a unique
claim to fame since the mid-1980s. It was then, almost 30 years after she took a test
as a schoolgirl in downtown St Louis, Missouri, that her IQ came to light. In 1985,
Guinness World Records accepted that she had answered every question correctly on
an adult Stanford-Binet IQ test at the age of just 10, a result that gave her a
corresponding mental age of 22 years and 11 months, and an unearthly IQ of 228.
The resulting publicity changed Savant‘s life. She appeared on television and in the
press, including on the cover of an in-flight magazine that Jarvik chanced to pick up.
He decided to track her down and ask her out. It also led to the role for which she
remains best known in America, writing a question-and-answer column, ―Ask
Marilyn‖, for Parade, a Sunday magazine syndicated to more than 400 regional
newspapers. For the past 22 years, Savant has tended their ceaseless queries – ―How
happy are larks, really?‖ ―My wife blow-dries her hair every day. Can the noise
damage her hearing?‖ – and in the process achieved a status that is Delphic yet
tabloid. To her fans and other members of the world of high IQ, Savant is a
prodigious, unusual talent who delights in solving problems. To her detractors, she is
either trivial, someone who has squandered her gift, or proof, if they needed it, that
IQ scores don‘t add up to anything. In whatever form, she lodges in people‘s minds.
As evidence of her imprint on the national consciousness, Savant featured in an
episode of The Simpsons in 1999. She was a member of the Springfield Mensa society,
along with Geena Davis, the Hollywood actress and one-time star of Earth Girls are
Easy.
In conversation, Savant steers clear of fancy remarks. She is overtly normal. ―People
expect me to be a walking encyclopaedia or a human calculator,‖ she says, or to ―have
very unusual, very esoteric, very arcane gifts and I‘m really not that way at all.‖
Instead, she talks with the practised clarity of her columns, the pedantry of someone
wary of misinterpretation. At one point, for example, Savant was describing a house
where she lived in St Louis. ―You could actually see stars,‖ she said, ―unlike here in
New York, where you can only see Venus,‖ then she halted. ―I‘m sorry, Venus is not a
star.‖ When Savant, who is the author of several plays and half-a-dozen self-help
books, does makes a cultural reference, she is careful not to sound too snooty. She
prefers Proust to Joyce, she told me, although, she concedes, ―Joyce does some nice
bits in Ulysses.‖

Marilyn vos Savant in her office

This blandness masks the rarity of her brain. Because whatever else Savant is, she is
not a fraud. Her IQ has been tested and tested and tested again. When I asked her to
describe how her mind approaches a problem, she said: ―My first thought, maybe not
thought, it‘s almost like a feeling, is overview … It‘s like, almost, a wartime decision. I
keep thinking about all of the fronts, what‘s supplying what, where are the most
important points … ‖ Jarvik, her husband for the past 21 years, says Savant‘s gift is to
be able to approach questions dispassionately, without our usual fears of or hopes for
a particular answer. Walter Anderson, the chief executive of Parade, who has been
friends with Savant since he hired her in 1986, believes she is a genius and, as with
other geniuses, her ability is inexplicable to him. ―Marilyn just does it,‖ he said. ―Her
answer is so quick. If light or electricity travels at 186,000 miles per second, do you
realise how quick those synapses are? She knows the answer to your question. She
knows the answer before you‘ve finished the question.‖
All of which only makes people wonder why Savant has found no higher purpose. In
1995, the issue became so bothersome to Herb Weiner, a software engineer in
Portland, Oregon, that he set up a website called Marilyn is Wrong! Weiner says that
he aims to redress errors in her column and ensure that Savant‘s daunting IQ does
not mean that she goes unquestioned. But what really seems to nag him is that she
writes the column at all. ―Look at Barack Obama, look at how he is applying his
intelligence,‖ he told me. ―It just sort of seems strange to me that instead of dealing
with more complex problems, a lot of what she does is just answer riddles or simple
research things, things that anybody could go to a library and look up the answer to.‖
Weiner‘s complaint is oddly deferential. As his website notes: ―Marilyn is more
intelligent than I am, as measured by standard intelligence tests.‖ But for many
people, the story of Savant and ―Ask Marilyn‖ are just two more pieces of evidence in
a larger, decades-long argument about the accuracy and objectivity of intelligence
testing. Even Guinness has succumbed. In 1990, two years after inducting Savant into
its Hall of Fame, the publisher, in its parlance, ―rested‖ its high IQ category
altogether, saying it was no longer satisfied that intelligence tests were either uniform
or reliable enough to produce a single record holder. Depending on how you look at
it, Savant will either never be beaten, or was not worth beating in the first place.
...
Humans have been measuring each other‘s intelligence for a long time. In China
during the Xi Zhou dynasty (1046 to 771BC), candidates for official positions were
formally tested on a range of criteria including the ―six skills‖: arithmetic, archery,
horsemanship, music, writing and the performance of rituals and ceremonies. The
notion of a universal, objective scale of intelligence, however, did not take shape until
the 19th century and the arrival of Darwinism. If Charles Darwin is the father of
modern biology, then the father of modern intelligence testing is his cousin, Francis
Galton – statistician, polymath and founder of eugenics. In 1884, he set up an
―anthropometric laboratory‖ at the International Health Exhibition in London, and
measured, among other things, the reaction times, eyesight, colour sensitivity and
steadiness of hand of more than 9,000 men and women as he looked for links
between their physical and mental characteristics.
Searching for genius, Galton failed to develop a working intelligence test. That was
left to a French psychologist, Alfred Binet, and his student, Victor Henri. Binet was
commissioned to study the large numbers of poor children in the city‘s asylums and
to find out whether they were mentally incapacitated or simply untaught. His
resulting 1904 test of 30 indicators – from the eye being able to follow a lit match, to
memory and vocabulary questions – provided the basis of modern intelligence
testing. In 1916, Lewis Terman, a professor of psychology at Stanford University,
revised and expanded the test, creating the Stanford-Binet IQ test, which is still used
today. Although more moderate than many of his contemporaries, Terman adhered
to the social Darwinism of his time – in 1930, 24 US states had sterilisation laws –
and he had hopes for the social potential of his work. ―This,‖ he wrote in 1919, ―will
ultimately result in the curtailing of the reproduction of feeble-mindedness.‖
Intelligence testing has proved contentious ever since. In the US, where more than
nine million men underwent various forms of IQ and ability tests during the second
world war, the enthusiasm for testing has been matched only by the ferocity of
arguments over what exactly it proves. IQ tests for children, the SAT Reasoning Test
for college applicants and psychometric testing by companies may have been
designed with the goal of identifying individual talent, but often their larger
consequence has been to highlight differences already inherent in society. Variations
between the sexes and ethnic groups have led to toxic arguments about bias and
inequality and power: who gets to define intelligence? Who designs the tests? In its
various iterations, the debate about IQ testing in the US normally returns to the
persistent, albeit shrinking, lag between results for white and black populations.

Marilyn vos Savant with husband Robert on the

cover of New York magazine, 1989

The last time the debate flowered in full was in 1994, on the publication of The Bell
Curve by the psychologist Richard Herrnstein and the conservative political scientist,
Charles Murray. They argued that intelligence test scores were both a good indicator
of social success and strongly determined by our genes. The implication, that an
unequal society was inevitable and fair, and that a black, inner city ―cognitive
underclass‖ was having too many children, made it seem as though eugenics had
never gone away. ―Mr Murray can protest all he wants,‖ wrote Bob Herbert, a
columnist for The New York Times, ―his book is just a genteel way of calling
somebody a nigger.‖
Underlying the heated politics – making the arguments even harder to resolve – is an
incomplete science. After The Bell Curve controversy, the American Psychological
Association convened a task force, which concluded that children‘s IQ scores could
predict about 25 per cent of the variation in future academic performance. They were,
in other words, on the cusp of being statistically reliable, better than nothing.
...
There is an almighty gap between what IQ tests can measure and what we want to
them to show. ―If you tell anyone their IQ at any age they will remember it for the rest
of their life,‖ says Professor John Rust, the director of the Psychometrics Centre at
the University of Cambridge. ―It‘s like an astrological chart.‖ Rust reminded me of the
contrast between the quasi-spiritual idea of intelligence rooted in western language
and culture – the notion of a single, overarching quality comparable to, say, a saint‘s
halo – and what we can learn from our response to a series of logical problems. Yet in
the absence of anything better than IQ tests, whose questions still underpin many
modern ―ability‖ tests, people continue to see something in these IQ scores that, while
not meaningless, do not hold ―the answer‖.
The fault, in the end, lies on both sides: in us, the credulous patients, who see too
much in our results, and the doctors, who have also been furiously theorising and
extrapolating. ―Tests of IQ have never simply been about our ability to solve
problems,‖ said Rust. ―There has always been the idea that people with high IQs are
actually more advanced, more evolved, closer to the human destiny, if you believe
that sort of thing, closer to God. But in fact all you have really got is answers to
questions.‖
The world of high IQ societies certainly does not suggest the existence of a higher
evolutionary plane. Although the best known, Mensa, was set up in the UK in 1946
with utopian goals – it was envisioned by its founder, Roland Berrill, as a panel of
brilliant minds that would improve society – such groups are often a refuge for
people who have trouble fitting in elsewhere. ―High cognitive ability is very often a
mixed blessing,‖ Patrick O‘Shea, the president of one such society, the International
Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), told me. Too wide a deviation from the
mean IQ of 100 brings with it an inherent isolation. ―If you have an IQ of 160 or
higher,‖ O‘Shea explained, ―you‘re probably able to connect well with less than 1 per
cent of the population.‖ Among the 600 or so members of the ISPE, whose IQs are all
around 150 or higher, O‘Shea described a ―common experience of being socially
marginalised‖ and the challenge of finding suitable outlets for their gifts. ―It‘s good to
be smart, it‘s good to get ahead, but past a certain threshold, you can‘t be trusted:
you‘re a nerd, you‘re a geek,‖ he said. ―You have somehow a tremendous social
deficit.‖
...
Ron Hoeflin, who says that his IQ of 190 has
given him the confidence and recognition that
he was denied by mainstream education, in
which he struggled

In between conversations with Marilyn vos Savant, I also spent time in New York
with a man called Ron Hoeflin. Hoeflin is two years older than Savant, also from St
Louis, and also has a remarkable IQ score – 190 – yet has frustratingly little to show
for it. He lives only a few blocks from Savant‘s penthouse, above a café/Laundromat,
and describes himself as self-employed. I met Hoeflin in the local Wendy‘s, a
hamburger place where he spends every afternoon working on the final volume of a
self-published philosophical treatise called The Encyclopaedia of Categories: A
Theory of Categories and Unifying Paradigm for Philosophy With Over 1,000
Examples.
We slowly went back to Hoeflin‘s apartment – he is almost blind due to repeatedly
detached retinas – and I asked him what his IQ and intelligence testing had done for
him. Hoeflin, who devised a series of well-respected tests in the 1980s, said that it has
provided him with a degree of confidence and recognition that he had been denied by
mainstream education, in which he struggled. Hoeflin believes the objectivity of IQ
tests makes them more reliable than the subjective evaluations of teachers and
professors. ―I don‘t want to have some ruthless creep mess me up,‖ he said.
A fan of psychometric testing in general, Hoeflin also showed me the results of a
personality test he once took. Lines of Xs march across the page, showing the extent
of his various personality traits, from the ―vigilant‖ to the ―leisurely‖. In one column,
for the ―dramatic‖, there were no Xs at all. ―Zero,‖ said Hoeflin, evenly. ―This is why I
don‘t write novels because on the dramatic level I‘m zero.‖ When I objected, saying
that surely our personalities are too complex, too cosmic, to be captured in a
questionnaire, Hoeflin suggested politely that maybe I was incurious, or afraid, or
both. ―Why do you think a personality can‘t be measured?‖ He asked me. ―Just
because it‘s complicated doesn‘t mean we shouldn‘t try and figure it out. It‘s patterns.
Even our personalities are just patterns, right? Like waves on the ocean. You can do a
study in hydrodynamics and figure out how waves rise and collapse. It‘s the same for
human beings.‖ In an e-mail a few days later, Hoeflin explained his interest in
psychometrics another way: ―Being this shy makes one wonder what is going on.‖
Knowing all this makes high IQs and the story of Marilyn vos Savant seem rather
different. Has her IQ been a burden as much as a blessing? According to John Rust,
at Cambridge, to produce an extraordinary IQ score a mind must have two unusual
qualities. The first is ―mechanical facility‖ – useful but sometimes harmful in extreme
cases, hence the preponderance of people with Asperger‘s syndrome who have high
IQs. And you must also excel at a wide variety of tasks. Intelligence tests measure a
range of mental abilities, whereas most people naturally, and happily, concentrate on
just a few. Abnormally high IQ scores, by their nature, often speak of a brain too
general to be of much use. ―Effectively,‖ said Rust, ―you are mastering far too many
things.‖
Broadness, though, is what Savant craves. ―Reading all about these subjects,‖ she says
of her work, ―I am becoming amazingly informed to a superficial extent.‖ One
afternoon we met in her office, 50 floors up among the foggy, snowbound towers of
Manhattan, and she showed me her desk. Three computer screens and an old word
processor looked out, north-west, over a thousand roofs towards the Hudson River. It
is from this vantage point that she answers the 200 or 300 e-mails a day that come in
for her column in Parade magazine: questions on every subject, from the personal to
the algebraic, that are bothering those down below. ―I‘m hearing from everyone, I
told you, this vast range,‖ she said. ―And I really enjoy that view. It‘s hard to express.
It‘s like being at a scenic outlook point. I feel like I am gaining so much insight about
people, and there is a particular joy in that.‖

Marilyn vos Savant in 1950 with her parents Joseph

and Marina and brothers (from left) Bob and Joe

It has taken her a long time to get there. Savant was born Marilyn Mach in south
central St Louis in 1946. Her parents, Joseph Mach and Marina vos Savant, were
immigrants, German and Italian respectively, and ran a bar and grill in a blue-collar
part of town. Savant describes her childhood, the first half of her life in fact, at a kind
of ironic distance. She laughed when she told me about how her parents tried to raise
her and her two older brothers as Americans. ―All I heard around the house was this
fractured, lame, ungrammatical English for I don‘t know how long. It was really very
funny. You know, this was their best effort.‖ And she gently warned me off reading
too much into her past. ―It‘s funny how these background things mean so much to
people,‖ said Savant. ―It feels strange, a bit, to me because it seems like the dark ages
or another time, or another persona, which I guess I was.‖
In school she was quickly identified as gifted, getting maximum scores on IQ tests at
the ages of seven, eight and nine. And when Savant got full marks on the adult
Stanford-Binet at the age of 10, a psychologist from the local school board said he had
never seen anything like it. Savant, however, recalls no surprise. ―That didn‘t seem
like news,‖ she said. ―It just seemed perfectly normal.‖ Her principal, however, was
sufficiently impressed to pull Savant out of several classes and put her to work in his
office, so beginning an odd phase in her life in which she was one of the only people
in the school with access to the other pupils‘ IQ scores. Her hobby became matching
her fellow students to their results. ―I would make my best guess after talking to them
for a while and then I would go and see how accurate my guess was,‖ she recalled. ―I
got to be very good at it.‖

