« Jeff Johnson, bird watcher | Main | Why are houses so cheap in Boise, ID? »

August 26, 2012

Comments

So you are qualified for the triple-nine society (IQ > 149)?

"Holmes really was a genius": Americans award the accolade "genius" very cheaply.

Perhaps people with IQ's more than 3 SD above the mean are at risk for having aspergers syndrome, analogous to how people with IQ's more than 3 SD below the mean are at risk for having Downs syndrome. Generally people who are outliers on any biological trait are mutants of some kind, and mutations usually have nasty side effects.

Perhaps this would explain the paradox of geniuses who don't do well in life.

Why did you take the GMAT twice if you got a 750 on it the first time? And why didn't you go to b-school at Harvard or Stanford with a score that high?

Uh, except for one huge problem: UC Riverside is a much higher rated and tougher school than the one he went to for graduate school (Colorado-Denver). Do you even bother to check rankings or do the slightest amount of investigation? Virtually all of the UCs are in Shanghai Jaio Tong's rankings of the world top universities. Anyone who's gone to real grad school knows that every UC gets its pick of new grads from the top grad schools in the world--Colorado-Denver? Not so much.

The hypothesis along these lines that is much more likely is that he was pissed as hell that with his GPA and scores he didn't get into a better school. You see that all the time. And he probably didn't get into to better schools because his letters of recommendation were not that good. And that's probably because in person he came off as someone who just might end up the way he actually did.

See? Not hard to do.

The GRE has been renormed a couple of times since 2000. It is not as g-loaded as it once was.

How could his parents, a scientist and a nurse not care about his education? That's weird.

@Linda
Where are you getting asperger's from? High IQ also doesn't make you more at risk for having a brain disorder like asperger's.

" which was 740 (the first one was 750, I lost g as I grew older)"

I wouldn't worry. 10 points is well within the margin of error of tests like this. If you took the test tomorrow you might easily get a 760 or 730.

A 740-750 GMAT, while a very good score, doesn't even come close to assuring one admission at Harvard or Stanford.

Getting into either of those business schools requires a combination of high GMAT scores, elite work experience, excellent letters of recommendation from highly respected individuals in your chosen field (pre-business school), and a little bit of luck.

The elite work experience requirement is what trips up alot of guys trying to make the jump from a less prestigious/remunerative career track to HBS/SBS. Its nearly impossible to land an elite job out of a second-tier undergraduate school (unless one is literally top-of-the-class), so most of these guys are shit out of luck before they even begin the process.

Wharton, although it was once considered to be a peer of HBS/SBS, has lost alot of its luster in the past few years due to its willingness to admit students from non-elite undergraduate/work experience backgrounds. HBS and SBS will not be making that mistake.

The usual caveats apply: the admissions process is much more forgiving if you are female (the m/f application ratio at these schools is probably 70/30), a URM or a legacy admit. Bonus points always apply if you come from a prominent business family, even without any school ties.

Just wanted to add that I think Half Sigma is right on the money with his analysis of Holmes. Tweak a few of the components of his life arc (engineering/computer science instead of biochemistry, a slightly better-known undergraduate school, etc.) and he looks like many of my friends from my hometown. The disappointment in how things turned out, the hard ceiling on what he could hope to achieve given his educational background and circumstances of his birth, the video games...all of it.

GRE scores don't mean the same as GMAT scores. TNS doesn't accept the test. http://www.triplenine.org/main/admission.asp I would place him in top 5% IQ but I'd also guess his communication skills were bad (hence 45% writing) and that this was the main source of his frustrations.

Here's percentiles for GRE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examinations#Scaled_score_percentiles

[HS: The essay section is probably a lot less g-correlated. He probably took the exam without doing any test prep, which is why he didn't do well on the essay.]

"The disappointment in how things turned out, the hard ceiling on what he could hope to achieve given his educational background and circumstances of his birth, the video games...all of it."

What were they hoping for? To make hundreds of thousands of dollars of year, live in NYC, date models? I know a lot of guys who are more or less contemporaries of Holmes, with same background (state school, science or engineering or 'vocational' business degree like accounting or information systems), make 65k a year in an office park, have a boring, plain girlfriend/wife, and dress up to go out to PF Chang's on Fridays...I'm hoping that the 'horrors' of such a lifestyle isn't turning them psychotic.

@ Matt in RTP

The guys I know don't have girlfriends nor do they "dress up to go to PF Chang's on Fridays."

I'm pretty sure if they did have access to women, things wouldn't be so rough. For now though, their lives consist of work, bad food and video games.

Holmes was clearly not a genius. And he just as clearly had no beta male rage.

The boy was a high IQ omega male weirdo with an entitlement complex who had good test taking skills but zero creativity and below average communication skills.

Another omega male misfit who wants revenge on a world that want coddle his ego.

P.F. Chang's is a casual dining establishment. Why would people dress up to go there?

That's Phi BETA Kappa. (As in "Beta male").

Matt in RTP,

You'd be surprised what choosing the wrong major/path can do to you. I once rented a room to a 33 year old Holmes. He had spent his 20s getting a PhD doing labwork and making 30k/year the entire time. Finally in his 30s he finished his PhD and got bumped up to 40k/year. For a boring job that had him working overtime and holidays constantly.

Add in poor career choices and a little bit more social dysfunction and your friends could fall much farther.

I'm not going to read too much into the fact that he had to work in fast food. That happens to a lot of well-educated people these days, and in any event he was only in that job for a short time.

His low analytical writing score compared to his other GRE scores signaled something was wrong upstairs. Maybe an idiot savant.

"I'm pretty sure if they did have access to women, things wouldn't be so rough. For now though, their lives consist of work, bad food and video games".

I'm wondering if wherewithal is only the reason for this. But then Prole's Asian buddies have a lot of money and can't even have a normal social life. Sometimes having a female associate, not necessarily a f--ckbuddy, can be a godsend for guys who need a push from their gloom. But ego's get into a guy that he needs to have it better than everyone else.

