Hacker News Reader

Comment by V-2 | Hacker News Reader

Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess accomplishments?

The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported, but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it turned out his IQ was 135 or so.

This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150, so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen.

Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much - it's a "dexterous fingers" thing. You surely need dexterous fingers to become an accomplished neurosurgeon or a violinist, but this trait is pointless by itself, and 1 in a 1000 level of dexterity is good enough, so you don't gain anything by going beyond that.

View on HN

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much

Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

:)) The idea that there's some number that can be attributed to every person is surely appealing

There are many numbers that we attribute to people: height, age, hours worked in a week, and so on. Why would intelligence be the one special thing that we can't measure?

Indeed. Since we can so easily measure empathy, perseverance, innovativeness, drive and confidence (to name just a few more) with simple numerical scales, it does seem strange that intelligence is this weird exception. I blame political correctness myself.

The nature vs. nurture is a complex debate and I don't succumb to the (politically correct) view that people are all tabula rasa :)

But the idea that either intelligence or innovativeness etc. are quantifiable by a simple test, and that the measure is linear here, seems just as oversimplified to me, and ultimately also an ideological construct

Because the abstract concept of "some inherent mind's ability to usefully process information", and an innate one, distinguished from the mind's acquired performance (which could be a result of training, education etc.) is much more complex than height or working hours.

Did you find that work environment to have been positively affected by the owner's strict standards for IQ?

I ask because I tend to agree with the OP. IQ tests assign points based on specific types of questions, which I'd argue aren't valuable in all circumstances. I think the point Magnus was making is that he doesn't think IQ is directly relevant to Chess, despite any correlation between those with high IQs and those who have been successful at the game.

I have worked with plenty of people with high IQs in academics and I can't imagine trying to work with them in an office. If anything, the job to which you are referring would have me worried due to such such strict adherence to an objective score that can fluctuate over time. Isn't five points right around the normal confidence interval for IQ tests?

It's a great question, but I can't answer it because I declined the offer. ;) My impression of the office was that it was being run like a fiefdom, and not a fiefdom I wanted to join - the IQ test was one of several things that gave me that idea. He seemed to have a lot of smart people in the office, but I can't imagine who was talking to the customers. (And if it was anyone I met, including the owner, then I can't imagine how they kept any customers..)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com