Marilyn vos Savant with with her mother in

1953

By the age of 16, however, Savant‘s precocious schoolgirl was no more. She married,
as her mother had done at her age, and was drawn into the family business, which by
this time was a chain of dry cleaners. ―It was a long time. It was a long time,‖ she said
when I asked her when she realised that this life was not for her. ―You have to
understand the level of control. I was not aware of things outside.‖ Apart from a few
audited classes at the city‘s Washington University, Savant‘s formal education ended
in her late teens when she had her two children. She divorced in her twenties and
married again, all the while working with her brothers and father to expand the
business to about 40 dry cleaners and a firm that sold dry cleaning equipment. She
joined Mensa, she says, to help her educate her children, but most of the time Savant
was busy keeping the family accounts. ―I was the trustworthy one,‖ she said. ―I was
the one that everyone could turn to for an unbiased decision.‖
It was only after her second marriage ended, when she was 35, that Savant began to
think about leaving St Louis. She decided to become a playwright. She saved some
money and started spending time in New York, even renting an apartment in
Manhattan. When her father died, she permanently moved away.
...
Savant is elliptical about her early years in New York – the crucial period from 1983
to 1985 in which she went from being a dry cleaner to the cleverest person in the
world. ―It was just a confluence of things,‖ she says. But contemporaries, such as Ron
Hoeflin, recall her as a member of the various high IQ societies in the city. ―She
wanted to be a writer, I know that,‖ he said. Savant now distances herself from the
world of high IQ, but at the time she was willing to see how it could help her
prospects. She says she can no longer recall how her childhood scores were submitted
to Guinness, but Andrew Egendorf, a lawyer from Boston, says the idea came up over
a dinner in 1983. Egendorf, who wanted to write a book about high IQ societies, says
he remembers proposing a couple of book ideas to Savant, and suggesting that they
send her IQ results to Guinness as a way of making her famous. ―She was just another
person trying to make it in New York,‖ he told me. ―The fact that she had this
credential just gave her something different and I remember thinking, ‗How can we
cash in on it?‘ It didn‘t matter what it was. She could have been green, the only green
person in the world.‖ Egendorf first wrote to Guinness on Savant‘s behalf on July 25
1983. In 1985, the IQ record was hers, 31 points higher than the two previous holders.
The next year, she was writing for Parade.
And since then it has been questions, questions, questions. Walter Anderson, at
Parade, remembers how at cocktail parties in the 1980s people would throw Savant
riddles and mathematical puzzles. It was hard to persuade her not to reply. ―From the
time she was a little girl, she was asked questions all the time,‖ he explained. Not that
these logical problems seem to faze Savant. Rather, they have been the scene of her
greatest triumphs [ The ―Monty Hall dilemma‖ ], and Anderson still gets excited, after
all these years, about what conundrum Savant will answer next. He is convinced, for
instance, that she understands the financial crisis in ways that most of us do not.
―You know for the last quarter of a century, people have written stone bullshit about
Marilyn,‖ he said at the end of our interview. ―Writers want to come and show off how
clever they are. But the real question is: what should we be asking her? We should
take her seriously.‖
There is only one question that seems the wrong thing to ask Savant, and that is what
else she is supposed to have done with her life, with her glimmering brain. To ask it is
to miss the point. I told her when we met that I had always imagined intelligence to
be nothing more than a tool. On that foggy afternoon, before we said goodbye, she
wanted to correct me. ―I suppose it could be and it should be,‖ she said. ―But it also
seems to be an attribute or a quality or an aspect of one‘s humanity that one need not
use to get something that you want … It can just simply be part of you. And I think
that‘s fine too.‖
Sam Knight is a regular contributor to FT Weekend Magazine.
Do you have a question for the world’s cleverest person? E-mail your questions
toAskMarilyn@ft.com – the pick of them will be put to Marilyn vos Savant and
featured with her answers in a future issue.
.......................
The “Monty Hall dilemma”
Marilyn vos Savant‘s column gained national notoriety in the early 1990s, thanks to
her response to the ―Monty Hall dilemma‖: the make-or-break decision facing
contestants on the game show Let‘s Make a Deal that was then hosted by Hall. The
question was posed by Craig Whitaker, of Columbia, Marinaland, on September 9
1990. ―Dear Marilyn,‖ wrote Whitaker. ―Suppose you‘re on a game show, and you‘re
given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats.
You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what‘s behind the doors, opens
another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you: ‗Do you want to pick door
#2?‘ Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?‖
Savant‘s answer, that it was better to switch doors, provoked an extraordinary
response: thousands of letters of complaint, many of them from science teachers and
academics. ―There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don‘t
need the world‘s highest IQ propagating more. Shame!‖ wrote one reader from the
University of Florida. ―You are the goat!‖ said another. ―You made a mistake, but look
at the positive side,‖ wrote Everett Harman, of the US Army Research Institute. ―If all
those PhDs were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble.‖
But Savant had not made a mistake. In the end it took her four columns, hundreds of
newspaper stories and a challenge to children to test the options in classroom
experiments, to convince her readers that she was right. ―Oh, that was so much fun. I
just enjoyed these nasty letters I got,‖ she said. ―The audacity of people! I just loved
them.‖
The key to the solution lies in the role of the host, who will always pick a door which
does not have a prize behind it. Statistics from the game show, in which those who
switched won about twice as often as those who did not, bear out Savant‘s
explanation from her third column: ―When you first choose door #1 from three,
there‘s a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind that one and a 2/3 chance that it‘s behind
one of the others. But then the host steps in and gives you a clue. If the prize is behind
#2, the host shows you #3, and if the prize is behind #3, the host shows you #2. So
when you switch, you win if the prize is behind #2 or #3. You win either way! But if
you don‘t switch, you win only if the prize is behind door #1.‖
High IQ: Not as good for you as you thought

Posted by Dave Munger on December 14, 2005

(37)

Share on emailMore »

IQ has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands of research studies. Scholars have studied
the link between IQ and race, gender, socioeconomic status, even music. Discussions about the
relationship between IQ and race and the heritability of IQ (perhaps most notably Steven Jay
Gould‘s Mismeasure of Man) often rise to a fever pitch. Yet for all the interest in the study of IQ,
there has been comparatively little research on other influences on performance in school.
Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman estimate that for every ten articles on intelligence and
academic achievement, there has been fewer than one about self-discipline. Even so, the small
body of research on self-discipline suggests that it has a significant impact on achievement.
Walter Mischel and colleagues found in the 1980s that 4-year-olds‘ ability to delay gratification
(for example, to wait a few minutes for two cookies instead of taking one cookie right away) was
predictive of academic achievement a decade later. Others have found links between personality
and college grades, and self-discipline and Phi Beta Kappa awards. Still, most research on self-
discipline has achieved inconsistent results, possibly due to the difficulty of measuring self-
discipline. Could a more robust measure of self-discipline demonstrate that it‘s more relevant to
academic performance than IQ?

To address this question, Duckworth and Seligman conducted a two-year study of eighth graders,
combining several measures of self-discipline for a more reliable measure, and also assessing
IQ, achievement test scores, grades, and several other measures of academic performance.
Using this better measure of self-discipline, they found that self-discipline was a significantly
better predictor of academic performance 7 months later than IQ.
How did they arrive at this result? They studied a group of 8th-graders at the beginning of the
school year. They used five different measures of self-discipline: the Eysenck Junior
Impulsiveness scale (a 23-question survey about impulsive behavior), the Brief Self-Control Scale
(13 questions measuring thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance), two questionnaires in
which parents and teachers rated the student‘s self-discipline, and a version of Mischel‘s delay of
gratification task. Students were given an envelope containing $1, and were told they could spend
it immediately or bring it back in a week for a $2 reward. The students were also given an IQ test
(OLSAT7, level G).

At the end of the school year, students were surveyed again and several measures of academic
performance were taken. The data included final GPA (grade point average), a spring
achievement test, whether they had been admitted to the high school of their choice, and number
of hours they spent on homework. All except two measures correlated more strongly to self-
discipline than to IQ. Scores on spring achievement tests were correlated both to self-discipline
and IQ, but there wasn‘t a significant difference. Duckworth and Seligman suggest that this could
be partially due to the fact that achievement tests are similar in format to IQ tests. The other area
where there was no significant difference was in school absenses.

Most impressive was the whopping .67 correlation between self-discipline and final GPA,
compared to a .32 correlation for IQ. This graph dramatically shows the difference between the
two measures:

Both IQ and self-discipline are correlated with GPA, but self-discipline is a much more important
contributor: those with low self-discipline have substantially lower grades than those with low IQs,
and high-discipline students have much better grades than high-IQ students. Even after adjusting
for the student‘s grades during the first marking period of the year, students with higher self-
discipline still had higher grades at the end of the year. The same could not be said for IQ.
Further, the study found no correlation between IQ and self-discipline—these two traits varied
independently.

This is not to say this study will end the debate on IQ and heredity. The study says nothing about
whether self-discipline is heritable. Further, the self-discipline might be correlated differently with
achievement for different populations; this study covered only eighth graders in a relatively
privileged school. Perhaps self-discipline has a different role at other ages, or in more diverse
populations (though the study group was quite ethnically diverse—52% White, 31% Black, 12%
Asian, and 4% Latino). Perhaps the most important question which remains is how best to teach
children self-discipline—or whether it can be taught at all.

Suicide attempts less likely in men with

higher IQs
Young men with low IQs are much more likely than their peers to attempt suicide later in life, a
new study has found. In fact, men with the lowest IQs are about four times more likely to attempt
suicide as those with the highest, and the risk tends to go up as IQ drops.
This may seem surprising to those who associate suicide with tortured geniuses like Ernest
Hemingway and Vincent Van Gogh.
"There's a perception that people with higher IQs might be more neurotic, more anxious, and
more depressed--Woody Allen style," says Karestan Koenen, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and
associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.
"But the literature is very consistent that people with lower IQs are at increased risk not just of
mental health problems, but of all kinds of physical health problems," adds Koenen, who was not
involved in the new study but has researched IQ and mental health.
In the study, which was published on the website of the British Medical Journal, researchers
followed 1.1 million male military recruits in Sweden for an average of 24 years. All of the men
took a standardized IQ test between the ages of 16 and 25.
The attempted suicide rate rose steadily as IQ scores fell, the researchers found. Of the men who
had the highest score on the test, roughly 1 in 200 attempted suicide during the study; among the
men with the lowest score, the rate was about 1 in 22. (The overall rate in the study was 1.6%, or
about 1 in 60.)
Health.com: No-cost ways to fight depression
When the researchers factored in the men's age, they found that the men with the lowest IQ were
nearly nine times more likely to try killing themselves than the men with the highest IQ.
Even after other factors that may influence suicide risk were taken into account--such as
socioeconomic status, education, and even body mass index--the men with the lowest IQ were
still about 3.5 times more likely to attempt suicide.
"We're not talking about a hospital group or a sick population, so these findings are generalizable
to the general population," says the lead author of the study, David Batty, Ph.D., a Wellcome
Trust Fellow at the Medical Research Council, in Glasgow, Scotland. The Wellcome Trust funded
the study.
Health.com: 7 types of therapy that can help depression
However, Batty and his colleagues point out that the findings may not necessarily apply to
women, to older men, or to men in other countries. And there was no apparent link between IQ
and suicide attempts in men with psychosis, they note.
People with a lower IQ may be more likely to attempt suicide because they may have more
trouble talking about or resolving personal problems, Batty suggests.
"Individuals with higher IQ scores may be better able to describe to friends and health
professionals some of the problems they're going through," he says. "Another explanation might
be that individuals with higher IQ scores can come up with more solutions. They may identify the
need to see a health professional earlier, or deal with the root causes of their suicidal thoughts by
changing jobs or solving relationships."
Health.com: Bipolar celebs -- does it make them more creative?
IQ may also influence coping skills, Koenen says. "People with lower IQs might have more
trouble coping with stress, which may make them more vulnerable to reacting more strongly when
confronted with a stressful event," she says.
Genes could be at work too, as both IQ and mental health are often shaped by family history. Yet
another possibility is that violence, poverty, or some other adversity in childhood could affect both
IQ and the risk of suicide.
Although more research is needed to pin down the relationship between low IQ and suicide, the
study suggests that mental health professionals should be attuned to their patients' IQ, Koenen
says.
"No studies I'm aware of have ever taken IQ into account or looked at how people with different
cognitive abilities might respond [to treatment]," she says. "We really need to be thinking of that in
terms of our intervention strategies."
Health.com: How to spot the warning signs of suicide
Much of the research on suicide and IQ has been conducted in Sweden, where military service is
mandatory for men. Recruits are required to take an IQ test at the start of their service and their
health is tracked for years afterwards, which provides a near-complete source of data for
researchers.
The IQ test taken by Swedish soldiers is a bit different from those used in the U.S. The test
includes logic puzzles and visualization problems, but it also has questions on vocabulary and
basic physics and chemistry. The lowest IQ score on the Swedish test equates to roughly 73 or
below on an American IQ test; the highest score equates to 127 or above.
Emotional Sensitivities

One of the key psychological characteristics of giftedness is a

phenomenon known as ―asynchronous development”, in
other words a child‘s emotional maturity is way out of kilter with
his or her intellectual ability, leading to heightened emotional
and sensory sensitivities. For example, a gifted 7 year old may
have the intellectual ability of a 17 year old, yet have the
emotional sensitivity of a four year old. And, the higher the
child's IQ, the greater the asynchrony. The greater the
asynchrony, the greater the potential for behavioural and
social/emotional problems. This asynchrony can have
devastating effects for a child who is struggling to fit in at school
with both his teachers and peers and be a terrible source of
concern for parents who are unfamiliar with this important
aspect of giftedness.

As a result exceptionally able and twice exceptional children

often experience extreme levels of sensitivity. This is made all
the more difficult in that few teachers have had formal training in
gifted education as part of their primary degree, so that
supporting these children in the classroom can be problematic.
Often these children remain unidentified as exceptionally able
and can be labelled disruptive. Instead of excelling, they can
end up significantly underachieving or even dropping out of the
school system altogether.

Parents, in particular, struggling to help what may appear as an

―overly sensitive‖ child, are worried sick - does he have
Aspergers? Has she Adhd? With few professionals in this
country with a background in gifted assessment there is a real
danger of misdiagnosis. The sensitivity issues which are
characteristic of the exceptionally able can sometimes mimic
autistic spectrum disorders and it‘s important that those
professionals involved in assessment have the knowledge and
experience to be able to distinguish between the two. According
to this article onSENG (Supporting the Emotional Needs of the
Gifted):

"Many gifted and talented children (and adults) are being mis-
diagnosed by psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and
other health care professionals. The most common mis-
diagnoses are: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (OD), Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder (OCD), and Mood Disorders such as Cyclothymic
Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Depression, and Bi-Polar
Disorder. These common mis-diagnoses stem from an
ignorance among professionals about specific social and
emotional characteristics of gifted children which are then
mistakenly assumed by these professionals to be signs of
pathology.

In some situations where gifted children have received a correct

diagnosis, giftedness is still a factor that must be considered in
treatment, and should really generate a dual diagnosis. For
example, existential depression or learning disability, when
present in gifted children or adults, requires a different
approach because new dimensions are added by the giftedness
component. Yet the giftedness component typically is
overlooked due to the lack of training and understanding by
health care professionals (Webb & Kleine, 1993). "

Source: "Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted

Children and Adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger's,
depression, and other disorders" (2004) Scottsdale: Great
Potential Press
Author: James T. Webb, Edward R. Amend, Nadia E. Webb,
Jean Goerss, Paul Beljan, F. Richard Olenchak
For more discussion and information on this topic, particularly
around possible misdiagnosis of Aspergers please
consult Counseling, Multiple Exceptionality, and
Psychological Issues by Edward R. Amend, Psy.D.

What Are The Social-Emotional Needs Of Gifted Children?

By James T. Webb

To a large degree, the needs of gifted children are the same as

those of other children. The same developmental stages occur,
though often at a younger age (Webb & Kleine, 1993). Gifted
children may face the same potentially limiting problems, such
as family poverty, substance abuse, or alcoholism. Some needs
and problems, however, appear more often among gifted
children.

Types Of Problems

It is helpful to conceptualize needs of gifted children in terms of

those that arise because of the interaction with the
environmental setting (e.g., family, school, or cultural milieu)
and those that arise internally because of the very
characteristics of the gifted child.

Several intellectual and personality attributes characterize gifted

children and should be noted at the outset. These
characteristics may be strengths, but potential problems also
may be associated with them (Clark, 1992; Seagoe, 1974).

Some particularly common characteristics are shown in the

table.
Possible Problems That May Be Associated With
Characteristic Strengths Of Gifted Children
POSSIBLE
STRENGTHS
PROBLEMS
Acquires/retains Impatient with
information quickly others; dislikes
basic routine.

Inquisitive;searches for Asks

significance. embarrassing
questions;
excessive in
interests.

Intrinsic motivation. Strong-willed;

resists
direction.

Enjoys problem-solving;
able to
Resists routine
conceptualize,questions
practice;
teaching procedures.
abstract, synthesize.

Seeks cause-effect Dislikes

relations. unclear/illogical
areas (e.g.,
traditions or
feelings).

Emphasizes truth, Worries about

equity,and fair play. humanitarian
concerns.

Seeks to organize Constructs

things and people. complicated
rules; often
 seen as bossy.

Large facile vocabulary; May use words

advanced, broad to manipulate;
information. bored with
school and
age-peers.

High expectations of Intolerant,

self and others. perfectionistic;
may become
depressed.

Creative/inventive; likes May be seen

new ways of doing as disruptive
things. and out of step.

Intense Neglects duties

concentration;long or people
attention span and during periods
persistence in areas of of focus; resists
interest. interruption;
stubbornness.

Sensitivity, empathy; Sensitivity to

desire to be accepted criticism or
by others. peer rejection.

High energy, Frustration with

alertness,eagerness. inactivity; may
be seen as
hyperactive.

Independent; prefers
May reject
individualized work;
parent or peer
reliant input;
on self.
nonconformity.
 Diverse interests and May appear
abilities; versatility disorganized or
scattered;
frustrated over
lack of time.

Strong sense of humor. Peers may

misunderstand
humor; may
become "class
clown"for
attention.

Adapted from Clark (1992) and Seagoe (1974).

These characteristics are seldom inherently problematic by

themselves. More often, combinations of these characteristics
lead to behavior patterns such as:

Uneven Development
Motor skills, especially fine-motor, often lag behind cognitive
conceptual abilities, particularly in preschool gifted children
(Webb & Kleine, 1993). These children may see in their "mind's
eye" what they want to do, construct, or draw; however, motor
skills do not allow them to achieve the goal. Intense frustration
and emotional outbursts may result.