The fundamental goal of all life is to reproduce. The real common denominator on all these maladjusted killers (Holmes, Loughner Unabomber, McVeigh, Mark David Chapman, Jeff Johnson, et.al.) is they had no childen. No-children-plus-high-IQ types at some point can realize they have blown it in life, *snap*, and start killing....

James Holmes' almost doppleganger Stone Temple Pilot's frontman Scott Weiland, also from his homestate of CA:

http://www.people.com/people/gallery/0,,1026058_1026062_820122,00.html

James could have been in a crappy band mocking his look alike and gotten more girls than studying neuroscience.

"@Linda
Where are you getting asperger's from? High IQ also doesn't make you more at risk for having a brain disorder like asperger's."

Google "James holmes aspergers" and you'll find it's been discussed in some major sources including the huffingtonpost.

Often when people are more than 3 SD from the mean on a biological trait, they are not part of the biologically normal population, and have some kind of genetic mutation or chromosomal abnormality that overrides the usual polygenetic causes for variation in said trait. For example people more than 3 SD above the mean in height often have a pituitary disorder. People more than 3 SD below the mean in height are often dwarfs, genetic mutants with deformed limb proportions.

It is for this reason that we see more people at the EXTREMES than the normal Gaussian curve predicts; that curve is based on the biologically normal population and can be skewed by mutants.


Now with respect to IQ , people who are more than 3 SD below the mean frequently have chromosomal abnormalities like downs syndrome which make them disabled in more parts of the brain than an equally low IQ person who is biologically normal. For example a downs syndrome person would be unable to survive in the jungle despite the fact that he has the same IQ as an African busmen or pygmy who have no trouble adapting to this environment. That's because the latter are biologically normal in their low IQ while the former have organic retardation.


Perhaps the same thing is happening at the opposite end of the bell curve; a lot of super high IQ might be biologically abnormal, and thus accompanied by impairments like aspergers syndrome or worse. I have no proof of this, but it might make sense biologically and would certainly explain all the high IQ failures who are rumored to exist,

"The guys I know don't have girlfriends nor do they dress up to go to PF Chang's on Fridays."

The guys I am talking about are fairly nerdy -- engineers, accountants, IT, etc, they live a pedestrian lifestyle. I know maybe three or four people from high school/college who are like James Holmes -- shitty job, no girlfriend (ever?), live at home, never go out, etc, but were considered 'smart' by standard metrics (SAT, college major and so on). Are the friends you are talking about Asian? I guess that could explain it.

Riflemen,

When most people talk about Omegas they are referring to men in the bottom 10-20%. No one would need to debate if someone is omega, its really obvious. Omegas often but not always have mental defects. For instance retardation, OCD, real aspergers, autism, etc. They often are also really ugly.

Here is a visual representation of some omega males:

http://dybiz.com/sites_randomblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Fat-ugly-goth.jpg

http://www.1000uglypeople.com/photos/undefined/787.jpg

"[HS: The essay section is probably a lot less g-correlated. He probably took the exam without doing any test prep, which is why he didn't do well on the essay.]"

I thought you always claimed writing is so g loaded.

[HS: There's a certain format the graders are looking for, and if Holmes had prepped for the exam he would have known how to right the "correct" essay.]

I would place him in top 5% IQ but I'd also guess his communication skills were bad (hence 45% writing) and that this was the main source of his frustrations.

BS. The BGI cutoff for the high IQ genome analysis is 800 Q + 700 V on the GRE. They look for IQ 145 people. This guy makes the cut.

@ Scott. Renorming , per se, does not change g loading. Correlations are robust to linear transformations. The analytical section was scrapped. The new GRE, which was introduced last year, has a higher ceiling for Q than any previous GRE test.

"The boy was a high IQ omega male weirdo with an entitlement complex who had good test taking skills but zero creativity and below average communication skills."

Lol, and by what brilliant and fool-proof method were you able to determine his level of creativity?

The ability of the readers here to know everything about everyone without any information is incredible.

Occam's razor says that he was just crazy perhaps??

The amateur psychological analysis is humorous though.

"The real common denominator on all these maladjusted killers (Holmes, Loughner Unabomber, McVeigh, Mark David Chapman, Jeff Johnson, et.al.) is they had no childen."

Loughner was a paranoid schizophrenic. Having children wouldn't have stopped him. The Holmes case is still under investigation, but some form of severe mental illness, schizophrenia or otherwise, cannot be ruled out at this point.

"James Holmes is smart enough to just make the Triple Nine society. His intelligence is in the top 0.1% of the population."

Two things:

1) Stop defining genius down.

0.1% is too low a bar to qualify for being classified as genius. 0.1% just means you are highly intelligent and capable of excelling in a STEM field. Romney's intelligence level is likely as high, or maybe a pinch higher, than Holmes, yet nobody would or should consider Romney to be a genius.

A genius means having a unique talent to make revolutionary breakthroughs in a scientific (and sometimes non-scientific) field. Holmes could have certainly have earned his doctorate, but it's doubtful even without his emotional problems that he could have been a leader in neuroscience.

Holmes' IQ is only very good, but it's not unique.

The Unabomber had unique intelligence. The Unabomber had math abilities that were something like 1 in tens of millions.

The Unabomber was a math child prodigy who got into Harvard and wrote a thesis by the age of 20 that only a handful of mathematicians in the world were capable of reading. And he got noticed by Harvard because he was recognized as someone who had the potential to make the university famous (in a positive way). And he was admitted to Harvard despite coming from a prole Polish background with no social connections.

Unlike Holmes, the Unabomber was bonafide Fields Medal caliber, i.e., a potential leading mathematician who could make breakthroughs in the most challenging scientific field of all, mathematics.

Holmes, on the other hand, was not to neuroscience what the Unabomber was to math because Holmes doesn't have the ability to lead the neuroscience field even if Holmes went to a better college and didn't have mental instability issues.

2) Stop defining omega males up to beta males.

3) Stop posting "Linda" AKA Dan's idiotic drivel.

