I don't have strong feelings or ideas about this subject because it relates to Buddhism (which is supposed to be the central theme of this blog). I really don't see how it does relate. The Buddha essentially taught that different people have different spiritual paths (more or less; I suppose that's a bit loaded as concepts go), and it's possible that more intelligent people might take a more analytical approach. Or who knows; maybe the opposite would happen.
An article someone posted got me thinking about the subject, which rarely comes up for me. I'll post most of it here since it's source-cited and no one reads this blog anyway.
Article on dating and Mensa
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/25/what-im-really-thinking-member-of-mensa
I’m almost certainly smarter than you. That’s not a boast, it’s a fact. I’m smarter than most. I can think and make connections, and spot discrepancies, too.
I’m a member of Mensa and I know what my IQ is (164). I’ve never held a high-powered job, I don’t have a string of qualifications. I don’t do terribly clever things in my spare time, although I enjoy the odd pub quiz. And I don’t tell many people. If I do, then if I say or do something stupid, there is glee and sarcasm: “And you’re a member of Mensa?”
At primary school I was fast-tracked a couple of years, which seemed like fun, until I ended up as a 12-year-old brat in a class of cool teenagers, who ignored or bullied me. I left education after A-levels, because I was bored. I could do most school work without a thought, so when subjects came along that needed hard graft, I gave up (although I’ve graduated through the Open University since. They let you work at your own pace, which for me means fast).
Relationships were a problem, as there aren’t many men who like smart women, but I did find some. I’ve stayed gainfully employed, but I wouldn’t say I’ve done anything remarkable in any job.
I tried socialising in Mensa. I don’t any more. Being intelligent doesn’t make you empathic or honest. Mensa was full of intellectual point-scoring. It’s an organisation for the smart-ass rather than the wise.
Oddly going back to find the article I ran across a recent Mensa dating site development, just for their members (kind of contradicts her findings, that it doesn't work):
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/23/tech/match-mensa-singles/
Already these are three different subjects, right, intelligence, then Mensa, then dating related to both. This post will need to circle back to intelligence or it will just wander.
But I'll start with a few problems with what she is saying.
1. her IQ is 164: tests might give a number, but IQ isn't really set up that way, it's not like taking an SAT. Unless I'm mistaken it's based on standard deviations, 110 is one standard deviation off average, and at over 6 from the norm that's lots of 9's after the first 99.xx. Someone is that intelligent but it seems unlikely, and testing in that range is about math problems someone would need to train to do, not basic problem solving (which doesn't match the rest).
2. she's not boasting: being in Mensa is about associating with being intelligent (it is boasting), and so is bringing it up in conversation, which she mentions, and writing articles about it (this). Relationships would only be a problem related to her being intelligent if she made it a point somehow; it's not as if other people couldn't possibly understand what she was saying (something vaguely related could come up, but not as she mentions).
3. she was bored in school: really who isn't, even if it's not easy for them. Skipping grades isn't so simple, and a child wouldn't initiate that, or teachers in any school system, so her parents had to be behind it. Again she makes being intelligent sound normal, like she's not really "doing" it, when these ideas add up to her family seeing it the opposite way, singling her out as exceptional, and pushing for others to go along. Who really knows how this plays out in dating, for her, but it seems the main problem might be letting it just drop.
Already I'm implying I know all about all this, right. Maybe I should come clean and admit some of the same was true of me. Of course not the 164 IQ part, but I tested high as a child, I was in a special program and all that. If Mensa is supposed to be the top 2 % lots of people would be in that range (2% of close to 300 million is 6 million in the US; a good bit less to narrow the age range to younger adults, but not that rare).