Peer Relations
As preschoolers and in primary grades, gifted children
(particularly highly gifted) attempt to organize people and
things. Their search for consistency emphasizes "rules," which
they attempt to apply to others. They invent complex games
and try to organize their playmates, often prompting resentment
in their peers.

Excessive Self-Criticism
The ability to see possibilities and alternatives may imply that
youngsters see idealistic images of what they might be, and
simultaneously berate themselves because they see how they
are falling short of an ideal (Adderholt-Elliott, 1989; Powell &
Haden, 1984; Whitmore, 1980).

Perfectionism
The ability to see how one might ideally perform, combined with
emotional intensity, leads many gifted children to unrealistically
high expectations of themselves. In high ability children,
perhaps 15-20% may be hindered significantly by perfectionism
at some point in their academic careers, and even later in life.

Avoidance of Risk-Taking
In the same way the gifted youngsters see the possibilities, they
also see potential problems in undertaking those activities.
Avoidance of potential problems can mean avoidance of risk-
taking, and may result in underachievement (Whitmore, 1980).

Multipotentiality
Gifted children often have several advanced capabilities and
may be involved in diverse activities to an almost frantic degree.
Though seldom a problem for the child, this may create
problems for the family, as well as quandaries when decisions
must be about career selection (Kerr, 1985; 1991).

Gifted Children with Disabilities

Physical disabilities can prompt social and emotional difficulties.
Intellect may be high, but motor difficulties such as cerebral
palsy may prevent expression of potential. Visual or hearing
impairment or a learning disability may cause frustration. Gifted
children with disabilities tend to evaluate themselves more on
what they are unable to do than on their substantial abilities
(Whitmore & Maker, 1985).

Problems From Outside Sources

Lack of understanding or support for gifted children, and

sometimes actual ambivalence or hostility, creates significant
problems (Webb & Kleine, 1993).
Some common problem patterns are:

School Culture and Norms. Gifted children, by definition, are

"unusual" when compared with same-age children--at least in
cognitive abilities--and require different educational experiences
(Kleine & Webb, 1992). Schools, however, generally group
children by age. The child often has a dilemma--conform to the
expectations for the average child or be seen as nonconformist.

Expectations by Others. Gifted children--particularly the more

creative--do not conform. Nonconformists violate or challenge
traditions, rituals, roles, or expectations. Such behaviors often
prompt discomfort in others. The gifted child, sensitive to others'
discomfort, may then try to hide abilities.

Peer Relations. Who is a peer for a gifted child? Gifted children

need several peer groups because their interests are so varied.
Their advanced levels of ability may steer them toward older
children. They may choose peers by reading books (Halsted,
1994). Such children are often thought of as "loners." The
conflict between fitting in and being an individual may be quite
stressful.

Depression. Depression is usually being angry at oneself or at

a situation over which one has little or no control. In some
families, continual evaluation and criticism of performance--
one's own and others--is a tradition. Any natural tendency to
self-evaluate likely will be inflated. Depression and academic
underachievement may be increased. Sometimes educational
misplacement causes the gifted youngster to feel caught in a
slow motion world. Depression may result because the child
feels caught in an unchangeable situation.

Family Relations. Families particularly influence the

development of social and emotional competence. When
problems occur, it is not because parents consciously decide to
create difficulties for gifted children. It is because parents lack
information about gifted children, or lack support for appropriate
parenting, or are attempting to cope with their own unresolved
problems (which may stem from their experiences with being
gifted).

Preventing Problems

Reach out to Parents. Parents are particularly important in

preventing social or emotional problems. Teaching, no matter
how excellent or supportive, can seldom counteract
inappropriate parenting. Supportive family environments, on the
other hand, can counteract unhappy school experiences.
Parents need information if they are to nurture well and to be
wise advocates for their children.

Focus on Parents of Young Children. Problems are best

prevented by involving parents when children are young.
Parents particularly must understand characteristics that may
make gifted children seem different or difficult.

Educate and Involve Health-Care and Other Professionals.

Concentrated efforts should be made to involve such
professionals in state and local meetings and in continuing
education programs concerning gifted children. Pediatricians,
psychologists, and other caregivers such as day-care providers
typically have received little training about gifted children, and
therefore can provide little assistance to parents (Webb &
Kleine, 1993).

Use Educational Flexibility. Gifted children require different

and more flexible educational experiences. When the children
come from multicultural or low-income families, educational
flexibility and reaching out may be particularly necessary.
Seven flexibly paced educational options, relatively easy to
implement in most school settings (Cox, Daniel & Boston, 1985)
are: early entrance; grade skipping; advanced level courses;
compacted courses; continuous progress in the regular
classroom; concurrent enrollment in advanced classes; and
credit by examination. These options are based on competence
and demonstrated ability, rather than on arbitrary age
groupings.

Establish Parent Discussion Groups. Parents of gifted

children typically have few opportunities to talk with other
parents of gifted children. Discussion groups provide
opportunities to "swap parenting recipes" and child-rearing
experiences. Such experiences provide perspective as well as
specific information (Webb & DeVries, 1993).

Is It Good to Be Gifted? Optimal IQ and the

Flipside to Giftedness

By David Palmer, Ph.D

Is it good to be a gifted? This may sound like a strange

question - of course being gifted is good... isn't it?

It's true that kids who score higher on IQ tests will

have an advantage academically. After all, these tests
are designed to predict school success. The skills
tapped by IQ tests, including memory, problem-solving,
and language ability are also important for doing well
on college placement tests and succeeding in a career.
So there's definitely an upside to being gifted. But how
gifted do kids need to be to reap these benefits – and is
there a flipside to having a high IQ?

Optimal IQ

It may seem reasonable to believe that the higher our

IQ, the better off we are. Yet, it turns out that's not
necessarily true. Those with higher IQs will have an
advantage over those with lower IQs – all else being
equal – when it comes to ease of learning and having
the cognitive skills necessary to succeed in certain
careers. However, researchers have found that beyond
an IQ of about 120 there is little relationship between
IQ and personal achievement. (And please note that an
IQ of 120 does not even meet the cutoff score of 130
used by most districts as selection criteria for entrance
into a gifted education program.) Beyond this level,
achievement appears to be related more to things like
creativity, leadership ability, and personal motivation
than to IQ. Those with extremely high IQs (in the 145
to 180 range, for example) do no better than those
with IQs in the 120s when it comes to career success
and creative accomplishments. And having a higher IQ
is certainly no guarantee that you'll zip through life
effortlessly accomplishing great things.

I've seen this myself. I've met many people who don't
appear to be particularly bookish or intellectual, but are
very successful in what they do. Then again, I've
known lots of academic types who have scored
extremely high on an IQ test but lack the "people
skills," personal motivation, or whatever it takes to
translate their abilities into outward signs of success –
a college degree, a rewarding career, a fulfilling family
life.

Maybe you've noticed this, too. Consider people you

know and admire for their accomplishments - those
who make everything look easy and always seem to be
getting ahead. It's likely that these people are not all
"brainy" types. Rather, most are probably of average
intelligence but know how to use their abilities to
connect with and lead others, to stay focused on their
goals, and to work hard to get what they want.

Of course, that's not to say that those with an

exceptionally high IQ won't do well in life. Many do, and
some of them contribute great things to our society in
part because of their unusually high intellectual ability.
An exceptionally high IQ may also be useful, or even
necessary, in certain professions that require more
isolated cerebral types of work, such as theoretical
physics or mathematics.

So what is the optimal IQ? It's arguable, but some

would say around 120 and no higher than 145. Why? At
this level, you'd reap most of the advantages of having
enhanced abilities in some areas but might be spared
some of the potential downside of being too "different"
from the rest of the world.

The Flipside to Having a High IQ

Just as it's unfair and unrealistic to make generalized

statements about any group of people based on similar
traits they share, we shouldn't oversimplify our view on
the effects of giftedness on children. In fact, having a
high IQ doesn't necessarily come with any particular
disadvantages. The research in this area is mixed, at
best. And much of it is based on interviews or anecdotal
evidence, which makes it hard to come to any firm
conclusions about the findings.

Yet, all children are susceptible to struggles at some

time in their development and gifted children are no
different. A common belief is that they are more prone
to certain developmental problems due to being
perceived as different by others, or because they see
themselves as being out of touch with most of their
peers. And this makes sense. A primary need of most
kids - and maybe, to a lesser degree, of most s as well
- is to "fit in." Anyone who's been through school
understands how important it is to dress like, act like,
and be like everyone else. Or at least like everyone else
in your own little subgroup. We seem to have a need to
be folded into a crowd with whom we can share certain
interests - a social connection, an identity. Yet gifted
kids are, by definition, different, at least when it comes
to certain skills or talents they possess. Yes, giftedness
is arguably a positive difference - at least from an
perspective - but a difference, nonetheless. For kids
and teens, the pressure to conform is often so great
that any deviation from the norm can be distressing.
We've all heard terms like brain, nerd, geek or worse
applied to kids who seem too bookish, or too "into"
school.

Of course, the potential for social problems is not

unique to gifted kids; all children are susceptible to
teasing, bullying, or social isolation when they don't fit
in, for whatever reason. The school years can be tough
for all children. Gifted kids, though, do share some
unique pressures and developmental issues that others
may not.

A Disconnect Between the Brain, the Body, and

Emotions

Most six-year-olds look, act, and think like six-year-

olds. They use six-year-old words, think six-year-old
thoughts, and react emotionally like you'd expect a six-
year-old to react. Gifted children, however, are often
described as showing "asynchronous development."
That is, while much of their development may be
typical for their age (their size and emotional reactions,
for instance), cognitively they are out of sync. Gifted
children's advanced cognitive skills allow them to
process what's going on around them at a different
level than most of their age peers. An outcome of this
is a sophisticated and heightened curiosity about what's
going on in the world, and a desire to "fill in the gaps"
of their understanding.

All children are curious about the world and how it

works. But for most, their curiosity is satisfied by
simple, concrete answers that allow them to move on
to other thoughts and emotions. They may see s as the
"experts" and not feel a need to question or seek
elaboration on the answers provided by them. Gifted
children, however, may not be satisfied with simple
answers. These children often have a need to delve
deeper to satisfy their advanced awareness and
heightened curiosity.

For example, while most young children who lose a

family pet may be satisfied with parental reassurance
such as, "Your hamster is going to Heaven to live with
his friends," a gifted child may not be content with such
a simplistic response and want more information before
moving on: "What is Heaven?," "Why do we have to
die?" "Will you die someday?"

Gifted children may also have a tendency to want to

discuss "adult" issues - such as , spirituality, and the
afterlife – at a deeper, more involved level than most
kids their age. Other potential topics may include
quality, birth, money, relationships, and divorce. While
discussing these types of issues calmly and openly is
not necessarily detrimental to a child, there can be
drawbacks. A child who is excessively concerned about
these things may become overly focused, frightened, or
"grossed out" by knowing too much about issues they
lack the life experience or emotional maturity to fully
understand.

A seven-year-old whose father loses his job, for

instance, may become anxious because he knows
enough to understand the potential negative outcomes
associated with the lack of a steady income. He may be
concerned about the possibility of having to move out
of his neighborhood, or not having enough money to
get by. A five-year-old who knows "where babies come
from" may find the whole subject so fascinating that he
shares his expert knowledge with all who will listen.

In short, there is a certain bliss in the innocence of

childhood that may be lost on gifted children who are
enlightened too quickly concerning life's mysteries.

Emotional Sensitivity

Gifted children are often thought to be more

emotionally perceptive and responsive than their peers.
Some people have described them as having finely
tuned antennae when it comes to picking up and
responding to emotional signals that come from within
themselves or from those around them.

Some researchers have reported that gifted children

may:

• Be overly empathetic to other people's problems or

situations. They might show a tendency to make the
problem their own, and mirror the moods or emotional
state of the person they are concerned about.

• Overreact to frustration, rejection, success, or any

situation that triggers an emotional response – for
example, sobbing over an outwardly minor
disappointment.

• Be overly sensitive to criticism or disapproval, or

respond strongly to minor suggestions or comments
about their work or performances.

• Worry too much about global situations such as

poverty, war, and natural disasters over which they
have no control.

• Read too much into other people's comments or body

language.

Friendships

Friendships are often based on similarities. We tend to

connect with others who are like us in some way. That
is not to say that two people need to be clones of each
other to bond - differences are often what make a
relationship interesting and may be what initially
attracts one person to another. But it's fair to say that
long-term relationships are often kept going because
the people involved are somehow similar. And
arguably, mental similarities are one of the most - if
not the most - important ways that people connect and
stay connected. We tend to become close with those
who think like us, not necessarily people who have the
same opinions or outlook, but rather those who
understand our ideas and perspectives, share similar
interests, and with whom we can carry on a mutually
meaningful conversation. Children and teens form
meaningful and lasting relationships in much the same
way.

A potential problem for gifted children is that they often

think in a different way than most of their age peers –
those they are likely to spend a great deal of time with.
They have the physical appearance and probably the
emotional maturity of their classmates, but may have
the vocabulary, interests, and reasoning ability of those
much older than themselves. They don't really fit into
either group. Consequently, developing meaningful
friendships can be more difficult for gifted children, and
this problem can become more pronounced as cognitive
ability increases. Put another way, the pool of potential
same age "mental mates" shrinks as IQ rises.

Self Esteem

Self-esteem can be thought of as the opinion we hold of

ourselves. So where do we get this opinion? As
children, we begin to develop a mental picture of
ourselves in several different areas, including how we
look, how we act, how popular we are, and how good
we are at learning. This mental picture is formed from
early childhood through feedback we get from others
and from comparing ourselves to those around us. The
picture becomes clearer and more fixed as we get
older, since our ideas about who we are get reinforced
over time. As we mature, we also develop a concept of
an "ideal person," or how we "ought to be." These ideas
are likely formed through messages received from
sources around us like our parents, teachers, peers,
and the media.

Our self-esteem, then, comes from comparing our

mental picture of who we are to who we think we
should be. Our feelings about ourselves can differ
greatly according to what area of our lives we are
considering and how we measure up to the ideal.

While studies show that many gifted children have high

global self-esteem (how they feel about themselves in
general) and high self-esteem when it comes to
academics, it is also known that they are not immune
to having poor opinions about themselves. Self esteem
issues may be particularly troublesome for gifted
children who are prone to perfectionism – the desire to
do everything just right before one can be satisfied with
the outcome. Realizing their own potential and
capabilities, these kids may get the feeling that they
should be able to do just about anything, and then
become frustrated when they don't perform up to their
own expectations. For example, getting less than
perfect grades, not making the varsity sports team, or
not winning an award for the best science project may
make the gifted child feel that he has let himself down.
Self-esteem may also be negatively affected when
gifted kids feel that they are not measuring up to other
high-achieving students, or to mentors whom they see
as role s or intellectual equals.

Depression

Gifted children who are not able to live up to their own

unrealistic or perfectionist expectations, or those who
feel alienated from the rest of the world because of
their intellectual differences, may develop feelings of
sadness or depression. This is particularly true for the
highly gifted child or teen who may develop the sense
that the world they live in is a foreign land where
everyone thinks and acts differently than they do. As
they get older, these children may begin to question
the meaning of a world that is seemingly run by those
whose values and interests are so different from their
own.

Becoming caught up in academic competitiveness can

also lead to depression and other serious
consequences. It is known, for instance, that attempts
occur more frequently among young people who excel
academically, are highly creative, and attend highly
competitive schools.

School

The very traits that help gifted children excel in

learning can make it difficult for them to participate in
many school programs.

For example:

• Because they are usually able to complete tasks

quickly, they may become disinterested in a subject
once they feel they have mastered it, and then begin to
tune out the teacher while they move on to different
things in their own minds. These children may be
perceived as unfocussed or as "daydreamers."

• They may be more focused on the big idea, rather

than the small details of a school task or subject. The
organization of their school work may appear to be
lacking and attention to detail may be missing. They
may be perceived as disorganized, inattentive, or
defiant.

• They may not need as much structure and teacher

guidance as most and prefer to guide their own
learning and move at their own pace. Teachers may
become frustrated with students who are always
moving ahead or getting "off topic."

• Because they learn and complete work at such a fast

pace they could spend much of their school day with
little to do or nothing to engage their attention. Some
become bored, apathetic, discouraged, or rebellious.
• Their thoughts may come faster than they can write -
so there is often a disconnect between how they think
and what they produce on paper. This could lead a
teacher to group gifted children with students of much
lower ability, thus frustrating the child further.

Teachers that are not skilled at adapting their

instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners may
feel threatened by how quickly the child learns, or by
how much they know. Such teachers may try to make
the gifted child conform to the pace of the classroom
through reprimands or discipline techniques that create
hard feelings or a poor working relationship between
the teacher and the student.

Ways Kids Cope

Gifted children are as diverse a group as any other, and

no two children are alike. How they navigate through
the social world and cope with the stresses of growing
up may have more to do with individual personality
traits, or the type of emotional support they get from
others, than with their IQ.