As an aside, HS, I think you really need to focus more on the human tragedy side of these mass killings when you analyze the mindest of the perpetrators. I mean, they slaughter dozens of innocent human beings, including, in Holmes' case, completely defenseless children. It's a horror of unimaginable proportions.

Chosing to go on a murder-spree isn't just the expression of some growing irritation with one's class or social status or singlehood or whatever. It's not like chosing to quit your job or leave town. It's the single most extreme, insane, wicked, evil thing a human being can possibly do, and requires an utterly undeveloped sense of empathy, and/or a profoundly extreme sense of ego and vanity to even begin to contemplate. Which, in turn, almost always requires some form of mental illness. 

[HS: I thought that racist killing was the most evil wicked evil thing a person can possibly do. Thus George Zimmerman is far more evil and wicked than Holmes who only killed random people.]

"Uh, except for one huge problem: UC Riverside is a much higher rated and tougher school than the one he went to for graduate school (Colorado-Denver). Do you even bother to check rankings or do the slightest amount of investigation? Virtually all of the UCs are in Shanghai Jaio Tong's rankings of the world top universities. Anyone who's gone to real grad school knows that every UC gets its pick of new grads from the top grad schools in the world--Colorado-Denver? Not so much."

Look up SAT averages. UC Riverside and Colorado are both very low for undergraduates, but Colorado is nearly one standard deviation higher.

Also, I'm a bit skeptical of the IQ-SAT-GRE conversion website half sigma posted. The numbers seem far too high. The quantitative test seems to have a very low ceiling but 98th percentile on the verbal test strikes me as being impressive.

"Perhaps the same thing is happening at the opposite end of the bell curve; a lot of super high IQ might be biologically abnormal, and thus accompanied by impairments like aspergers syndrome or worse. I have no proof of this, but it might make sense biologically and would certainly explain all the high IQ failures who are rumored to exist"

I though that Terman's study refuted that idea a long time ago. He found that super-high IQ people were healthier than people in general and psychologically completely normal.

nebbish,

"P.F. Chang's is a casual dining establishment. Why would people dress up to go there?"

That's the joke, they're socially oblivious nerds (I guess I am one, too, since I hang out with them). But they still manage to have decent careers and women. I think something else was the matter with Holmes, much more than being a nerd, schizophrenia, maybe? The low writing score and classmates' recollections seem to indicate that he had trouble communicating...

"Also, I'm a bit skeptical of the IQ-SAT-GRE conversion website half sigma posted. The numbers seem far too high. The quantitative test seems to have a very low ceiling but 98th percentile on the verbal test strikes me as being impressive. "

You do have to remember that the population of the GRE is much smarter than students that take the SAT, since it excludes those unable to complete a four year college, and for mathematics, includes competent foreigners.

I got this equation for GRE to IQ:

First if we assume that the US mean, 1020, corresponds to an IQ of 105.

Next, we define 1530 as IQ = 145. (seems reasonable as a 700V/800Q = 145 IQ, since for many people who get an 800Q, that is not their "true" score due to the relatively low ceiling, so we assume the average "true score" of 800Q is 830 )

Using simple algebra, we get a slope of .0784 and a y-intercept of 25.

The assumptions seem reasonable (and I have an IQ of 137 from this).

@Matt - "I know a lot of guys who are more or less contemporaries of Holmes, with same background (state school, science or engineering or 'vocational' business degree like accounting or information systems), make 65k a year in an office park, have a boring, plain girlfriend/wife, and dress up to go out to PF Chang's on Fridays...I'm hoping that the 'horrors' of such a lifestyle isn't turning them psychotic."

The problem is the "boring" aspect of the life.

Doesn't it generally make people bitter, angry, and depressed?

"Look up SAT averages. UC Riverside and Colorado are both very low for undergraduates, but Colorado is nearly one standard deviation higher."

E pur UC Riverside is a far better school. People unfamiliar with the UC system may have a hard time getting this. The SAT averages are not apt in this case. For one, the faculties of the two institutions cannot be compared. Look at the faculties and you'll see. Now as a top undergraduate, Holmes would have had access to some of those top dudes, as they are referred to in academia. He'd have taken their measure and he may have seen himself as one of them in the future. Perhaps they didn't see things that way.

He then gets to Colorado where the faculty is not of near the caliber. This, in itself, would be annoying. Perhaps they begin to see what those at UC Riverside saw and the rest is tragedy.

But please, stop referring to any UC as a 'bogus' school. There's not a Ph.D. from and Ivy or Oxbridge who wouldn't jump at the chance to be hired there straight out of grad school (though they may well have the idea of 'publishing out').

[HS: UCR has low average SAT scores: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/ucr-riverside.htm

And is 39% NAM.

A guy like Holmes, who surely scored more than 1400 on the SAT, had no business being at a school where the average SAT score is only 1000.]

One thing that's gotten little attention except in the immediate aftermath is the fact that Holmes was adopted. Do we know anything about his genetic background? Some forms of mental illness can be inherited, after all.

[HS: Weird how they managed to adopt someone so smart.]

Deckin is confused. UCR might have high quality faculty but still have low quality undergrads. That will tend to make courses easier (As a prof who has taught at both top ten and top 100 establishments and graduated from top 5 schools I have some experience with this). Research profs don't bother to toughen undergrad requirements in weak schools because it wastes their time. There would be too much complaining even in the Ivy Leagues. (The exceptions are weed out courses and all around rigorous schools like Caltech and MIT where it's hard to weasel a degree with no hard classes).

Conversely, almost any decent graduate program in the sciences will have tougher coursework and FAR more rigor than the median top 25 undergrad program. It's quite likely that it would be harder for Holmes to get a Phd in Colorado than to finish a strong undergrad program in many subjects (e.g. Cal Berkeley or Vanderbilt).

One more time: Don't look at SAT averages. Look at faculty quality. At UCR, regardless of its average SAT score, in the upper divisions there's a decent chance you'll encounter people who are legitimate stars in their field--lots of them. The other students might not be as bright, but that's not the comparison class for anyone who's really intent on going places in life.