http://www.iqtestexperts.com/making-genius.php
There are a riot of qualities and characteristics that go into the making of a genius. But IQ scores presents one of the most feasible and reliable barometer for grading the intellectual horsepower of people. A normal intelligence quotient (IQ) ranges from 85 to 115 (According to the Stanford-Binet scale). Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over. Genius or near-genius IQ is considered to start around 140 to 145. Less than 1/4 of 1 percent falls into this category. Here are some common designations on the IQ scale:
- 115-124 - Above average
- 125-134 - Gifted
- 135-144 - Very gifted
- 145-164 - Genius
- 165-179 - High genius
- 180-200 - Highest genius
I was still curious about the percentages, which I looked up on another table (following). There are two different IQ scales (I'm no expert on all that; read further if you like) but 164 relates to 99.999 percentile or else 99.997 percentile, or one out of every 30,000 to 100,000 people. High enough. At an IQ of 200 you're essentially the most intelligent person in the world (can't be easy to test for that).
The page results of a Google search and this already clarify 2% relates to around 130, 135 to 1%.
IQ
|
15 SD Percentile
|
Rarity: 1/X
|
16 SD Percentile
|
Rarity: 1/X
|
164
|
99.9990072440%
|
100,730
|
99.9968313965%
|
31,560
|
More on what this means
Really this starts to get into my own ideas, which I didn't pull off a website, about how this table is wrong, on the same page as the first citation (so a bit strange):
Today, most cognition and neurology scholars would contend considering a person a genius merely because of his high IQ. Genius appears to have at least as much to do with creativity, referred to by professionals as "divergent thinking", as it does with the suite of reasoning, computational, and symbolic manipulation abilities called "intelligence", or "convergent thinking". Arguably, though, a person who has exceptional convergent and divergent thinking abilities is likely to be a genius. From this it could be said that genius is as genius does.
So genius is about what you do, not some measured capacity for learning or analysis. I'd say the same is more or less true for intelligence. It's a bit odd the first passage, about intellectual horsepower, and the second seem to contradict each other quite a bit, with the second essentially saying it's not nearly that simple.
Maybe one could do lots of things with a higher intelligence, learn abstract concepts like math, figure out puzzles, or even catch onto complicated movie plots (not Hollywood then, I guess). But for the most part it just wouldn't matter, until you get around to rubbing other people's nose in all that. Less intelligent people would hardly know someone is so much more intelligent, or likely even care, and other people of above average intelligence would likely care even less.
But then maybe not. She tried to date intelligent people, right, and Mensa set up a restrictive dating website, and the whole point is selective inclusion. They seem to care. I guess that really would depend on people.
Is there any reason someone would be more comfortable around people of a similar higher intelligence level? Seems not, to me, but again it could depend. I'd think that would relate more to ego, seeing yourself a certain way, valuing it, then getting acknowledgment back for being part of some sort of grouping, formal or not.
Intelligence and ego, sort of back to Buddhism
The Buddha was pretty clear about rejecting ego, although he said a lot more about self. Long story, but the two concepts are pretty closely linked, lots of overlap. That woman may stay single because she's too intelligent to date "normal" people, and somehow can't really relate to more intelligent people either.
If she's in the 99.999th percentile just turning them up on a comparable level would be a problem. It may be more of a problem testing them out to tell, then competing over being so smart all the time. Sounds awful, smart or not.
It would seem better to just let it drop. She has related to her job and her hobbies (she says), but it sticks with her in terms of self image. She doesn't tell many people, but she does tell some people--the "if I do" part, and the guys in Mensa she was dating out of knew.
But then maybe she's not Buddhist, and I've just assumed the Buddha really is telling us the easiest way to live, how to be happy (to end suffering, per some starting points, but it works both ways). Of course he wasn't giving dating advice, that I ran across at least.
I always wondered if I'd somehow match up with someone really intelligent, and couldn't help but at least consider it related to the women I dated. Some seemed quite bright. It wasn't a priority but some aspects of that was cool, it could relate to a shared perspective, to some extent. I didn't include that as a factor related to dating my wife, and she's probably in the normal range (but then who knows about such things, really).
It seems almost scary how bright my kids are, so nothing was lost there. I'm not sure I'd want to see them a lot further along that spectrum anyway; it's not exactly all positive. But then maybe all that is another story.