Yet there are some common themes when it comes to

how gifted kids cope. Because of the social isolation
and negative feedback they may encounter, there is
some evidence that, as they get older and have more of
these experiences, some gifted children start to
downplay their abilities, becoming guarded or holding
back when they are around children their own age.
Others may disguise their abilities in other ways - like
focusing on nonacademic-related talents, or simply
choosing to isolate themselves from others kids,
preferring to be alone or choosing the company of s.
Many though, as they mature and gain the insight that
comes from experience and maturity, learn to accept
and appreciate their differences without any long-term
negative consequences.

Whether or not a child is dealing with any of the issues

outlined in this chapter, parents can help their kids
through the school years by:

• Being there to listen, understand, and support them

emotionally when they are going through a stressful
period.

• Providing them with opportunities to develop and

explore their interests and connect with others who
hold similar interests.

• Avoiding pushing them to excel or compete – or

excessively praising them for their accomplishments.

• Encouraging fun, playful activities and downtime.

Most importantly, research (and common sense) tells

us that all children benefit from having at least one
caring, supportive in their lives who provides structure,
consistency, and a sense of unconditional love, warmth,
and encouragement.

Reframing the "Problem"

Again, the research is mixed when it comes to gifted

kids and social adjustment. Being gifted certainly does
not mean that a child will have a rough time growing
up. Many of the potential negative effects of a high IQ
may never arise, particularly for those children who
measure in that "optimal" range of around 120 to 145.
Many studies have, in fact, shown that most gifted
children are well-adjusted and have no more social
problems than most.

It's also true that the denser and more efficient neural
connections that some believe are related to gifted
children's emotional sensitivity and other issues can
also help them in social relationships. Many of the same
characteristics that seem to create problems for some
gifted children can lead to positive outcomes in others –
and many of the possible drawbacks associated with
giftedness can also be viewed as potential advantages.

For instance, highly developed sensitivity and

emotionality may help gifted children develop social
insight, enhance their capacity to understand and
connect with others, and boost their ability to adapt to
different social groups. Instead of causing them to
overreact or have melt-downs over little things, being
highly sensitive may allow gifted children to be more
responsive to others' needs, and give them an
advantage in reading others' body language, feelings,
and emotions.

Similarly, having fewer social contacts, or true friends,

could certainly be viewed as a negative aspect of
giftedness. But for some children it may just mean that
they are more discerning when it comes to choosing
who they hang out with. And preferring to be alone at
times does not necessarily mean the child is suffering
from social isolation. Gifted children are often highly
introspective, and choose to be alone to develop their
gifts through solitary activities.

Other gifted characteristics with possible negative

implications, such as boredom with school routines,
bossiness, and questioning of authority, can also be
 viewed as early signs of an independent thinker or a
natural leader.

Gifted Children with Learning Disabilities: A

Review of the Issues
By: Linda E. Brody and Carol J. Mills (1997)

In this article:

 Abstract
 Who are these students?
 Definitions
o Definitions of learning disabilities
o Definitions of giftedness
o Conclusion
 Identification
o Evidence of an outstanding talent or ability
o Evidence of an aptitude - achievement discrepancy
o Evidence of a processing deficit
o Conclusion
 Intervention
o Individualized education programs
o Special classes for gifted students with learning disabilities
o Using and/or adapting existing services
o Teaching strategies and adaptive techniques
o Counseling
o Conclusion
 Discussion and recommendations
 About the authors
 References

This article explores the current policies and practices with regard to defining, identifying,
and educating this population. Recommendations are included that would help ensure
that students who are gifted and have learning disabilities receive the intervention
needed to help them achieve their full potential.
When educators first began describing children who showed evidence of having a
learning disability (LD) yet also appeared to be gifted, many viewed this as contradictory.
The stereotype that had prevailed since Terman's (1925) time was that gifted children
score uniformly high on intelligence tests and perform well in school. How could a child
be considered gifted who has serious enough learning problems to be characterized as
having a learning disability?
In 1981, a colloquium held at The Johns Hopkins University convened experts from the
fields of both learning disabilities and giftedness to consider this issue. At the time,
interest in meeting the needs of gifted and talented students, as well as students with
learning disabilities, was evident on many levels, but students who exhibited the
characteristics of both exceptionalities had received scant notice. The participants agreed
that students who are gifted and also have learning disabilities do, in fact, exist but are
often overlooked when students are assessed for either giftedness or learning disabilities.
The colloquium did much to establish students who are gifted but also have learning
disabilities as a population with special characteristics and needs (Fox, Brody, & Tobin,
1983).
In recent years, the concept of giftedness and learning disabilities occurring
concomitantly in the same individual has become commonly accepted. Several books
have been written on the subject, numerous articles have appeared in journals, and most
educational conferences focusing on either learning disabilities or giftedness include at
least one presentation on the dual exceptionality. We appear to have reached an
understanding that high ability and learning problems can both be present in the same
individual. Nonetheless, empirical research on the characteristics and needs of this
population has been limited, and relatively few students with LD who are gifted are
identified as such or given special services. In this review, we examine some of the
theoretical arguments, regulations, and educational practices that affect students with LD
who are gifted.

Who are these students?

Students who are gifted and also have learning disabilities are
those who possess an outstanding gift or talent and are capable
of high performance, but who also have a learning disability
that makes some aspect of academic achievement difficult.
Some of these students are identified and their needs are met.
This happens only rarely, however, unless a school specifically
decides to identify and then serve these students. The majority
of students who are gifted with learning disabilities "fall through
the cracks" in the system.
There are at least three subgroups of children whose dual
exceptionality remains unrecognized (Baum, 1994; Baum,
Owen, & Dixon, 1991; Fox, Brody, & Tobin,1983;
Landrum,1989; Starnes, Ginevan, Stokes, & Barton, 1988). The
first group includes students who have been identified as gifted
yet exhibit difficulties in school. These students are often
considered underachievers, and their underachievement may
be attributed to poor selfconcept, lack of motivation, or even
some less flattering characteristics, such as laziness
(Silverman,1989; Waldron, Saphire, & Rosenblum,1987;
Whitmore, 1980). Their learning disabilities usually remain
unrecognized for most of their educational lives. As school
becomes more challenging, their academic difficulties may
increase to the point where they are falling sufficiently behind
peers that someone finally suspects a disability.
A second group includes students whose learning disabilities
are severe enough that they have been identified as having
learning disabilities but whose exceptional abilities have never
been recognized or addressed. It has been suggested that this
may be a larger group of students than many people realize. In
one study, as many as 33% of students identified with learning
disabilities had superior intellectual ability (Baum, 1985).
Inadequate assessments and/or depressed IQ scores often lead
to an underestimation of these students' intellectual abilities. If
their potential remains unrecognized, it never becomes a cause
for concern or the focus of their instructional program. Due to
this underestimation or to inflexible identification and/or
instructional expectations in the "gifted program," they are
rarely referred for gifted services.
Perhaps the largest group of unserved students are those
whose abilities and disabilities mask each other; these children
sit in general classrooms, ineligible for services provided for
students who are gifted or have learning disabilities, and are
considered to have average abilities. Because these students
typically function at grade level, they are not seen as having
problems or special needs, nor are they a priority for schools on
tight budgets. Although these students appear to be functioning
reasonably well, they are, unfortunately, performing well below
their potential. As course work becomes more demanding in
later years, and without the help they need to accommodate
their limitations, their academic difficulties usually increase to
the point where a learning disability may be suspected, but
rarely is their true potential recognized.
For all three of these subgroups, the social and emotional
consequences of having exceptional abilities and learning
disabilities, when one or both of the conditions is unrecognized,
can be pervasive and quite debilitating, as well as difficult to
address if appropriate diagnosis and programming never take
place or are delayed until adolescence (Baum et al.,1991;
Durden & Tangherlini, 1993; Fox, Brody, & Tobin,1983;
Whitmore,1980). With an increasing number of LD researchers
questioning the relevance of a child's aptitude in determining
intervention strategies (cf. Siegel,1989), even fewer students
with high potential and learning disabilities will be recognized or
fully served, resulting in a great waste of intellectual potential.
Definitions
The literature is replete with references to individuals with
extremely high abilities and talents who also have a specific
learning disability (e.g., Aaron, Phillips, & Larsen, 1988;
Goertzel & Goertzel,1962; Ochse,1990; Thompson, 1971).
Some researchers have even suggested that, at least for some
individuals, the learning disability may be fundamentally
associated with a "gift" (e.g., Geschwind, 1982; West,1991). To
most practitioners who work with individuals with disabilities,
being gifted and also having learning disabilities does not
appear to be an unfamiliar or especially problematic condition,
at least in theory. Nonetheless, a number of thorny issues and
debates make the understanding and identification of the
condition difficult.
Controversy surrounds what is meant by the terms gifted and
learning disabled. As Vaughn (1989) pointed out, "no two
populations have suffered from more definitional problems than
learning disabled and gifted" (p.123). With regard to students
who exhibit the dual exceptionalities simultaneously, legislation
defining special populations has never specifically described this
group. When educators and researchers describe these
students as a unique group, they generally talk about students
who exhibit strengths in one area and weaknesses in another
(e.g., Ellston, 1993; Fall & Nolan, 1993) and/or show a
discrepancy between potential and performance (e.g.,
Gunderson, Maesch, & Rees, 1987). For a more formal
definition, however, it has been necessary to rely on the
separate prevailing definitions of gifted children and children
with learning disabilities, which are almost always inadequate
for accommodating students who exhibit the characteristics of
both groups simultaneously.
Definitions of learning disabilities
Numerous conceptual definitions of learning disabilities have
been proposed by experts in the field (Hammill, 1990). Most of
these allow for the co-occurrence of being gifted and having
learning disabilities, as they set no upper limit on general
intelligence or specific abilities in one or more areas. When the
Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities
(1985) proposed a definition that specifically included the
phrase "average and superior intelligence" occurring
concomitantly with the disability, the door was opened wider for
recognition of children with disabilities who are gifted. Some
conceptual definitions include a reference to a discrepancy
between intellectual ability and achievement, a concept and
practice that is important for identifying many students with LD
who are gifted, though the use of such a discrepancy for
defining a learning disability has been criticized (cf. Lyon,
1989). Although there is nothing in most LD definitions that
excludes students with learning disabilities who are also gifted,
the definitions fail to specifically encourage practitioners to
identify students in this subgroup.
Swanson's (1991) review of operational definitions is quite
useful in understanding the issues related to defining and
identifying learning disabilities. Many of the issues and debates
he discusses, particularly the concepts of specificity (which
refers to a learning disability being confined to a limited
number of academic or cognitive domains), discrepancy
(whereby it is determined that a child's achievement does not
measure up to his or her potential), and exclusion (whereby the
learning disability is distinguished from other handicapping
conditions), are particularly relevant to defining students with
academic talents and learning disabilities. Because operational
definitions are so closely tied to identification, these issues and
debates are reviewed later in this article under "Identification."
Definitions of giftedness
In the gifted and talented field, attempts to define giftedness
from a conceptual viewpoint have resulted in little consensus.
For example, giftedness has been defined as high general
intelligence (Terman, 1925); high aptitude in a specific
academic area (Stanley, 1976); and the interactions among
high ability, task commitment, and creativity (Renzulli, 1986).
(For other examples, see Sternberg and Davidson,1986.)
Perhaps contributing to the difficulty in defining giftedness is
the lack of agreement as to what intelligence is, with
proponents of a variety of psychometric, developmental, and
information-processing approaches offering conflicting
viewpoints (Kail & Pellegrino, 1985; Sternberg & Detterman,
1986). Some of these definitions are more likely than others to
accommodate the child with learning problems. For example,
Gardner's (1983) concept of multiple intelligences provides for
showing high ability in one area without requisite corresponding
ability in all areas. In contrast, proponents of the concept of
general "g" (Spearman, 1927) have greater difficulty
considering students with learning difficulties as highly able.
A multifaceted view of giftedness, proposed by Marland (1972),
has been adopted by the U. S. Department of Education and a
majority of state departments of education and school systems.
Marland described gifted and talented children as those who
demonstrate high achievement or potential in any one of six
areas: general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude,
creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and
performing arts, and psychomotor ability (which was deleted in
subsequent legislation). Recently, a revised definition has
asserted that "outstanding talents are present in children and
youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and
in all areas of human endeavor" (U.S. Department of Education,
1993, p. 26). This recognition of culturally disadvantaged gifted
children was not matched by equal attention to gifted students
with learning disabilities. However, neither federal definition of
the gifted child excludes students with learning disabilities
because the definitions (a) specify that a child need not be
exceptional at everything to be gifted, (b) set no lower limits of
performance or ability in remaining areas, and (c) specifically
acknowledge that students can be gifted even if they are not
currently performing at a high level, as long as they have the
potential. Unfortunately, however, academic potential
independent of performance is a difficult concept for many to
accept.
Conclusion
Attempts to describe students with LD who are gifted have
drawn heavily on definitions of each exceptionality separately;
yet, a lack of consensus is evident in definitions of giftedness or
learning disabilities, and the implications of the two conditions
overlapping have not been adequately considered. For example,
the broadbased federal definitions of giftedness, as well as
other definitions, recognize students' abilities in a variety of
areas. Thus, a student might exhibit talent in leadership or the
arts but not in academic areas, and be labeled gifted and
qualify for services. If such a student also has a learning
disability, he or she might be considered gifted and learning
disabled. The concept that a student might have different
abilities and needs in art than in mathematics is not difficult for
most people to accept or understand.
However, accepting the concept that a student's giftedness and
learning disabilities both lie in related academic areas, such as
a student whose reading level is well above grade level but who
has great difficulty with spelling and writing, is more
problematic for most people. And the programming implications
for these two types of students (i.e., those whose talents and
disabilities lie in related or unrelated areas) are very different.
Although students whose strengths and weaknesses are in
unrelated areas might be gifted and have a learning disability,
it is students whose talents and disabilities overlap and are
both in academic areas who are most likely to be
misunderstood, underserved, and in need of special services.
Descriptions of individuals who are academically talented and
individuals who have learning disabilities should be examined
and expanded to include students who exhibit the
characteristics of both exceptionalities simultaneously in related
and unrelated areas. At present, the operational definitions
currently used by most schools to place children in gifted or
special education programs exclude many academically talented
students with learning problems who rarely meet the rigid
cutoffs of most identification procedures (Fall & Nolan, 1993).
For the few students who are identified via existing definitions
and guidelines, it usually means receiving services in one or the
other area, but not both.
Identification
At present, identifying students for gifted programs and for special education services for
individuals with learning disabilities tend to be mutually exclusive activities (Boodoo,
Bradley, Frontera, Pitts, & Wright, 1989). Unfortunately, too many students with LD who
are gifted fail to meet the eligibility requirements for either because the identification
protocols fail to consider the special characteristics of this population. For example,
research has shown that teachers are much more likely to refer nondisabled students
than students with learning disabilities for placement in gifted programs (Minner, 1990;
Minner, Prater, Bloodworth, & Walker, 1987). Screening for learning disabilities typically
requires evidence of underachievement. Gifted students who are able to compensate for
their learning problems rarely get referred unless they exhibit behavioral problems (Senf,
1983). At the same time, because students with LD who are gifted rarely show
consistently high achievement, they often go unrecognized as being gifted. Although a
few will qualify for special education services because of the severity of their disability,
and some will qualify for gifted services because of the type or level of their talent (Baum
et al., 1991), most students with LD who are gifted rarely qualify for multiple services.
Unless operational definitions and identification criteria are modified to accommodate the
characteristics of this subgroup, this situation will, unfortunately, continue.
In an effort to shed light on the pattern of abilities of students with LD who are gifted,
and to simplify identification, many researchers in this area have focused on Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISCR) score patterns (e.g., Bannatyne, 1974;
Baum et al., 1991; Kaufman, 1979). To date, however, no consistent pattern of results
has come from this research. Although Schiff, Kaufman, and Kaufman (1981) reported a
significant Verbal-Performance (VP) discrepancy (greater than that found for students
with LD with average ability), with Verbal scores higher, Waldron and Saphire (1990)
concluded that a significant discrepancy between Verbal and Performance scores may not
be the best indicator of a learning disability in gifted students. Barton and Starnes (1989)
observed that "the inconsistencies in magnitude or direction of VP discrepancies among
the studies seem to result from differing patterns of deficits in the samples" (p. 28), and
Fox, Brody, and Tobin (1983) concluded that "more research is needed to determine
what, if any, unique patterns characterize the gifted/LD child" (p. 106).
It is clear that we are dealing with a very heterogeneous group of students who
represent all types of intellectual giftedness and academic talents, in combination with
various forms of learning disabilities. Therefore, trying to find one defining pattern or set
of scores to identify all gifted students with learning disabilities is probably futile. On the
other hand, there are some defining characteristics that should be considered in
identifying these students: (a) evidence of an outstanding talent or ability, (b) evidence
of a discrepancy between expected and actual achievement, and (c) evidence of a
processing deficit.