I submit it again, the most likely hypothesis is that Holmes felt he was above the school he was at. It's a very common phenomenon for disturbed and smart people. (The Unabomber fits this to a T, and he was likely right some of the time). One doesn't see people who fail going nuts, unless they think they're superior. Whatever you say, UCR has a much better reputation amongst the people who matter (people in the sciences) than Colorado-Denver. There's no question he could have taken his grad school as way beneath him--not too hard!

This attitude gets out; pisses faculty off; the rest is tragedy.

"It's the single most extreme, insane, wicked, evil thing a human being can possibly do, and requires an utterly undeveloped sense of empathy, and/or a profoundly extreme sense of ego and vanity to even begin to contemplate. Which, in turn, almost always requires some form of mental illness." - Jay


Society heaps a lot of shit on low status men too. Don't pretend it's a one way street. Disrespect from peers, disappointed parents, scornful women, abandonment by "friends" when they realize you can't help them move up the social hierarchy. What shocks everyone is when losers strike back with beta male rage.

"Regarding the crapiness of UC Riverside, the SAT profile is similar of that to the CUNY schools, and the latter are open admissions schools for NAMs and guidos."

We can trust your judgement. You did go to Arizona State after all.

Haha seriously, a crappy undergrad to an ivy grad is 1 million times better than someone who went to an ivy undergrad then to a TTT lol.


"I though that Terman's study refuted that idea a long time ago. He found that super-high IQ people were healthier than people in general and psychologically completely normal."

Terman did say that however a reanalysis of terman's data by grady towers found the opposite:


http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/outsiders.html

Also keep in mind that disorders like aspergers were unknown in terman's day, but if you read the description of super high IQ James sidis in the essay I linked to, he sounds pretty aspergoid. It does make me wonder if a large subset of super high IQ people are mutants.

There was also recently a study in the journal "intelligence" that child prodigies have an unusual number of autistic relatives.

HS: I thought that racist killing was the most evil wicked evil thing a person can possibly do. Thus George Zimmerman is far more evil and wicked than Holmes who only killed random people.
------------

And here I thought Zimmerman shot a black thug to, you know, avoid being beaten to death.

You're no better than the SWPLs you criticize for making race an issue in a killing where it clearly wasn't the motivating factor. And you do no service to the George Zimmermans of the world when you sweep them into the same category as clearly racist murderers like Wade Page.

Perhaps if you weren't racist HS-and I know you claim otherwise-you would have been accepted by the SWPL crowd and wouldn't be so bitter and contrarian.

[HS: 1. someone doesn't get sarcasm. 2. if I'm such a bitter loser, why do you bother to read this blog?]

Conquistador: Society heaps a lot of shit on low status men too. Don't pretend it's a one way street. Disrespect from peers, disappointed parents, scornful women, abandonment by "friends" when they realize you can't help them move up the social hierarchy. What shocks everyone is when losers strike back with beta male rage.


This. All of the reasons they snap listed succinctly.

HS: 1. someone doesn't get sarcasm.

I thought it might be but then knowing your sympathies towards white supremacists like Page, and not just for the fact his ugly girlfriend dumped him thinking she could do better than an ugly Lower Beta when she was no prize herself, made me reconsider your seriousness.


2. if I'm such a bitter loser, why do you bother to read this blog?

Well some of your ideas are interesting, some I agree with; others are really out there.

I'm a bitter loser too. The difference is I'm an Omega and there isn't much hope for me other than extensive cosmetic surgery. Perhaps I see you as an underachieving Beta who could do better in life if you'd assimilate a bit more.

I'm always baffled by Betas, both male and female, who seem to do and believe things that lower their status perilously close to that of the Omegas.

More proof that what I said earlier about High IQ individuals is correct: lack of good character, lack of social skills.

High IQ individuals enjoy an 'effortless genius' image and will sabotage themselves to keep it. Most are unable to come to terms with the fact that yes, there are subjects that can challenge them.

In my life, nothing has given me more pleasure than absolutely demolishing self-proclaimed and true "geniuses" alike in real world academic competition. I would, and I will always agree, with them and their sad excuses 'I didn't study at all,' 'I didn't even buy the book,' 'I didn't....'----woulda, coulda, shoulda. No one cares. Either grow a spine and throw yourself in the ring or get left behind. I don't have any sympathy for these types of individuals with poor value-sets.

I have more sympathy for individuals who lack social skills, because social skills are difficult to learn. And a lot of the time, high IQ individuals have parents who have poor social skills. So, they literally have nowhere to turn for guidance. And because having good social skills requires high IQ individuals to 'turn off' many abilities that come naturally (analytical thinking, mostly), it's not intuitive to them.

"And here I thought Zimmerman shot a black thug to, you know, avoid being beaten to death."

After a hiatus of several weeks, our old pal the Blogosphere's Quasi-Homoerotic Black Male Physical Superiority Fetish rears its ugly head again.

@asdf: "You'd be surprised what choosing the wrong major/path can do to you."

@ProleMadeGood: "The disappointment in how things turned out, the hard ceiling on what he could hope to achieve given his educational background..."

@ProleMadeGood: "A 740-750 GMAT, while a very good score, doesn't even come close to assuring one admission at Harvard or Stanford."

Gents, all very, very true and in line w/ HS discussions about career tracks.

I scored a 710 on the GMAT and had solid Fortune 100 work experience as a software engineer, but didn't get accepted at HSY. I did get a full scholarship to the traditional 2-year MBA programs at Universities of GA and FL; and got my MBA from UF. But, due to a couple of layoffs and a couple of bad career moves, I never got on an upward career trajectory and am now making exactly what I made in 1999. Fortunately, I like what I do, the benefits are very good, I'm well respected at my work place, my cost of living is low, and I live in a nice climate and the location I want to be in.

" As I responded in the comments, he probably didn’t bother to study for the GRE, and the essay section requires you to know the trick of what the graders are looking for. "

How did you know he didn't bother to study for the GRE? It's possible he didn't study for the writing section only, since most admission committes probably discount the writing section, just as most commenters here, myself included, think of the SAT as CR + M only, with no writing section.

Peter: After a hiatus of several weeks, our old pal the Blogosphere's Quasi-Homoerotic Black Male Physical Superiority Fetish rears its ugly head again.


The saddest part of your comment is the projection on your part.

You do know that Zimmerman was a very short (by all racial averages except E. Asian) and chubby guy who wouldn't be able to defend himself against a 6'2" athletic man of ANY race without a 9mm equalizer, right? Right?

Insider:

thumbs-up to your comment:

demolishing self-proclaimed and true "geniuses":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ia2j_jtXWLg

(start playing at 2:20)

Yeah, being self-proclaimed genius sucks since we are often misunderstood.

HS:

What do you think is worse: being a 2-3 SD going to a "crappy" or "bogus" college, or being 0-1 SD going to the same college?

Based on my GRE verbal and the information released by my university, I am in the top 1% of verbal ability at my college, since only about 1% scored higher than a 700 SAT CR at my college, and my GRE-V corresponds to about 750 SAT-CR. My math estimated from my GRE-Q, by subtracting 50 points from it, is about SAT-M 700.

As a person with high verbal ability, I was able to use much of my free time at college in the library indulging in my extracurricular interests in political philosophy, ethics, and history, often neglecting to study or even getting adequate sleep.

To me, it seems almost impossible for a > 1400 to flunk out of most colleges, unless he/she neglects basic responsibilities such as attend class once in a while and taking examinations. Because of my aptitude, I did not need any maturity or work ethic to perform minimally in my undergraduate education.

But you have to do work and pay attention to get an A. For example, I got a "B" in molecular biology because in many of the lectures, I was playing with my calculator, picking two two-digit numbers and multiplying them in my head, but I can get A's if I paid attention. I get A's in lecture-based classes if I take notes, since it forces me to focus so I can assimilate the presented knowledge, although my notes are often too inscrutable to study or I am often too lazy to review them. Moreover, extreme sleep deprivation, such as attending class with less than two hours of sleep the previous night, adversely affects one's cognitive functions, as it renders it difficult to pay attention, even if the presented material is interesting.

"The guys I am talking about are fairly nerdy -- engineers, accountants, IT, etc, they live a pedestrian lifestyle. I know maybe three or four people from high school/college who are like James Holmes -- shitty job, no girlfriend (ever?), live at home, never go out, etc, but were considered 'smart' by standard metrics (SAT, college major and so on). Are the friends you are talking about Asian? I guess that could explain it."

Matt in RTP,

Do you consider cell-molecular biology to be a "smart" major? I don't.

Has anyone seen Maradox's blog before? That guy has serious self-acceptance issues and needs help.

Has anyone been in contact with him?

http://maradox.com/blog/omega-survival-guide/

Half Sigma, do a separate blog post on Guidos, especially for people like me who live on the West Coast.

I accept myself, Anon, but it doesn't mean I have to like or be happy with who I am. Most of it is due to things I couldn't control-- born to low prole family and I have bad genes except for IQ (tested around 130 on the WISC at age 15).

It also doesn't have to mean I have to date an Omega female since it takes a lot more flaws for a woman to fall into Omegadom.

The Omega Survival Guide was inspired by Vox Day's Omega Thesis: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/01/omega-thesis.html

Perhaps some of the losers like those described in the comments there would consider following the advice so that they merely go unnoticed instead of standing out in a bad way.

Is the WWE "superstar" Santino Marella (not his real name, forgot it) a guido stereotype (but he doesn't have a New York accent)?

"In my life, nothing has given me more pleasure than absolutely demolishing self-proclaimed and true "geniuses" alike in real world academic competition. I would, and I will always agree, with them and their sad excuses 'I didn't study at all,' 'I didn't even buy the book,"

So, in other words, you took a class in academia and got a grade higher than them. Something else here that I am missing, or is that the end of the amazingness? Oh boy...

Black_Rose,

Your being way to self centered. No matter how smart you are there always are people that make you feel dumb. I'm in the top 1% for IQ. I went to school with people who made me feel dumb. But Christ I'm in the top 1%!

Try to think back to when you were in public school with proles and how retarded they seemed. Only 20% of those people are going to graduate from college. And most of them will graduate from shitty low ranked schools with humanities degrees.


If you majored in cell biology and graduated from a mid-tier school or higher you are definately 'smart' by any rational objective standard. Sometimes you just have to remember how mediocore humanity is by and large.

"Half Sigma, do a separate blog post on Guidos, especially for people like me who live on the West Coast".

I think HS ought to do a post on wealthy SWPLs and highlight some of their dysfunctionality.

This women worked at a museum, daughter from a privilege family. A typical of most daughters from rich families.

Her death seems to be a mystery. Could be a homicide by a NAM or a freak accident. She lived in a hellhole apartment in a gentrifying neighborhood, (SWPL encroaching NAM turf). Nevertheless a rich SWPL that divorced within a year of her marriage, that led to this.

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/2012/08/death-of-carlisle-brigham-in-orchard-street-building-apparently-accidental.html

[HS: 191 Orchard St isn't a bad neighborhood. She probably just fell down a flight of stairs because she was drunk (and who know what else) and hit her head and died.]

"191 Orchard St isn't a bad neighborhood. She probably just fell down a flight of stairs because she was drunk (and who know what else) and hit her head and died".

Not a bad neighborhood, but NAMs are to be found roaming in that area because it borders some housing projects.

Paying an arm and a leg for one of those vermin infested tenement walk up conversions where she lived, no thanks!

' being a 2-3 SD going to a "crappy" or "bogus" college, or being 0-1 SD going to the same college?'