Evidence of an outstanding talent or ability

To identify a student with LD who might be gifted, one should find evidence of a special
gift, talent, or ability whereby the student exhibits performance at a high level or the
ability to perform at a high level. The talent or gift can be general ability or a specific
talent in any of a variety of areas. However, practitioners need to recognize that a
learning disability can depress the test performance of students who are academically
talented. Thus, if academically talented students with learning disabilities are to be
recognized as gifted, cutoff scores on whatever measures are used may have to be
adjusted downward to accommodate the depressing effect of their learning disability
(Karnes & Johnson, 1991; Silverman, 1989), and, for those students who manage to
meet cutoff scores in spite of their disability, the extraordinary nature of their ability
should be recognized.
When seeking evidence of a student's ability or potential, one often turns to a
standardized intelligence test. However, the use of IQ tests for identification is
problematic and has become increasingly controversial. The issues have to do with the
nature of IQ tests and what they measure, the appropriateness of using them for certain
populations, and whether an IQ score contributes to our understanding of students or
programming decisions for them.
Within the field of gifted education, the reliance on IQ scores to
identify gifted students has been questioned on many fronts. One
concern is that intelligence tests measure a limited range of
abilities (RamosFord & Gardner, 1991; Sternberg, 1991) and thus
many gifted students will be overlooked. For example, intelligence
tests are not good measures for identifying students who are
creatively gifted (Torrance, 1979) or mathematically gifted
(Stanley, 1974, 1979). The IQ scores of students from disadvantaged
backgrounds may not reflect their true abilities (Baldwin, 1991). And, with gifted
students who have learning disabilities, global IQ measures may be particularly
insensitive to depression of scores caused by the disability (Fox & Brody, 1983).
Another concern is that a global measure of ability is not particularly helpful for
educational programming (Fox & Brody, 1983). Although some children can certainly be
gifted and talented in many diverse areas, identifying students who have exceptional
talent in a specific area (e.g., mathematics, written expression) lends itself to targeted
instruction and programming that is more appropriate and, ultimately, more justifiable
(Durden & Tangherlini, 1993; Stanley, 1974). With just a global measure of academic
potential to work with, only a global and often academically irrelevant program can be
implemented. This is not to say, however, that IQ tests have no usefulness for diagnostic
or intervention purposes.
Fox and Brody (1983) discussed the appropriateness of intelligence tests, aptitude and
achievement tests, teacher nominations, and creativity tests for identifying strengths and
potential in students with LD who are gifted. Torrance (1982) used the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking to identify creatively gifted students, some of whom had LD. Behavioral
observations and structured interviews have also been recommended for identifying
gifted students with learning disabilities (Baum et al.,1991). In general, it seems
advisable to use a variety of assessments, including intelligence tests, to measure
potential and assess strengths in children who might be learning disabled and gifted.
In practice, it is rare that giftedness is identified only through IQ scores. The federal
definitions of giftedness require assessment of ability, aptitude, and achievement in a
variety of talent areas. Talent searches conducted by Johns Hopkins, Duke, and
Northwestern universities, the University of Denver, and others employ Stanley's (1974,
1977) model of using above-grade-level aptitude tests to assess exceptional reasoning
ability in mathematical and/or verbal areas (Cohn, 1991). The gifted field appears to be
moving in the direction of identifying specific subgroups of students who can be more
specifically served. Unfortunately, identification of such discrete subgroups also may
result in students being overlooked whose exceptional abilities and learning disabilities
are in closely related areas.
Within the LD community, there is also debate as to whether IQ tests are the best or
most appropriate measure of potential. At a more problematic level, however, is the
question of whether it is necessary or even useful to recognize a child's potential. As part
of that debate, it has been pointed out that two children with very different IQ scores,
both exhibiting problems in learning to read, may not be fundamentally different in terms
of decoding (or phonological processing) skills (cf. Siegel, 1989; Stanovich, 1986). As
Lyon (1989) noted, however, they are "qualitatively and quantitatively different from
each other on tasks assessing a range of 'intelligent' behaviors" (p. 505) that may be
critical to how they learn and adapt. Furthermore, a child's level of intelligence may
influence his or her emotional and behavioral responses to persistent failure, parent and
teacher expectations, and, most importantly, remediation (Lyon, 1989). For example,
Olson (1985) found that verbally intelligent readers with a learning disability were able to
depend less on labored phonetic coding and more on context and orthographic codes
when reading continuous text. Similarly, French (1982) found that a gifted nonreader
was able to use contextual cues to learn to read. These arguments for recognizing a
child's potential are extremely relevant for students with LD who are academically
talented.
The critical issue, of course, for gifted students with learning disabilities is that without
some measure of high ability (whether that measure is an IQ score or something else),
and then recognition of a discrepancy between that ability and achievement, few will be
identified. Although the debate is largely theoretical at present because IQ is still
commonly used in practice when assessing learning disabilities, the decision to ignore
intellectual potential would have major consequences for students with learning
disabilities who are also gifted.

Evidence of an aptitude - achievement discrepancy

Gifted students who have learning disabilities in a related area should show evidence of a
discrepancy between their high ability and their achievement. Students whose talents
and disabilities are in unrelated areas may be considered gifted and also be diagnosed
with learning disabilities, but the performance discrepancy concept (a discrepancy
between expected and actual achievement) does not apply.
Although the concept of a performance discrepancy is common in many operational
definitions of learning disabilities, numerous objections to the use of an IQ achievement
discrepancy to identify students with learning disabilities have been raised (cf.
Lyon,1989; Stanovich,1993). Even though arguments against defining learning
disabilities on the basis of a performance discrepancy have much validity, seeking
evidence of a discrepancy between ability and achievement is particularly important for
identifying students who are academically talented and learning disabled. This is because
the relatively high achievement of many of these students (compared to that of their
chronological age peers) often masks a disability unless that achievement is compared to
the student's ability. Proposals to select students for intervention solely on the basis of
poor achievement- for example, performance in the bottom 20% or so on an
achievement test (Reynolds, Zetlin, & Wang,1993; Siegel & Metsala, 1992)-will not
identify gifted students with learning disabilities who function at or near grade level.
Although a discrepancy between ability and achievement should not be the only feature
for describing gifted students with learning disabilities, it should be a piece of information
that is carefully considered. In general, Graham and Harris's assertion (1989) that
"decisions as to presence and severity of learning disabilities must ultimately rely on
professional judgment ... based on a multifaceted assessment of which normreferenced
IQ and achievement data are only a part" (p. 502) seems appropriate for gifted students
with learning disabilities as well.

Evidence of a processing deficit

Although the presence of an aptitude achievement discrepancy may be a prerequisite for
identifying academically talented students with learning disabilities, it is not sufficient in
and of itself, as such a discrepancy may result from very different causes
(Krippner,1968; Silverman,1989; Whitmore,1980). Likewise, uneven profiles or
discrepancies among test scores do not, in themselves, necessarily constitute evidence of
a learning disability (Patchett & Stansfield,1992). Evidence of a processing deficit,
however, can help to distinguish a learning disability from other causes of
underachievement
For example, the identification of a processing deficit (obtained by examining subtest
scores from an IQ test, such as the WISCR, and/or specific processing tests) can help in
differentiating between naturally occurring differences in the development of specific
cognitive abilities (e.g., widely different levels of verbal ability vs. quantitative ability)
and the co-occurrence of intellectual giftedness and a learning disability. Identification of
a processing deficit can also help in differentiating between a gifted child who is
underachieving because of educational placement issues (e.g., a curriculum that is not
sufficiently challenging) and one who is not achieving at a level commensurate with his
or her general ability because of a learning disability (Rimm, 1986; Whitmore & Maker,
1985).
The idea that a learning disability can and should be distinguished from other known
causes of learning problems (e.g., low intellectual ability, lack of opportunity to learn,
poor teaching, emotional problems) has been challenged in the LD literature by those
who suggest that students with learning disabilities and students with learning problems
due to other causes have more similarities than differences (e.g., Kavale, 1980;
Stanovich, 1993; Taylor, Satz, & Friel, 1979). On the other hand, Adelman (1992)
suggested that failure to differentiate under-achievement caused by neurological
dysfunctioning from that caused by other factors has been cited specifically as a major
deterrent to important lines of research and theory and is certainly a threat to the very
integrity of the LD field. (p. 17)
Identifying the cause of a learning problem is particularly important for gifted students
with learning disabilities. Without it, diagnoses separating gifted students who exhibit
learning difficulties into subgroups of those with learning disabilities, those with normal
variation in cognitive development, and those who are unmotivated for a variety of
reasons can be problematic. Differential diagnosis is, of course, important for decisions
regarding the need for intervention, as well as the appropriate type of intervention
(Daniels, 1983). It is important, however, to note that in children with high abilities,
scores on any test (including processing tests) that are "average" may be sufficient to
indicate a "deficit."

Conclusion
The lack of a clear description of gifted students with learning disabilities has resulted in
few of these students being identified. The following points seem to be evident: (a) There
is a rationale for thinking about these students as a separate subgroup; (b) students with
LD who are gifted represent a heterogeneous group with many different types of
gifts/talents and disabilities; (c) a performance discrepancy is essential for identifying
gifted students with learning disabilities; and (d) for appropriate intervention to take
place, it is necessary to establish causal factors for the learning problems, or at least to
rule out other causal factors that could lead to very different interventions. A complete
assessment battery is needed to identify and plan interventions for gifted students with
learning disabilities, including an individual intelligence test, an achievement battery,
indicators of cognitive processing, and behavioral observations.
Ideally, early identification and appropriate intervention are recommended to help
prevent the development of the accompanying social and behavioral problems that often
result when the needs of a gifted child with learning disabilities are overlooked
(Whitmore, 1980). In addition, the identification of talents and learning problems should
continue as an ongoing process throughout the school years. Children's abilities and
needs, as well as available services, change over time so that continuous reevaluation is
necessary. In particular, one should beware of rigid cutoff scores for program
participation that discriminate against students with the atypical profiles that characterize
gifted children with learning disabilities.

Intervention
The lack of a clear definition that recognizes the unique characteristics and needs of
gifted students with learning disabilities and of a protocol for identification has resulted in
few specific programs being developed in school systems for this population. For
example, a survey in one state found that the majority of school systems reported having
no gifted children with learning disabilities in their district and no special programming
(Boodoo et al., 1989). It has also been noted that some state policies impede the
development of services for gifted children with learning disabilities because they do not
permit school districts to be reimbursed twice for the same student, inadvertently
implying that one cannot simultaneously have two exceptionalities (Baum, 1994).
Although the need for studies on effective treatments for gifted students with learning
disabilities was cited in a 1987 report to Congress (Interagency Committee on Learning
Disabilities, 1987), program development and evaluation with regard to this population
has been weak (Vaughn,1989). Recent promising developments, however, include a
commitment by the Maryland Task Force on Gifted and Talented Education (1994) to
meeting the needs of gifted students with learning disabilities, and the funding of several
projects to develop programs for this population under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Education disabilities.

Individualized education programs

Although many gifted students with learning disabilities would be best served by separate
programs developed especially for them, it is likely that the needs of many could be met
through appropriate identification of strengths and weaknesses and a flexible,
individualized approach to using the existing services and resources available in and out
of school. Gifted students with learning disabilities need (a) highlevel or "gifted"
programming in their areas of strength, (b) developmental instruction in subjects of
average growth, (c) remedial teaching in areas of disability, and (d) adaptive instruction
in areas of disability (Fox, Brody, & Tobin,1983; Virginia Department of Education,
1990). Programs and/or services for average- achieving students who primarily need
age- appropriate instruction, for gifted students who need accelerated and/or enriched
instruction, and for average - ability students with disabilities could be utilized to develop
an optimal Individualized Education Program to meet the needs of gifted students with
learning disabilities.
Ideally, the individualized program would be developed through a team effort involving
the parents, a gifted specialist, a learning disabilities specialist, a diagnostician, the
general classroom teacher, and the child himself or herself (Silvermars, 1989; Van
TasselBaska,1991). In developing the student's unique educational program, his or her
particular strengths and weaknesses, as well as the resources available in the school,
should be considered. The specifications should depend, of course, on the nature and
severity of the student's disability as well as his or her degree of giftedness; however,
there is much consensus that it is important to focus primarily on the student's strengths
rather than his or her weaknesses. Generally, remediation is not the primary need of
these students; instead, attention should be placed on developing the gift or talent
(Baum et al., 1991; Ellston, 1993; Griffin, 1990). Learning strategies and adaptations
can help ensure these students' success in whatever placement seems appropriate,
whether that is in a special class for gifted students with learning disabilities or another
environment.
Special classes for gifted students with learning disabilities
Numerous educators who have studied gifted children with learning disabilities have
found that, ideally, these students should receive instruction as a special group for at
least part of the day from a teacher sensitive to their specific academic, social, and
psychological needs and with peers who share their dual exceptionalities (Daniels, 1983;
Whitmore & Maker, 1985; Yewchuk, 1985). To date, however, few teachers have
received specific training in the characteristics of gifted students with learning disabilities,
and few separate programs for these students exist. Some schools have developed
special classes for this population, and the Javits grants have stimulated a few additional
programmatic initiatives. In some cases the students stay together all day; in others, a
resource room model is used whereby gifted students with learning disabilities are
brought to the resource room with other students who share their dual exceptionalities.
The separate-class/all-day model for students with LD who are gifted is often
recommended for students with the most serious disabilities. For example, one school
system identified gifted students with varying degrees of learning disabilities and
developed a special self-contained class for gifted students with severe learning
disabilities; those with moderate and mild disabilities received other services (Starnes et
al.,1988). Regardless of the severity of the students' problems, self-contained classes
offer numerous advantages for differentiated learning (Clements, Lundell, & Hishinuma,
1994); eliminate the movement from classroom to classroom required when services are
provided in a combination of gifted, special education, and general classrooms (Suter &
Wolf, 1987); and may be better suited to meet students' emotional needs (Suter & Wolf,
1987). Such programs typically try to address issues related to raising selfesteem and
influencing motivation, as well as individualizing instruction to enhance academic
achievement.
An example of a full-time program for gifted students with learning disabilities can be
found at ASSETS, a school in Hawaii for students who are "gifted/at risk,
dyslexic/learning disabled, and gifted/dyslexic" (Clements et al., 1994). The school
utilizes an interdisciplinary approach to instruction in self-contained classes, includes
acceleration and enrichment to challenge strengths while also building basic skills, and
attends to the students' social and emotional needs as well. For other program models
and/or programmatic ideas for separate programs for gifted students with learning
disabilities, see Baldwin and Gargiulo (1983), Baum et al. (1991), Udall and Maker
(1983), and Whitmore (1980).
A part-time resource room model for academically talented students with learning
disabilities is another option for exposing such students to peers who share their dual
exceptionalities. The literature describing these efforts reports several attempts to modify
traditional enrichment programs for this population. For example, the Schoolwide
Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1985), a program that encourages academically
talented students to take on indepth projects on topics of their choice, was used in a
class in which the students had all been identified as gifted with learning disabilities. The
teacher was a specialist in both gifted and special education, and specific strategies were
used with this group to augment their disabilities and compensate for weaknesses
(Baum, 1988). Another gifted program model, Betts's (1985) Autonomous Learner
Model, which offers enrichment in an atmosphere that supports self-advocacy, has also
been adapted for gifted students with learning disabilities (Fall & Nolan, 1993; Nielsen,
Higgins, Wilkinson, & Webb, 1994).
Whether full time or part time, special classes for gifted students with learning disabilities
allow the teacher to develop a program unique to this population, one that is challenging
but also provides structure and strategies to accommodate weaknesses. Students gain
support from being with other students who also exhibit seemingly contradictory
strengths and weaknesses. In the other settings, students must adapt more to the
setting; learning to adapt and compete with nonhandicapped students is also important.
Using and/or adapting existing services
For students with LD who attend schools that do not offer special programs for gifted
students with learning disabilities, or for whom the special program does not fully meet
their needs, consideration should be given to designing an individualized program from
the programmatic options and special services already available in the school,
supplemented by appropriate adaptations that will help ensure success in the various
settings

Instruction in the general education classroom.