The first. A 0-1 SD will learn proper values and work ethic, while the 2-3 SD will become convinced that their intellectual superiority is global, rather than local. From personal observation, 2-3 SD's also get extremely hung up on their standardized test scores. Why? To explain away the cognitive dissonance of the eventual lack of success.

asdf

" If you majored in cell biology and graduated from a mid-tier school or higher you are definately 'smart' by any rational objective standard. Sometimes you just have to remember how mediocore humanity is by and large.

...

If you majored in cell biology and graduated from a mid-tier school or higher you are definately 'smart' by any rational objective standard. Sometimes you just have to remember how mediocore humanity is by and large.
"

I went to a school (similar to a SUNY) that Half Sigma would undoubtedly deem as "crappy". I have suffered from some insecurity due to my self-critical attitude and neuroticism.

I flippantly dismissed the facade of intelligence in cell-molecular biology in my previous comment because it reminded of a time when I talked to a priest (who, on the last time I saw him, was wearing an Aaron Rodgers jersey over his alb habit*) after Mass. I don't know if that was a pathetic attempt to patronize me or if he was ignorant of psychometrics; this is not mutually exclusive dichotomy, but could not tell from facial expression or tone of his voice. Moreover, his apparent perception of STEM as uniquely involving extraordinary (general) intelligence is somewhat degrading to other non-scientific intellectual fields that are verbally demanding such as philosophy and theology, and seems to reinforce the hegemony of mathematical intelligence over verbal intelligence (abilities become more differentiated at the higher ends of "g" so verbal and math ability are practically synonymous in the normal range and cognitive profiles are not skewed) in a contemporary, technological society. Theology is verbally demanding: ask yourself if anyone with an SAT-CR http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XIV/Chapter_11

He, however, is somewhat justified in this perception, because of the objective nature of STEM, it is not as vulnerable to a dilution of the curriculum relative to the liberals arts since it requires students to learn knowledge and abstract concepts, which sets a relative high floor for g.

Another incident (in Confession about something else) was when he asked for my GPA, and then asked me why I was lazy. I told him that I read The Bell Curve in school library, and from reading, it said I wasn't intelligent because I wasn't a prestigious college (which I would define as at least a "Public Ivy"). Also I underperformed on the SAT by about a standard deviation from my true abilities because of sleep deprivation and anxiety. (Ironically, due to the fact that I was often sleep deprived in college, the SAT actually evaluated my mental abilities in an academic setting quite accurately since I was not functioning at the 1400 level much of the time, although that was a self-fulfilling prophesy too.) He seemed quite dismissive of my response when I mentioned that the Bell Curve made me disenchanted with academics, and I thought to myself that he could ascertain more relevant information by inquiring about my standardized test scores. I would have told him honestly that I "fucked" (and I would have used that word for rhetorical effect) up on the SAT (between 80-89th percentile, too embarrassed to give the score here) and insecurity about my identity gnawed away at me in college because I was living in the shadow of three 3 SD boys I knew in high school. I initially got a 3.8 my first year in college, but since I realized from reading The Bell Curve (and other HBD sources such as Steve Sailer and Linda Gottfredson) that academic excellence would not expatiate for the "mortal sin" (or "eternal sin" - blaspheming the Holy Spirit) of fucking up on the SAT, my motivation and, subsequently, my performance plummeted. In retrospect, I suppose reading The Bell Curve was like consuming the forbidden fruit in the Garden: by reading it, I became aware of nakedness since I was attending a soi-dissant "crappy" "NAM-infested" school and became ashamed of it.

asdf said this earlier:

"A 1200 isn't going to get you a job at Google. In fact your application would likely get rejected outright. For high end hard STEM fields g keeps helping to a much higher threshold. If you talking about being a cubicle bot at a Dilbert company then 1200 is probably good enough."

"You'd be surprised what choosing the wrong major/path can do to you. I once rented a room to a 33 year old Holmes. He had spent his 20s getting a PhD doing labwork and making 30k/year the entire time. Finally in his 30s he finished his PhD and got bumped up to 40k/year. For a boring job that had him working overtime and holidays constantly.

Add in poor career choices and a little bit more social dysfunction and your friends could fall much farther."

I said "fuck that" to the prospect of working at Dilbert Corp or being a lab money and decided to be lazy.

He probably thought of me as intelligent (but with my sloth eclipsing my abilities) and seemed genuinely surprised why I was not able to find employment. It is not really surprising since James Holmes, who attended to a similar college, failed to find a well-remunerated scientific job, despite having a higher GPA and better test scores than me.

Unlike me, he is probably not acquainted to the psychometrics literature and g: I would bet he hasn't read any Linda Gottfredson papers, data from the ETS on the GRE and SAT, research on the SAT. So, yes, he's ignorant, since he hasn't spend hours researching this in his free time.

Overall, I liked him and see him as a competent, fervent, and faithful servant of God (and his theologically and practically edifying, long homilies that protracts Mass an extra 15-30 minutes). He is not afraid to excoriate his congregation (generally and not at specific individuals) for our sins, and encourage us to struggle valiantly, with the assistance of the grace of God, against the alluring, ephemeral, carnal, spiritual-mortifying pleasures and temptations of our lives. One must be wary of corrupted nature and sinfulness, or else one would be alienated from God and destined to perdition.

* I said this to "call out" anyone at my parish who reads this blog. Unlikely that anyone there reads this.

Meant to say: Theology is verbally demanding: ask yourself if anyone with an SAT-CR less than 650 can read this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XIV/Chapter_11

@Linda:

"Perhaps people with IQ's more than 3 SD above the mean are at risk for having aspergers syndrome, analogous to how people with IQ's more than 3 SD below the mean are at risk for having Downs syndrome. Generally people who are outliers on any biological trait are mutants of some kind, and mutations usually have nasty side effects.
...
a lot of super high IQ might be biologically abnormal, and thus accompanied by impairments like aspergers syndrome or worse. I have no proof of this, but it might make sense biologically and would certainly explain all the high IQ failures who are rumored to exist,"

When you say "mutants" do you mean that they possess a few genes with outsized effects (rather than the continuum of genes with small effects that contributes to the bulk of the IQ bell curve)? I hope you realize that we are all "mutants" (that's how evolution works).

In any case, I suspect that you are correct. For some high IQ individuals, the may possess certain rare genes with outsized effects.

As for the evidence of the association with IQ and mental illness:

https://secularblood.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-problem-with-high-iq/

But why do you view Asperger's as universally negative? It confers several positive effects to society.

Indeed, have you not considered that it is common among the high IQ because of *selection*? The traits that these individuals possess could have the result of strong evolutionary pressures that have acted on them.

High-IQ individuals have more mental illness for the same reason Ashkenazi Jews have their genetic illnesses: they have downsides but they boost IQ, and all high-IQ populations have been under fairly intense selection for IQ.

"When you say "mutants" do you mean that they possess a few genes with outsized effects (rather than the continuum of genes with small effects that contributes to the bulk of the IQ bell curve)? I hope you realize that we are all "mutants" (that's how evolution works)."

I'm simply making an analogy with the well known distinction between organic retardation and familial retardation. For example it was once thought by IQ expert Arthur Jensen and the school teachers he was working with that IQ tests were culturally biased against blacks, because not only were blacks overrepresented in classes for the educable mentally retarded, but they black retardates seemed much less retarded than the white retardates.

The black retardates looked normal, were socially well adjusted and physically coordinated, while the white retardates were clumsy, socially awkward and looked much more impaired.

It first appeared that IQ tests were underestimating the ability of black kids, however careful testing on g loaded measures of abstract reasoning found that the normal looking black retardates were just as INTELLECTUALLY challenged as the retarded looking white retardates. Jensen's aha moment was realizing that because an IQ below 70 is 2 SD below the white mean, but only 1 SD below the black mean, the retarded blacks were much more likely to just be at the lower end of the biologically normal bell curve (FAMILIAL RETARDATION) but the retarded whites with identical IQ were outliers on the white bell curve, meaning a large number of them were biologically ABNORNAL (ORGANIC RETARDATION).

Because organic retardation is caused by genetic abnormalities, these retardates are not just retarded in abstract reasoning, but in lower level of brain functions like physical coordinations, rote memory, learning through social mimicking etc. It for this reason that the white organic retardates seemed so much more retarded than the black FAMILIAL retardates, even though both groups had an IQ around 60. What appeared to be culture bias in the test actually had a biological explanation.

So my theory is perhaps the same thing is happening at the opposite extreme. There are familial gifted people (who often become successful in life) and equally brilliant organic gifted people (who become socially awkward weirdos). The familial geniuses are generally high functioning in all the parts of intelligence, but the organic geniuses are biologically abnormal, and thus only gifted in the most g loaded areas (abstract reasoning) but may even be subnormal in lower level less g loaded cognitive functions like social interaction and physical coordination.

Now because James Holmes was adopted, it's unlikely he inherited high IQ genes from high IQ parents, so his high IQ was perhaps a freak mutation and thus ORGANIC (and thus accompanied by harmful genetic side effects). It's unlikely he was a FAMILIAL genius because that would imply high IQ parents who are less likely to have an unwanted baby.

@Linda,

The concept sounds good, but what you've said is basically a variation of what I've said: a few genes with outsized effects. I guess one of your key point is that you're claiming that some or all of these genes are fairly newly generated mutation.

This is ala Greg Cochran's theory of genetic load:
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/more-thoughts-on-genetic-load/

As per the source of Holmes' high IQ, do we know how intelligent his biological parents are? I'm betting that they are fairly smart.

However, here's the major problem with your funky gene theory, however: any single mutation is highly unlikely to push IQ *up*. If there were such a thing as "organic geniuses", they would be far rarer than individuals who are organically retarded.

Rather, most high-IQ individuals and "disorders" associated with high IQ, like austism spectrum disorders, are likely the result of *selection*.

"However, here's the major problem with your funky gene theory, however: any single mutation is highly unlikely to push IQ *up*. If there were such a thing as "organic geniuses", they would be far rarer than individuals who are organically retarded."

Why? Is it because IQ is too complex a trait to be accidentally enhanced by an outsized mutation? Keep in mind that many IQ tests don't measure intelligence per se, but rather g. g is an excellent proxy for intelligence because it's the cause of VARIATION in biologically normal human intelligence, but there's a conceptual distinction between g and intelligence. In theory a mutation may drive g up while impairing the rest of intelligence, thus explaining the high IQ weirdos who fail at life. g might be something relatively simple like working memory and thus amenable to freak mutations.

"Why? Is it because IQ is too complex a trait to be accidentally enhanced by an outsized mutation?"

Exactly. It obviously does happen, otherwise human intelligence would never have evolved, but such mutations are much, much rarer than the kind likely to knock a few points off.

"g might be something relatively simple like working memory and thus amenable to freak mutations."

However, it is not. g appears to the result of several processes throughout the entire brain, which is pretty much why it is aptly named *general* intelligence.

"However, it is not. g appears to the result of several processes throughout the entire brain, which is pretty much why it is aptly named *general* intelligence."

g is a function of multiple properties and processes of the brain, however enhancing just one of them might be enough to enhance g enormously. For example height is a function of multiple variables (leg length, torso length, head height, neck length etc) however a freak mutation that simply doubled your leg length would make one way taller. However it would be a deformed disproportionate height increase that wouldn't confer the usual benefits of being so tall.

Something similar might happen with intelligence. g is a function of brain size, neural connections, brain metabolism, nerve conduction velocity etc, so a freak mutation that doubles any one of these variables might wildly increase g, but it would be a deformed intelligence, disproportionately enhanced in some areas, but perhaps lacking the well rounded successful intellect we might expect from a genius.

I wonder if I am a genetic freak since I have high verbal ability, and none of my parents or relatives have it -- they seem a little above average. No one that I know can handle the type of reading material that I read, such as political philosophy books and scientific journals, nor do they possess my sesquipedalian lexicon.