As schools move toward inclusion of all students in general classrooms as a result of the
Regular Education Initiative (Will, 1986) and show reluctance toward grouping students
on the basis of aptitude or achievement (Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1987), the general
education classroom is becoming a place where teachers are expected to meet the needs
of a wide range of students. If this arrangement can successfully challenge all students,
including gifted students, average students, and students with learning problems, gifted
students who also have learning disabilities could be well served.
Whether or not such a diverse group can be optimally served in one environment is still
not clear, however (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994), as the movement toward full inclusion is not
back by supportive research (Mather & Roberts, 1994). Problems involved in addressing
the needs of students with severe disabilities in a general classroom have been raised by
teachers and others in the field (Kauffman, 1995; Vaughn, Schumm, ballad, Slusher, &
Saumell ,1996). Students who function at or near grade level, even if they are
academically talented and have learning disabilities, are even more likely to be
overlooked in an environment that includes students with more severe underachievement
and students with more obvious high ability. Historically, learning disabilities have been
considered an "invisible disorder"; the problems and needs of gifted students with
learning disabilities may be the most invisible of all.
There is also much concern within the gifted community about the impact of the
movement on the policy of grouping students by ability (e.g., Feldhusen & Moon, 1992;
Gallagher, 1991; Mills & Durden,1992; Robinson, 1990; Rogne,1993). When aptitude and
achievement are considered before placing students in a general classroom, large and/or
smallgroup instruction can be designed to meet their particular needs. Although the
academic benefits of ability grouping for gifted students have been well documented
(e.g., Kulik & Kulik,1990; Mills & Durden, 1992), the practice has become controversial
and consequently less often implemented in today's schools.
If the general classroom teacher does not recognize and accommodate individual
differences, the gifted child with learning disabilities whose total placement is that
classroom cannot receive an appropriate education. On the other hand, if the general
classroom teacher does accommodate individual differences, or if the general classroom
placement is supplemented by time spent in special programs for the gifted and/ or for
students with learning disabilities, placement in the general classroom may be
appropriate for gifted students with learning disabilities.
In schools that continue to offer separate services and programs for students identified
as gifted and for students with learning disabilities, the general classroom serves
primarily as the place where the curriculum is at or about grade level. For gifted students
with learning disabilities, placement in the general classroom is appropriate for
developmental instruction in subjects of normal achievement, although some
compensatory strategies (such as using a calculator) might be necessary for optimal
performance.
The general classroom teacher needs to be particularly aware that gifts and disabilities
may mask each other and that students who both are academically talented and have
learning disabilities are likely to exhibit variable performance and social and emotional
difficulties (Landrum,1989). The general classroom teacher should also be the chief
source of referral of gifted students with learning disabilities to special education services
and gifted programs in their schools (Boodoo et al., 1989).
Programs and services for gifted students.
Programs for gifted students vary considerably in form and content. The many options
include differentiated instruction in the general classroom through small-group or
independent instruction, self-contained classes where high - ability students are grouped
together to learn material at a faster rate and/or more advanced level, and part- time
pullout programs. The content may be accelerated or enriched. Placement with older
students for one or more subjects is also an alternative. Regardless of the type of
program, the purpose of differentiated instruction for gifted and talented students is to
provide access to more challenging subject matter than is normally available in the
regular curriculum. When gifted students are grouped together for instruction, the
interaction with other talented students is viewed as advantageous for learning and peer
support. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that we do not provide adequate
programmatic options for gifted students in our country (Maryland Task Force on Gifted
and Talented Education, 1994; U. S. Department of Education, 1993), and recent
concerns about such issues as elitism, opposition to ability grouping, opposition to
standardized testing, and a pervasive climate of antiintellectualism have emerged as
"obstacles to renewing our commitment to gifted and talented students" (Maryland Task
Force on Gifted and Talented Education, 1994, p. 6).
Nonetheless, a variety of programs and services is still available in the schools, and more
may emerge from some of the new initiatives. However, the problems related to
identifying gifted students with learning disabilities, and the reluctance shown by many
teachers of the gifted to accommodate special needs, result in few students with these
dual exceptionalities being included in programs for the gifted. Although the severity of
the learning disability and the nature of the gifted programming should be considered in
determining placement of gifted students with learning disabilities into classes for gifted
children, every effort should be made to include them if possible.
Acceleration and enrichment are two approaches to meeting the needs of the gifted.
Acceleration can include moving ahead of one's age peers in grade placement and/or
subject matter (Southern & Jones, 1991). Subject matter acceleration may be
particularly beneficial as a vehicle for gifted students with learning disabilities to receive
advanced course work in their areas of strength without having to be placed at the same
level in their areas of weakness. For example, mathematically talented students might
progress rapidly at their own pace through an accelerated mathematics class (Benbow,
1986), even if learning disabilities pose some problems for them in creative writing or
learning a foreign language. In addition, with moderate adaptations, such as encouraging
the use of calculators, word processors, untimed tests, and so forth, it is likely that many
gifted students with learning disabilities could succeed in rigorous and/or accelerated
courses in their areas of strength. This fact has been recognized in recent years by
selective colleges that realize the benefits of adapting to the needs of academically
talented students with learning disabilities (e.g., see Brown University, 1990).
Enrichment programs are intended to provide gifted students with a more varied
educational experience, either by modifying the curriculum to include depth and/or
breadth or by offering exposure to topics not normally included in the curriculum.
Numerous models have been developed; one that has been used specifically with gifted
students with learning disabilities, as noted earlier, is the Schoolwide Enrichment Model
(Renzulli & Reis, 1985). This and other pullout enrichment programs have proven to be
successful with this population, allowing gifted students with learning disabilities to
interact with other talented students and to be challenged in an area of strength (Baum
et al., 1991). The value of structuring the learning experiences of a gifted child with LD
around his or her interests and experiences was cited by Daniels (1983), and this would
be provided by many enrichment programs. Mentorships are another programmatic
vehicle for gifted students that should be considered for those who also have learning
disabilities; the mentors serve as role models while also offering an opportunity for the
student to learn about a subject of interest in a one-on-one environment (Baum et al.,
1991).
Some concern has been raised about the possibility that gifted students with learning
disabilities will become frustrated if they fail to compete with nonhandicapped peers in
programs for the gifted (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983), or that they will have trouble
coping with the demands of having to work independently (Suter & Wolf, 1987). Such
issues will have to be evaluated for students on an individual basis, but adaptive
techniques, such as using calculators, word processors, untimed tests, and tape
recorders, can help students compensate and succeed in challenging gifted programs (if
basic reading, writing, or computation skills are deficient but thinking skills are at a high
level; Fox, Tobin, & Schiffman, 1983). Teachers of the gifted, however, may be
particularly guilty of being unwilling to adapt to the needs of a student who is not a
consistently high achiever.
A study of gifted students with learning disabilities found that those receiving a
combination of both gifted and learning disability services or only gifted programming
reported higher self-concept than did those students receiving intense or exclusive
learning disability services (Nielsen & MortorffAlbert, 1989). Thus, there may be positive
social and emotional effects, as well as academic ones, of making accelerated or enriched
academic experiences available to gifted students with learning disabilities. Given the
strong concern among educators that academically talented students with learning
disabilities be challenged in their areas of strength, placement in a gifted program for at
least part of the day seems advisable.

Resources for students with learning disabilities.

Special services for students with learning disabilities typically focus on helping to
remediate weaknesses. This may occur in the general classroom or in a resource room
for students with learning disabilities. Gifted students with learning disabilities may
benefit from some time spent with a specialist who can offer remedial strategies. A
special education resource room setting, however, is unlikely to be the best environment
for providing intellectual stimulation for students with learning disabilities who are also
gifted. The nature, severity, and cause of the gifted student's disabilities, as well as the
student's age, must be considered when evaluating placement in an LD resource room,
even for part of the day; this placement is more likely to be appropriate for students with
more serious disabilities. It is crucial, however, not to overlook the importance of
challenging the student's "gift" (Baum et al. 1991).
Teacher training can contribute to making teachers, whose primary responsibility is to
remediate students' deficiencies, more aware of the needs of their students who are also
gifted. A program in Connecticut successfully trained special education teachers to
provide challenging enrichment to gifted children with learning disabilities (Baum,
Emerick, Herman, & Dixon, 1989).

Teaching strategies and adaptive techniques

Regardless of the program model utilized or the setting in which it is taught, the
importance of gearing the curriculum to the strengths, rather than weaknesses, of
academically talented students with learning disabilities, and of utilizing a variety of [
strategies, adaptations, and accommodations to help them succeed, is widely
acknowledged (e.g., Baum et al.,1991; Fox, Tobin, & Schiffman, 1983; Hishinuma, 1991;
Silverman, 1989; Suter & Wolf, 1987; Waldron, 1991). Carving big tasks into smaller
units; making tasks meaningful; and using praising, peer tutoring, and cooperative
activities are some of the techniques that can help ensure success (Baum et al., 1991).
Role models of successful adults with disabilities can also help to enhance selfesteem and
build aspirations among gifted students with learning disabilities (Silverman, 1989).
Accommodations, particularly the use of technology, are highly recommended to help
these academically talented students overcome their disabilities (Baum et al., 1991;
Daniels, 1983; Howard, 1994; Suter & Wolf, 1987; Tobin & Schiffman, 1983;
Torgesen,1986). Such techniques may be helpful to many students with learning
disabilities, but they are especially beneficial to those who are also gifted and in need of
moving ahead in their areas of strength. For example, students who are capable of a high
level of mathematical problem solving but who have difficulty with computation could be
given a calculator so that they will not be held back in mathematics. A microcomputer
with a word processing package and a spell checker can be enormously helpful to a
student whose problems lie in writing and/or spelling. Students who have difficulty taking
notes in class might be allowed to tape record lectures. Tape recorded books and other
sources of information that are not dependent on reading (e.g., films) might also help
students with reading problems whose auditory processing skills are strong. Peer tutors
or others might read material orally to academically talented students with reading
problems. Alternative evaluation methods (such as untimed or oral tests) have also been
advocated (Suter & Wolf,1987), as has the use of multisensory techniques (Daniels,
1983).
Enthusiasm for learning can be enhanced by helping gifted students with learning
disabilities take responsibility for their own learning, exposing them to new and
interesting methods of inquiry, teaching them self-assessment techniques, providing
experiential learning, exposing them to a broad range of topics to encourage new
interests, and assisting them in locating information (Miller, 1991; Moller,1984; Suter &
Wolf,1987). "Because the process of remediating a serious reading deficit may require
several years, the development and pursuit of new interests should not be postponed
until students are capable of independent library research" (Moller,1984, p.168). One
very promising approach for working with gifted students with learning disabilities is
helping them to develop their metacognitive abilities and strategies (Montague, 1991).

Counseling
The drive to achieve perfection, common in many gifted children, generates much
psychological conflict in academically talented children who have difficulty achieving
(Olenchak, 1994). One survey of gifted students with learning disabilities found them to
be emotionally upset and generally unhappy because of their frustrations; in particular,
"virtually all had some idea that they could not make their brain, body, or both do what
they wanted it to do" (Schiff et al., 1981, p. 403).
Gifted students with learning disabilities may also experience conflict between their
desire for independence and the feelings of dependence that result from the learning
disability, as well as between their high aspirations and the low expectations others may
have for them (Whitmore & Maker, 1985). Low self-concept is a common problem among
gifted students with learning disabilities who have difficulty coping with the discrepancies
in their abilities (Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1983; Hishinuma, 1993; Olenchak, 1994;
Whitmore, 1980) . Frustration, anger, and resentment can result, influencing behavior as
well as relations with peers and family members (Mendaglio, 1993). In fact, parents of
gifted students with learning disabilities are quick to emphasize the importance of
addressing the social and emotional needs of their children (Hishinuma, 1993).
In planning interventions for students with LD who are gifted, one should not overlook
the importance of providing counseling for these students to address their social and
emotional needs (BrownMizuno, 1990; Hishinuma, 1993; Mendaglio, 1993; Olenchak,
1994; Suter & Wolf, 1987). The benefits of both group and individual counseling have
been identified by researchers (Baum, 1994; Mendaglio,1993; Olenchak,1994). For
example, group counseling can let students see that others experience problems similar
to their own. However, some students may require the attention to their unique problems
and needs that is more likely to occur in one-on-one individual counseling. The
counseling role can sometimes be undertaken by teachers who understand the needs of
gifted students with learning disabilities (Baum et al., 1991; Daniels, 1983; Hishinuma,
1993). Parents also need counseling to help them understand the characteristics and
needs of their gifted children with learning disabilities (Bricklin, 1983; BrownMizuno,
1990; Daniels, 1983).
In addition to addressing the social and emotional needs of gifted students with learning
disabilities, counselors advise students on appropriate course-taking, particularly during
the secondary school years, on opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities
and other learning experiences outside of school, and on postsecondary options. As gifted
students with learning disabilities approach the college years, they need help in
identifying colleges that will accommodate their special needs.
Conclusion
Clearly, students with LD who are gifted have needs that differ considerably from those
of gifted students without disabilities, students without exceptional abilities who have
learning disabilities, and average students whose abilities are more even. Individualized
instruction is optimal for all students so that pace, level, and content can be geared to
ability, interests, and learning style, but it is essential for students whose abilities are
clearly discrepant. Ideally, a continuum of alternative placement options should be
available, so that teachers can develop a plan that builds heavily on students' strengths
but also provides remediation and support for social and emotional needs.

Discussion and recommendations

Many more students may be learning disabled and gifted than anyone realizes. In spite of
their high intellectual ability, such students remain unchallenged, suffer silently, and do
not achieve their potential because their educational needs are not recognized and
addressed. Unlike the situation in which a learning disability is accompanied by another
"handicap," students with LD who are gifted present a paradoxical picture of exceptional
strengths coexisting with specific deficits. Curiously, this condition carries with it both a
blessing and a burden. On the one hand, gifted students with learning disabilities can
draw on their gifts and talents to compensate for their disability. With support,
understanding, and some instructional intervention, many are able to overcome their
academic difficulties and go on to productive, satisfying careers and lives. On the other
hand, because they are able to draw on their strengths, for many students the disability
is masked while the "drag" on their academic performance prevents them from
consistently achieving at high levels. Thus, they are often not identified and continue to
be a severely misunderstood and underserved population. When gifted students fail to
achieve their potential, whatever the cause, our nation loses a great deal of talent.
When a learning disability coexists with other handicapping conditions, it is often difficult
to separate the two, in terms of both underlying causal factors and primacy. This is not
an issue in the case of gifted students with learning disabilities. Rather, the two
conditions are often seen as mutually exclusive by definition. This seeming dichotomy
can leave everyone (student, parents, and teacher) feeling frustrated and puzzled. It has
hindered program development, teacher training, and research on behalf of gifted
students with learning disabilities. Who cares about, and for, these students? In a climate
of budgetary concerns, and in light of a growing population of students with severe levels
of underachievement, the problems of students who fail to achieve their potential but
function at or near grade level do not alarm most educators.
Current regulations and practices for educating special populations need to be
reevaluated, because they often fail to include academically talented students with
learning disabilities. To improve services for this population, we must move away from
using rigid definitions and cutoff scores to specify who receives special programming.
Broader definitions of giftedness and learning disabilities are needed to allow for students
with both exceptionalities, and programming options should be flexible to meet the
individual needs of these students. In actuality, the complex nature of human abilities
suggests that all students would benefit from individualized programs to build on their
strengths and remediate their weaknesses. However, this is particularly important for
gifted students with learning disabilities, whose cognitive profiles are likely to be more
variable than other students. Support for the unique social and emotional needs of
students who must deal with the large inconsistencies in what they are and are not able
to do well is also vital, as is teacher training to assist teachers in understanding the
characteristics and needs of gifted students with learning disabilities, as well as strategies
to facilitate their learning.
The current movement toward including students with a broad spectrum of abilities and
disabilities in the general classroom bears on the issue of meeting the needs of gifted
students with learning disabilities. To truly individualize instruction, a broad range of
options is needed (e.g., a variety of levels of content and pace, opportunities for
remediation and accommodation, etc.). Proponents of inclusion suggest that all of these
options can take place in one setting. At present, we have no clear evidence that this is
possible (Mather & Roberts,1994), and it seems overly optimistic to expect that gifted
students with learning disabilities who function at or near grade level will be given
adequate attention in an environment where others appear to have greater needs. In
schools where inclusion is the instructional model of choice, it is imperative to evaluate
this issue.
Ultimately, providing a selection of settings (e.g., general classroom, gifted class, LD
resource room, special class for gifted students with learning disabilities) and a multitude
of service options (e.g., accelerated course work, enrichment, individualized instruction,
homogeneous grouping) seems to be a better way to meet the needs of academically
talented students with learning disabilities (and perhaps all students). Whatever options
are utilized, students with LD who are gifted deserve to have every opportunity to
develop their talents and achieve their full potential, and society will benefit from the
talents that too often remain unrecognized and undeveloped in gifted children who have
learning disabilities.

Creative Genius or Psychotic? A Look at the

Strong Positive Correlation Between
Creativity and Psychoses
Jonathan S. Byrd

Rochester Institute of Technology

This paper postulates that there is a strong positive correlation between traits
associated with creativity and traits associated with psychoses. Indeed, some of
the relevant traits are shared. There are several traits that go hand in hand with
creativity. It will be shown that two of these "creative" traits, latent inhibition and
fantasy proneness, also have a strong positive correlation with certain psychoses.
As intelligence and creativity are often linked, we will also discuss intelligence as it
relates to creativity. Thus it will be shown how latent inhibition, intelligence, and
fantasy proneness all factor into a theory of how creativity and psychoses are
intertwined.

This article postulates that those who are gifted with a high level of creativity, are
also predisposed to certain forms of psychoses. Indeed, even some of the traits
long since considered to be associated with certain forms of mental illness are
shared by those who are inherently creative. What follows will be a breakdown of
creativity, intelligence and psychoses, and how they all are interrelated.
First we will explore some examples that are relatively well known, and
demonstrate how they show a positive correlation between creativity and
psychoses. Then we will break down creativity to define what traits are associated
with creativeness. As intelligence is often associated with those who are creative,
we will break down what constitutes intelligence and show the similarities and
differences between the definitions of intellect and the definitions of creativity. To
wrap up we will discuss the theory of latent inhibition (Carson, Peterson, &
Higgins, 2003), the personality trait known as fantasy proneness, and then show the
correlation between specific types of psychoses and creativity.

Creativity and Psychoses: Real-World Examples

Kaufman and Baer (2002) put together an article showing the predisposition of
female poets towards various forms of mental illnesses. Though their article goes
in depth over the tendencies of male vs. female poets in respect to susceptibility
to mental illnesses, the article nonetheless touches base with the very core behind
the theory postulated here. Poetry is undeniably a form of creativity, and some of
the best, most creative poets are the ones who show the most signs of psychoses.

Kaufman and Baer (2002) further propose that those with mental illnesses are more
likely to be drawn to poetry rather than to other forms of prose due to the personal
nature of poetry. Kaufman and Baer (2002) conclude by stating, "The adage that
creativity and 'madness' are linked together is by and large supported by the
existing research" (p. 282).

Fantasy proneness is a trait that can be equated with having an "overactive

imagination". One of the most highly publicized examples of fantasy proneness
deals with UFO sightings and people who claim to either be visited and/or abducted
by aliens. In an article which explores the depths of UFO sightings, fantasy
proneness, and psychoses, we discover that if a person is claiming to be abducted
by aliens, the only two logical conclusions that can be reached are either the person
is fantasy prone or psychotic (Bartholomew, Basterfield, & Howard, 1991).

The problem that we have with determining whether or not a person is either
fantasy prone or suffers from a mental disorder is the fact that many of the
symptoms displayed by fantasy proneness and psychopathy are the same. This
speaks directly to the matter at heart, if a person sees UFOs does that mean they are
"mad", or do they just have an overactive imagination? Typically our society
associates auditory and visual hallucinations as symptoms of mental illnesses, but
fantasy prone people experience such hallucinations many times. Does this make
them psychotic, or does it mean that they are overly creative? Sometimes it is hard
to tell due to the strong connection between the two traits.
 Creativity: How Do We Define It?
Shalley (1991) proposes a three factor model of creativity. She proposes that for
creativity to be present, three conditions are required; ability, intrinsic motivation,
and cognitive activities.

"Ability is knowledge in the area in which an individual is working and the

necessary skills to process information creatively to produce novel and appropriate
responses" (Shalley, 1991, p. 179). To put it in simpler terms, ability is the
knowledge a person has on a subject before they need to come up with a novel idea
in the subject. Just as an author who knows more about a topic would be able to
write a more detailed synopsis, so would a person who knows more about a topic
be able to create a new idea based on that topic.

"Intrinsic motivation is inner-directed interest in or fascination with a task"

(Shalley, 1991, p. 179). This is fairly self explanatory, a person who is naturally
interested in a subject will be more likely to dwell upon it and more likely to have
better insights than a person who dislikes the subject.

"The cognitive activities that are necessary in order to be creative are problem
definition, environmental scanning, data gathering, unconscious mental activity on
the problem, insight to the problem solution, evaluation of the solution, and finally,
implementation of the solution" (Shalley, 1991, p. 180). Shalley (1991) postulates
that these three criteria are necessary for creativity to occur. However, her model is
not the only model with a theory on creativity.

The notion of creativity was largely understudied until Gulliford stated in a 1950
APA presidential address that the topic was not receiving the attention it deserved.
Simonton (2000) attempts in his article to categorize and solidify the studies done
on creativity since that address. Simonton (2000) suggests that research on
creativity has taken place in four key areas: "the cognitive processes involved in the
creative act, the distinctive characteristics of the creative person, the development
and manifestation of creativity across the individual life span, and the social
environments most strongly associated with creative activity" (Simonton, 2000, p.
151).

At this moment, Simonton (2000) states that there are two dominating theories of
creativity. One theory, being an economic model, examines a person's willingness
to invest in human capital. The other theory being an evolutionary one, where it
explains the creative process, person, and product. Shalley's (1991) theory of
creativity follows this second model. The article describes the various strides made
in the defining of creativity, but goes on to conclude that although there has been
considerable progress since the 1950 Gulliford address, there is much more that
still needs to be researched if a definitive model of creativity is to be reached.
 Intelligence: How Does It Relate to Creativity?
To understand how intelligence relates to creativity, we must first delve into the
definitions of intelligence. Like creativity, White (2000) states that cognitive
neuroscience has not yet come to a consensus about what "intelligence" actually
is. A word used in the 19th century to denote some unspecified mental property
that promotes evolution. The late 1800s gave rise to the development of testing
for high levels of intelligence.

At first intelligence testing was not geared towards testing the general populace,
rather finding diamonds of genius in the rough, and weeding out the feebleminded.
Now IQ testing is performed on anyone who wishes to take the test. IQ testing
attempts to get away from all culture bias so that anyone in the world should be
able to take the test and generate a score close to a score of a person of equal
intelligence somewhere else.

White (2000) describes in his article the notion of genius. While the term
"intelligent" is almost always a positive term, the term "genius" can either have a
positive or negative connotation depending on the context. Although White (2000)
says in his article that it is unfortunate that geniuses often get stuck with the stigma
of being pathological, he admits that one can not totally discount the correlation
between genius and psychopathology.

"Creative activity does involve very regular, cognitive processes" (Bink & Marsh,
2001, p. 60). The article by Bink and Marsh (2001) explains in detail the cognitive
processes behind creative thinking. It uses the evidence that people use information
the same way whether or not they are creating a novel idea or merely
accomplishing a non-creative task. They discuss the Geneplore model of creativity
to devise how cognitive thinking contributes to the production of a novel idea.
"According to the model, creative activity is the process of generating, refining, and
then regenerating mental representations in service of task demands and goals"
(Bink & Marsh, 2001, p. 61). This model shows where cognitive thinking fits into
the role of the creative process.

While intelligence tests contain a range of problems, when one goes beyond the
range of conventionality in the tests, one starts to tap in to individual differences
that are measured very little, or not measured at all by conventional tests
(Sternberg, 1999). Sternberg's (1999) theory on successful intelligence suggests
that creative intelligence can be better measured by problems that assess a person's
ability to cope with relative novelty.

One example of such a test is people were presented with the following scenario:
"[There are] four kinds of people on the planet Kyron: blens, who are born young
and die young; kwefs, who are born old and die old; balts, who are born young and
die old; and prosses, who are born old and die young" (Sternberg, 1999, p. 304).
The subjects are then instructed to predict future states from past states. A test such
as this would measure more the creative side of intelligence than the cognitive
aspect of intelligence.

Sternberg (1999) found that the definition of creative intelligence goes beyond of
the realm of cognitive intelligence and that individual and developmental
differences have a large effect upon the results of creativity, much more than the
effect they have upon the results of cognitive thinking.

Sternberg (2001) goes on in another article to further explain creativity with regards
to intelligence and wisdom. He says that creativity refers to the potential to create a
novel product that is both task appropriate and high in quality. He proposes that
creativity has a dialectical relationship with intelligence, the while intelligence is
often for the advancement of social agendas, creativity hampers or creates entirely
new ones.

Sternberg (2001) suggests that creativity, like intelligence, is a trait that is naturally
hard to define, but can be linked by the common idea that things that are creative
are both novel and high in quality, while things that are intelligent are not novel but
merely high in quality. He uses this basis to suggest that creativity in some ways
seems to go beyond normal intelligence. It can be seen from the above articles that
while intelligence plays an important part in the role of creativity, it is not the be all
and the end all of what makes a person creative. Creativity has been shown to have
most links with genius, yet creativity still seems to exist in ways that go above
cognitive thinking skills.

Creativity and Its Strong Positive Correlation With Psychoses

The Case of Latent Inhibition
Latent Inhibition (LI) is defined as "the capacity to screen from conscious
awareness stimuli previously experienced as irrelevant" (Carson, Peterson, &
Higgins, 2003, p. 499). Carson, Peterson, and Higgins (2003) go into detail, testing
several different traits and how low/high levels of LI have effects upon them. The
study we are most interested in is the study where low/high levels of inhibition
are compared with moderate/high levels of IQ and their respective creativity
output.

A person with high levels of LI will tend to always see things the same way as
before. "If an item was irrelevant before, it will be irrelevant again," is something
that goes through the subconscious mind of a person with high levels of LI.
Regardless of a person's IQ, if a person has a high LI score; they tend to do poorly
on creativity testing. This is logical because a person who always sees things with
the same stigma can hardly be expected to improve upon said object, regardless of
how intelligent they are.
A person with low levels of LI on the other hand will not dismiss something as
irrelevant based on past experiences. They re-analyze the object or situation again
before coming to any conclusions about it. Here is where we see a big jump
between the differences in IQ, those with a moderate IQ scored slightly higher than
those with high levels of inhibition, but those with high IQ scored much better in
creativity tests than their less intelligent test subjects. This also makes sense if you
think about it, a more intelligent, more intuitive person who re-analyzes things will
notice more, and extrapolate further compared to one who is less intelligent.

Reduced LI scores in humans has been associated with psychotic states or

psychotic proneness, and as reduced levels of LI produce higher levels of creativity,
one can see the correlation between creativity and psychoses. "These results
support the theory that highly creative individuals and psychotic-prone individuals
may possess neurobiological similarities, perhaps genetically determined, that
present either as psychotic predisposition on the one hand or as unusual creative
potential on the other" (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003, p. 505).

The Case of Fantasy Proneness

Rauschenberger and Lynn (1995) did a study on fantasy prone students and their
predisposition towards DSM Axis I disorders. Rauschenberger and Lynn (1995)
found a strong positive correlation between fantasy prone students and Axis I
disorders when compared with other students who were not fantasy prone.

During the course of their study, they found that 67% of students who are fantasy
prone met the criteria for either a past or present Axis I diagnosis, compared to only
31% of student who were not fantasy prone. That's more than two times the
amount, a very powerful and persuasive figure. However even more amazing is the
fact that 50% of the fantasy prone students reported a past episode of clinical
depression, as well as meeting the criteria for 23 Axis I disorders (2 disorders per
student average). "We found that 29% of fantasizers received a current DSM-III-R
diagnosis. This statistic is consistent with Lynn and Rhue's (1988) estimate that
20% to 35% of the fantasy-prone population exhibits maladjustment,
psychopathology, or deviant ideation" (Rauschenberger & Lynn, 1995, p. 378).

In the study by Lynn and Rhue (1988) mentioned above, they examine fantasy
prone students and contrast them with students who are not fantasy prone. The
differences between fantasy prone students and non fantasy prone students are
separated into several characteristics such as; hypnotizability, imagination, waking
suggestibility, hallucinatory ability, creativity, psychopathology, and childhood
experiences.

While the rest of the article discusses in detail all of the above characteristics, the
characteristics of creativity and psychopathology are of the most interest to this
topic. It was shown through testing that the students who were more fantasy prone
had higher levels of creativity and a higher degree of psychopathology than those
students who showed low fantasy proneness. It was found that most (70%)
fantasizers, while displaying some signs of psychoses, were able to maintain a
normal life.

However, 5 out of the 13 people tested scored more than 2 standard deviations
above the mean for schizotypy or hypothetical psychosis proneness, and an
amazing 20-35% of all the subjects with fantasy proneness exhibited "significant
signs of maladjustment, psychopathology, or deviant ideation. And perhaps a
smaller proportion of fantasizers can be aptly characterized as schizotypal or
borderline personalities" (Lynn & Rhue, 1988, p. 42). It can be derived from this
that at least some degree of overlap exists between healthy creative tendencies and
pathological ideational processes.

Creativity and Its Strong Positive Correlation With Specific Psychoses

So it can be clearly seen that creativity and psychoses in general have strong
connections between them, but what specific types of psychoses are creative
people generally most susceptible to? One article discusses the correlation
between creativity and manic depressive disorder/cyclothymes (Richards, Kinney,
Lunde, Benet, & Merzel, 1988). We learn that not only do more people with these
certain disorders tend to have a greater wealth of creativity at their disposal, but
they also tend to use their creative ability in different ways than people who do
not have these disorders.

Another article discusses the personality of those with schizophrenia (Berenbaum

& Fujita, 1994). It discusses the issue of creativity and how it has long been
speculated that creativity and psychoses are somehow linked. Berenbaum and
Fujita (1994) speculate that this could be due to the fact that creative minds and
psychotic minds follow the same cognitive process. Some psychologists even
speculate that certain genes that predispose you towards schizophrenia are also the
genes responsible for a person's creative abilities.

So where do we draw the line? How do we determine who is psychotic and who is
a creative genius? Obviously more work and research needs to be done in this field,
genetic and psychiatric tests should be run in order to further discover the
interesting link between creativity and psychoses. As a society we define the
difference between someone who is psychotic and someone who is not is based
upon a person's actions towards society's accepted norms.

One has to wonder, if Beethoven were born today, would he be making music? Or
would he be sitting in a psychiatric ward, with no one but the walls to listen to his
symphonies?
High IQ Linked To Reduced Risk Of Death
Mar. 13, 2009 — A study of one million Swedish men has revealed a strong
link between cognitive ability and the risk of death, suggesting that
government initiatives to increase education opportunities may also have
health benefits.

Share This:

42

Dr David Batty, a Wellcome Trust research fellow at the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit
in Glasgow, and colleagues, found that a lower IQ was strongly associated with a higher risk of death
from causes such as accidents, coronary heart disease and suicide.
The researchers studied data from one million Swedish men conscripted to the army at the age of 18.
After they had taken into account whether a person had grown up in a safer, more affluent
environment, they found that only education had an influence on the relationship between IQ and
death.
The researchers say the link between IQ and mortality could be partially attributed to the healthier
behaviours displayed by those who score higher on IQ tests.
"People with higher IQ test scores tend to be less likely to smoke or drink alcohol heavily, they eat
better diets, and they are more physically active. So they have a range of better behaviours that may
partly explain their lower mortality risk," says Dr Batty.
Previous studies have suggested that preschool education programmes and better nourishment can
raise IQ scores. The study suggests this may also have previously unforeseen health benefits, further
validating government efforts to improve living conditions and education.
Dr Batty suggests there may also be benefits from simplifying health information for the public.
"If you believe the association between IQ and mortality is at least partially explained by people with a
lower IQ having worse behaviours - which is plausible - then it might be that the messages used to
change health behaviours are too complicated," he says.
"Messages about diet, including how much or what type of alcohol is beneficial, aren't simple, and the
array of strategies available for quitting smoking are diverse and actually quite complicated. If you
clarify the options available to people who want to, say, quit smoking, in the short term that may have
an effect."
A second study, also co-authored by Dr Batty, used data from more than 4000 US soldiers and
followed them for 15 years. The study found the same relationship between IQ scores and mortality,
as well as a significant association between higher neuroticism and increased mortality risk.

Worrying and Intelligence: Scientists

Find Evolutionary Link
Do you worry too much?
Probably, because according to new research our capacity to worry evolved alongside
our ability to think. So it's natural for us to worry, even about some things we can do
nothing about.

The new work suggests that there is an evolutionary link between our tendency to worry
and ourintelligence, regarded as our most important evolutionary advancement.
"We think normally of worry as being disabling," said psychiatrist Jeremy Coplan, lead
author of a study published in Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience. That means it's a
"maladaptive trait" that should have inhibited our adaptation to a changing environment,
Coplan said in a telephone interview.

"So we found this strange juxtaposition of something that was supposedly disabling
being linked positively with something (intelligence) that was very adaptive," he added.
The study, involving 26 patients with a disabling anxiety disorder and 18 healthy
volunteers, was conducted by seven scientists at five institutions. Among the "normal"
volunteers, those with the highest intelligence were the least likely to be excessive
worriers. But the result was just the opposite among the patients. Those with higher
intelligence and an anxiety disorder were likely to worry far more than those with a lower
IQ score.
Thus there is a link between high intelligence and anxiety, the study says.

In addition, brain scans conducted by Sanjay Mathew at Baylor College of Medicine

found that the cerebral white matter, where critical communications between brain cells
are carried out, responded similarly to both worry and high intelligence.

Coplan, who is with the State University of New York's Downstate Medical Center, noted
that worry is not in itself a bad thing. We do have real issues in our lives, and it's natural
for us to worry about the possible outcome.

Even in the earliest days of human history, our ancestors worried about real threats, and
they learned to avoid unsafe areas, thus surviving long enough to pass along their
genes.