I am autistic and highly neurotic too. I see my autism as a gift since it saved me from absolute intellectual mediocrity although I still envious of true geniuses (like Half Sigma and various physicists and cosmologists such as Alan Guth)

"Meant to say: Theology is verbally demanding: ask yourself if anyone with an SAT-CR less than 650 can read this:"

"High-IQ individuals have more mental illness for the same reason Ashkenazi Jews have their genetic illnesses: they have downsides but they boost IQ, and all high-IQ populations have been under fairly intense selection for IQ".

Understanding Confucius is just as hard as theology. High IQ doesn't translate into genius ability. East Asians are a good testament to this. Furthermore, they seem to be psychologically healthier than westerners, which would refute the correlation between high intelligence and craziness. On the contrary, NAMs have more mental disorders than Whites.

"Understanding Confucius is just as hard as theology. High IQ doesn't translate into genius ability. East Asians are a good testament to this."

East Aians are less social than whites and genius requires social interaction to pool the collective wisdom of a culture from one generation to another.


"Furthermore, they seem to be psychologically healthier than westerners, which would refute the correlation between high intelligence and craziness. On the contrary, NAMs have more mental disorders than Whites."


Well you're talking about biologically normal populations but that has no relevance to freak mutants whose intelligence by definition is not a linear extrapolation of patterns seen in their larger group.

East Asians do have better mental health and this may supress their creativity because there was a harvard study that found that in high IQ people, the bizarre distracting thoughts that normally cause schizophrenia cause creativity.

Also, even though east Asians have more geniuses, whites probably have more organic geniuses, since being a genius is biologically ABNORMAL for whites but less so for east Asians, and this combination of high IQ + brain disorder = creativity

@ The Legendary Linda

I was on board with your earlier comment that IQ above the 3rd STDV was due to an *abnormality* and not simply having more of the *good stuff*. I'd reached that conclusion independently. But your last comments are a bit too speculative.

Holmes and most of the other killers did not have sufficient emotional maturity and strength of character to handle being adults. They were physically and mentally adults, but emotionally were not. They handled their emotional failings by regressing into mental illness -- or their mental illness made them emotionally stunted -- cause and effect is hard to determine. At some point they decided to get rid of their pain by acting out; they killed people. It's far more common for distressed persons like these to commit suicide than to kill others, tho.

After graduating a high powered wealthy suburban high school with very good grades, I went to Penn in the 70's and regressed over four years, while under the care of a highly credentialed, highly incompetent therapist who never told me his diagnoses or why he did not prescribe me any medicine, but did tell me after 10 weeks in a row of my discussing committing suicide that he was going on vacation for the next month -- no follow up or aid at all was suggested for that forthcoming time. I never acted out, although 35 years out, I do fantasize from time to time about physically killing that therapist with my bare hands.

Killings need not occur. We could stop most of them because the most severe schizophrenics who are the most likely to act out are also the most responsive to the powerful psychotropics that exist. Prolixin will really calm them down, but these folks cannot be trusted to take their medicine. The medicine has to be administered to them, usually via a needle or IV, not by mouth. Outpatient VA centers administer drugs like IV prolixin to disabled vets every month.

About 1% of the population is destined to be schizophrenic, no matter how well or poorly they are brought up. Only a small portion of that 1% acts out hurting others.

Some primitive tribes in Africa and Papua New Guinea end up treating their mentally ill better than the mentally ill are treated in Western society. Their schizos rarely become killers because they are thought to be the victims of evil magic, not nuts diagnosed to be a paranoid schizophrenics.

"East Aians are less social than whites and genius requires social interaction to pool the collective wisdom of a culture from one generation to another".

You also forgot to mention curiosity and daredevilness, qualities that seems to pervade the White race. Whites seem to know more about the great white shark than any other group. (No pun attended)


@Just Speculating:

"East Asians...seem to be psychologically healthier than westerners, which would refute the correlation between high intelligence and craziness."

The observed association was only with White Americans, so we cannot necessarily compare this to other races.

It would seem (I have no evidence however) that autism spectrum disorders would be common among East Asians.

@The Legendary Linda:

"g is a function of brain size, neural connections, brain metabolism, nerve conduction velocity etc, so a freak mutation that doubles any one of these variables might wildly increase g, but it would be a deformed intelligence, disproportionately enhanced in some areas, but perhaps lacking the well rounded successful intellect we might expect from a genius."

Possibly. How common this would be is a little less clear.

Given that you are touting yourself as a genius, the ignorance and inaccuracies in your blog post are entertaining. I have a PhD in Communication Sciences and Disorders and my research focuses on Autism Spectrum Disorders. While I certainly have not met Mr. Holmes, it does appear (from what has been reported in the media) that he likely meets the criteria for Asperger's Syndrome (though I have not read anything indicating he has been diagnosed and going undiagnosed would not be uncommon). Such individuals have average to well above average intelligence, struggle mightily with social skills, are often unemployed or malemployed (holding a job well beneath their skill/ability level), and have a higher comorbidity rate of mental health disorders. Your assumptions that he cruised though a "lesser" college only to fail in graduate school are likely untrue. My guess is that the inability to read and interpret nonverbal body language and social cues, as well as the lack of ability to consider the perspectives of his committee members (another hallmark of Asperger's) caused him to be perceived as rude, arrogant, etc., at his oral defense. He likely struggled to answer the questions because a) the answers were ones that he thought were obvious and thus the questions were unnecessary,and b) accepting criticism (even constructive) is difficult for individuals with AS (as he was being challenged on his viewpoints, etc.), is what caused him to fail (again, lack of being able to consider different points of view is a hallmark of AS). If he did have AS, it is important to note that having it did not cause his actions. Rather, it would be the mental health disorders that also occur with AS that would have driven those actions. Individuals with AS desperately want friends but are very socially awkward (see his text exchange with classmate). Perhaps if all of us were better educated on ASD and treated people more kindly he may have felt some human connection, which in turn may have helped his mental health situation.

The comments to this entry are closed.