There's a flip side to that coin, of course. Scientists at Purdue University found that
chronic worrying can kill you because it leads to unhealthy behavior, like smoking and
consuming large quantities of alcohol. It can also lead to depression and neuroticism.

So when does worry become a bad thing? When does it become pathological?

"The cutoff, by definition, has to be arbitrary," Coplan said. There's no scale on which a
score of 50 points means normal worry has become an anxiety disorder.

According to the diagnostic manual of mental disorders, he said, worry becomes

pathological if it interferes in one of three areas of life -- recreational, occupational, and
family functions.

But even that's not all that precise.

"Sometimes they may be able to hold down their job, and they may be able to fulfill their
family obligations, but they just have no quality of life because they are worrying all the
time," he said.

While the intensity may be hard to determine, there's no doubt that we all worry. After all,
mental illness is primarily a matter of degree in that we all have traces of some
pathologies, like anxiety, but when it becomes crippling it is time to seek professional
help, Coplan said.

And anxiety is the most common human psychological experience, according to the
journal Psychology Today.
Research published in that journal over the last few years has shown that we aren't
particularly good at self-analyzing. Most of us think we worry more than the average
person, for example.

But that's probably because we know we worry, but we don't know how much the other
person worries. I know I worry a lot, but I'm not sure about you.

The sex appeal of IQ

Roissy considers it:

You‘ve got two schools of thought. The first insists that smarts, like any other positive attribute, can
only raise a man‘s dating market value because women are hypergamous and appreciate a smarter
man than themselves. The other school says that women are put off by men who are too much
smarter than themselves, and that experience shows women fall for lunkhead jerks all the time,
perhaps because these types of men are less introspective and more unthinkingly assertive about
hitting on women.

The science I‘ve read on this subject has been all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that
having some smarts is a net plus to a man‘s desirability.

Where do I come down on this perennial issue? I stick by the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the
top of this blog. A better-than-average IQ is beneficial, but the benefits to picking up women begin to
dissipate past a certain degree of brainpower, because very high IQ seems to be associated with a
lack of social savviness and other off-putting personality quirks.

I agree with Roissy to a point. My perspective is that intelligence is a major plus in two circumstances.
First, it is a huge DHV when dealing with women who place value on intelligence. These tend to be
educated women in the 1 SD+ category; it's easy to spot them because they will mention a) their
academic credentials, or b) how smart they are, within the first five minutes of meeting someone new.
There is nothing that turns them on faster than being corrected or seeing a man intellectually humiliate
someone. Second, it can be a very useful tool for both social and sexual dominance.

That being said, one should never confuse the tool for the consequence of its use and that is the
problem that most smart guys face. Most smart men think that displaying their intelligence, usually in
some hopelessly dorky manner, will make them more attractive to women. This is not the case.
Whereas women are attracted to muscles and strong bodies for their own sake, and not merely
because they can indicate social and sexual dominance, the first group aside, they are not attracted to
intelligence for its own sake, only when it is used to dominate others.

For example, if the science geek takes an arrogant attitude and openly disrespects less intelligent men
as barely evolved chimpanzees, women will be attracted to him. Of course, he has to be able to back it
up and few science geeks can. That's why men who are balanced, who honor the Greek ideal of
developing mind, body, and soul, will tend to clean up with women, because there are few things that
women find more attractive than a man who can dominate them and others both physically and
mentally. However, mental dominance isn't as readily apparent as physical dominance, which is why
this takes us back to the "chicks dig jerks" theme. A smart asshole doesn't hesitate to exert his mental
dominance, whereas the average smart nice guy will do everything in his power to refrain from
demonstrating it in any way. Needless to say, women will be attracted to the former, not the latter.
Think of the "apples" scene in Good Will Hunting. That is a clear demonstration of mental dominance
driving attraction; it may not be as much of a turn-on as a physical beat-down, but make no mistake,
it's a beat-down and it's going to turn on most woman who witness it, especially if they happen to have
any brains of their own.
It's not that women are any more interested in football games and motorcycles than physics and
philosophy, it's just that they usually can't understand the latter.

Tips to Raise Your IQ

We all adore those who are intelligent and knowledgeable. If you want to be one of them and prove
your intelligence, you need to have a high IQ score. This article will provide you with tips increase
your IQ. So, here we go...

I would say that IQ is the strongest predictor of which field you can get into and hold a job in,
whether you can be an accountant, lawyer or nurse, for example. ~ Daniel Goleman

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is one of the measures for calculating a person's intellectual capability.
This term was coined in 1912 by a German psychologist, William Stern to analyze one's
intelligence. According to the Webster dictionary, intelligence quotient is defined as - "a measure of
a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to
their chronological age (multiplied by 100)". The average score is 100 and, above 130 is a superior
high score and those who score 130+ are considered to be intellectually gifted.

Pointers to Enhance Your IQ

In this section, I am going to provide you with some tips that you can make use of to increase you
intelligence levels. They are as follows:

Learn and Practice Aptitude Problems

Solving quantitative maths problems like probability, permutations and combinations, mixtures and
allegations, distance-time problems, etc., associates mathematics with our daily life and improves
our mental mathematical ability. Data interpretation and problem solving improve your analytical
skills. These conceptual problems help us to increase IQ levels and aptitude skills. Solving such
problems can surely enhance your logical and reasoning ability thereby, increasing your
intelligence.

Practice Reading and Verbal Comprehension

When you read comprehension, your understanding ability and knowledge increases. Verbal
passages improve your vocabulary skill and work power, which helps you to get a good IQ score.
Try to inculcate the habit of reading good books like classic novels, etc.

Play Games
Playing games such as tennis, basketball, table tennis, badminton, etc., stimulates mental
acuteness and sharpness. Rapid movements while playing enhances blood flow to the brain and
focused eye-hand coordination helps to improve concentration. Playing chess improves your IQ
level by making you a logical thinker and an intellect. It makes you stay concentrated for a longer
period of time and shapes you to become a good problem solver.

Try Solving Rubik's Cube and Crossword Puzzle

Rubik's cube and crosswords are mental stimulating puzzles that can surely boost your IQ level.
The puzzles improve your memory level and help to maintain short-term memory and
concentration power. These activities are proved to ward off dementia that usually occur at an old
age. Scientific studies reveal that mind stimulating and challenging exercises such as solving
crosswords, Rubik's cube, etc., generates new cells and keeps neutrons alive for a longer period of
time in our body. Solving these puzzles can be a good pass time activity also. Solving crossword
puzzles can improve your general knowledge as well.
Eat Nutritious Food
It is a scientific fact that continuous and regular consumption of junk food causes damage to the
brain cells, so avoid such food items. Eat food that is rich in vitamins such as citrus fruits, green
vegetables, walnuts, etc. It has also been proven that inositol improves mental concentration and
increases physical activity.

Techniques Used to Increase IQ

VAK technique
It is a teaching method that combines sensory components such as vision, hearing (auditory) and
kinesthesis. Reading and writing practice and tests through graphical representations and
illustrations are given to those who prefer to learn by visual methods. In auditory method, the
learner takes up information through conversations and by listening to lectures through audio
tapes. Kinesthetic learners are taught through writing practice and motion involved activities.

Image Streaming
Image streaming is a modern technique that helps to build up a person's creative thinking. By
visualizing certain problems, you can get a solution. This technique was developed by Win Wenger,
and he describes this technique as an intelligent factor of the famous scientist, Albert Einstein. This
technique combines both 'visual and verbal' thinking, which is a cause for increase in intelligence.
Image streaming restores the memory in our subconscious mind.

There are also techniques such as Pseudo Telekinesis, PTMR, Mental Rotation, Brain Harmonics,
Dualist Mental Expansion, etc., that can increase you IQ level to a certain extent. Some people
believe that it is determined by genes of a person, but it is not completely true. In addition to
genetic factors, environmental factors and a person's effort to improve IQ, also plays an important
role in determining a person's intelligence. Remember that, not only your high IQ level will give
you success, but also, your personality and good-natured behavior with others will determine your
success.

Apply your intelligence in a good way and learn to understand things rather than aiming only for
the high IQ score. For your reference, here is an IQ chart to help you determine your intelligence
level. Follow the steps I have mentioned in this article, and you are sure to become an intellect.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/tips-to-raise-your-iq.html

anxiety disorder and high IQ proven

Anxiety Linked to High Intelligence | Excessive Worry | Evolution |

MyHealthNewsDaily.com

the study is done on generalized anxiety disorder and I have it.

But I think that would apply to any anxiety disorder
because there all are related to eachother and only manifest it self different.
I think it is correct, you need an immense self creative mind to fool yourself emotionally
to be scared of things things which you know aren't to be scared of.
Many people who have anxiety disorders are large % is among writers,poetry,art, even
nicolas tesla,howard hughes and even a guy appeared on A&E with highest IQ suffering
from ocd....I don't say everyone has a high IQ with anxiety disorders..but I think people
with anxiety disorders can think more outside the box than normal people can do you
know we are more prone to escaping the fight and to observe and think a creative
problem solution to it wise, get out of the threat....when everyone has got a problem
with slogan at school and we go brainstorming I already know in my mind instantly if I
only just could open my mouth....maybe this is the real problem root problem just a over
analyzing mind which make to fast connections between things which connects to the
emotional part of the brain....when people got a low brain which makes connections
between things there rational brain dominates and they can be good a studying but not
at solving problems with new ideas like we do

I.Q. and real-life functioning

© Paul Cooijmans

Introduction

This is a list of I.Q.

ranges with for each a
brief description of
typical functioning and
other features. The I.Q.'s
are expressed on a scale
with a general population
mean of 100 and
standard deviation of 15.
They refer to scores on
adult tests only, by adult
norms. The exact cut-
offs for the ranges are
arbitrary, and one should
realize that functioning
depends on more than
I.Q. alone, particularly,
for instance, on
conscientiousness and
associative horizon.

In addition it is known
that I.Q. has the greatest
significance to real-life
functioning (and the
highest correlation with
"g", the common factor
 shared by all mental
ability tests) at its lowest
ranges, and becomes
less important as one
goes higher; the more
you have of it, the less
important it gets, just as
with money. It is
unknown whether I.Q.'s
beyond about 140 have
any extra significance.

Brief overview of the I.Q. ranges

Aver
Retarded Intelligent
age

Borde Belo Abov Ve

Borde
Profo Sev Mode Mi rline w e "Gift Hig ry Perva Excepti
rline
und ere rate ld retard aver aver ed" h hig sive onal
gifted
ed age age h

5 9 10 14 15 16
130
20- 35- 0- 80- 0- 0- 110- 120- 0- 0- 0- 170-
<20 70-79 - 180-...
34 49 6 89 9 10 119 129 14 15 16 179
139
9 9 9 9 9 9

Descriptions of the I.Q. ranges

Lower than 20 - Profound retardation

Usually multi-
handicapped with
obvious physical
deformities and short life
expectancy. Heavily
dependent on others.
Can learn no or only the
very simplest tasks.
20-34 - Severely retarded

Basic intellectual tasks,

including language, are
difficult to learn. Can
learn some self-care
behaviour but remain
dependent on others.
There are usually motor
problems and physical
anomalies. Usually not
employable.

Profound and severe

retardation are typically
caused by brain damage
during pregnancy, at
birth, or early in life, and
as such not genetic and
not inherited.

35-49 - Moderately retarded

Can learn simple life

skills and employment
tasks with special
education. May be
employed in special
settings, and achieve
some independence.
Often socially immature.
Self-awareness - having
an inner image of self,
realizing that one is a
person separate from the
others around one - may
exist from here on, but is
not guaranteed to exist
as it depends on more
 than intelligence alone.
The most intelligent
animals, such as some
chimpanzees, bonobos,
parrots, and dolphins,
are in this range. Bonobo
or chimpanzee I.Q.
scores are sometimes
even quoted as high as
80 or 90, but those are
childhood age-peer
scores that correspond to
adult I.Q.'s of only just
over 40.

50-69 - Mildly retarded

Educable, can learn to

care for oneself,
employable in routinized
jobs but require
supervision. Might live
alone but do best in
supervised settings.
Immature but with
adequate social
adjustment, usually no
obvious physical
anomalies.

Moderate and mild

retardation, contrary to
the more severe forms,
are typically not caused
by brain damage but part
of the normal variance of
intelligence, and
therefore largely genetic
and inherited. This is
 important with regard to
the question whether or
not retarded persons
should have children; For
especially the moderate
and mild forms of
retardation, wherewith it
physically is possible to
have children, are the
most likely to be
inherited.

70-79 - Borderline retarded

Limited trainability. Have

difficulty with everyday
demands like using a
phone book, reading bus
or train schedules,
banking, filling out
forms, using appliances
like a video recorder,
microwave oven or
computer, etcetera, and
therefore require
assistance from relatives
or social agencies in the
management of their
affairs. Can be employed
in simple tasks but
require supervision.

80-89 - Below average

Above the threshold for

normal independent
functioning. Can perform
explicit routinized hands-
on tasks without
supervision as long as
there are no moments of
choice and it is always
clear what has to be
done. Assembler, food
service.

This is also the I.Q.

range most associated
with violence. Most
violent crime is
committed by males
from this range. This
does not imply that all
males in this range are
violent, nor that all
violent males are in this
range. But when the
modal I.Q. of a group is
in this range, one may
expect trouble with with
many male members of
that group. When the
modal I.Q. of a society or
population is raised
upward of this range,
violence decreases as
fewer males fall in this
range then, given the
shape of an even
remotely normal
distribution. When the
modal I.Q. of a society is
below this range to begin
with though, raising it
mayincrease violence.
The causal mechanism
behind the (statistical)
relation between crime
 and below-average I.Q.
is likely that lower I.Q.
levels inherently tend to
go with having less
impulse control, being
less able to delay
gratification, being less
able to comprehend
moral principles like the
Golden Rule, and being
overstrained by the
cognitive demands of
society.

And, this is the range

into which men of
average or just above
average intelligence sink
when under the influence
of alcohol; alcohol
reduces I.Q. by up to
about 25 points while
drunk (own data), which
explains why many drunk
men are violent and
aggressive (own
hypothesis).

90-99 - Average

Able to learn a trade in a

hands-on manner and
perform tasks involving
decisions. Craftsman,
sales, police officer,
clerk. Studies involving
some theory are possible
from this range upward.
100-109 - Average

Able to learn from

written materials.
Employable in senior
positions.

110-119 - Above average

Able to learn in "college"

format. Bachelor
degrees. Manager,
teacher, accountant. Just
capable of taking high-
range tests.

120-129 - Borderline gifted

Capable of gathering and

inferring own
information. Master
degrees. Attorney,
chemist, executive.
About 93 % of high-
range candidates score
I.Q. 120 or higher.

130-139 - "Gifted"

May just be able to write

a legible piece of text like
an article or modest
novel. Minor literary
figures. Ph.D. in the
"soft" sciences. In this
range lies the mode of
scores on high-range
tests, and almost 80 %
of high-range candidates
score I.Q. 130 or higher.
 Regular psychology's I.Q.
tests should not be
trusted beyond this
range as their validity
breaks down here, if
such scores are given at
all.

140-149 - Intelligent

Capable of rational
communication and
scientific work. From this
range on, only specific
high-range tests should
be considered. Important
scientific discoveries and
advancement are
possible from the upper
part of this range on.

We do not know if
intelligence from about
this range on is simply
the extreme end of a
normal distribution
centered at 100 and
largely formed by
heredity, or if high
intelligence in some
cases has other causes
(non-inherited or non-
genetic) which make it
deviate from the normal
curve centered at 100
and form a "bump" in the
far right tail, similar to
the bump in the retarded
range (which has non-
 inherited and non-
genetic causes). And
since we possess no
physical, absolute scale
of intelligence, these
questions are hitherto
meaningless altogether.

About one in two high-

range test candidates
score I.Q. 140 or higher.

150-159 - Highly intelligent

About one in four high-

range test candidates
score I.Q. 150 or higher.
Otherwise under
investigation.

160-169 - Very highly intelligent

About one in ten high-

range test candidates
score I.Q. 160 or higher.
Otherwise under
investigation.

170-179 - Pervasively intelligent

About one in a hundred

high-range test
candidates score I.Q.
170 or higher. Otherwise
under investigation; a
report on this specific
group is Statistics of the
top scorers.
 180-185 - Exceptionally intelligent

In this range one would

expect the I.Q.'s of the
few most intelligent
individuals alive. About
one in a thousand high-
range test candidates
score I.Q. 180 or higher.

Colophon

The information in this article is

based on a combination of
sources, such as various publicly
available descriptions of forms
of retardation, various scientific
and popular books about
intelligence, and personal
observation in contact with
several thousands of people
whose I.Q. scores on a wide
array of tests are known; the
latter concerns over 2000
persons with well over 5000
scores on several hundred
different tests.

[I.Q. ranges in relation to stages

of human evolution]
[I.Q. ranges in relation to stages
of civilization]
[To I.Q. Tests for the High
Range]