There is a belief that having a higher IQ and a better education, automatically means better job offers, better salary and –even if it seems illusory- a longer the life expectancy.

But, don’t believe everything you think, the correlation between success and IQ works just up to a certain point. Having more IQ, once you reach 120, does not necessarily translate into more success.

There are four important facts: a) people that -because of their general ability level- can’t pay attention at school (IQ of 50 approx.); b) a level where one may or may not have success in elementary school (75 approx.); c) a level where one may or may not be successful in high school (105 approx.); and d) a level where one may or may not finish successfully a bachelor and be accepted to study a master or a doctorate degree (115 approx.). After 115 the IQ transforms itself into something less meaningful if we were to define life’s success criteria.

This doesn’t mean that a 120 IQ person is less brilliant, but to solve an analytical problem a person with a 140 or a 180 is required; but to be a successful entrepreneur, lawyer, doctor or architect you need a lot more than a high IQ.

In fact, we are so obsessed with the success topic and its causalities,
that in 1921, Luis Terman, a Stanford university psychology professor and creator of the famous Stanford-Binet test to evaluate the human intelligence, dedicated himself to identifying the best and most brilliant elementary and high school students (brains) in California. After evaluating and reevaluating more than 250,000 students, he identified 1,470 that averaged between 140 and 200 (Einstein’s IQ was 150). Terman named his group of geniuses the “termites”; these “termite” children underwent one of the most famous psychological tests in history.

For the rest of his life, Terman took care and supported his “termites”, grouping his research in his book: Genetic Studies of Genius –for more about this topic one can read: Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers–.

Terman had a categorical objective: to produce the leaders of the future, in areas like science, art, and government.

When the “termites” became adults, Terman was struck by a sad reality: some of his geniuses were able to publish books, two became magistrates, two state legislators, a prominent state public servant and many public functionaries. However, none of them became recognized for their achievements. None became a Nobel, Pritzker, or Pulitzer.

The result is that after a certain level, the correlation between IQ and success is not predetermined. A scientist with a 130 IQ has the same probabilities of receiving a Nobel as one with a 180 IQ.

As said by Gladwell in his book: Outliers, IQ is similar to height for basketball players. Somebody that measures less than 6 feet has few probabilities of becoming a great player. But those that measure more than 6 feet will have higher probabilities of becoming great players. Of course it’s better to measure 6 feet 3 inches than 5 feet 9 inches to play basketball, but after 6 feet height is not determinant in defining success (By the way, Michael Jordan –the best basketball player in history- measures 6 feet 5 inches).

In the end, size does matter, but after a certain score, other criteria have more relevance—like the degree of ambition, circumstances, opportunities, character, charisma, and the socio-economic background—to have a remarkable performance, more than the size of intellectual brilliance.

Published in Opinión y Análisis

El Universal

January 24^th, 2009

It seems to be easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for a comment or critique to enter our memory. It’s almost impossible for a human brain to take critique without demanding an explanation or justification. All brains bear a huge database of memorable events that deep inside ask themselves; am I good? Am I noble? Am I valuable? But the concept of oneself is malleable to our convenience and to our situations.

Of all events we have experienced in our lives, our memory remembers—in an edited fashion—those which are most convenient to visualize ourselves the way we want to. In fact, our rational arguments are another great defender of our self-deceiving reasoning, feeding that part of the brain that is sheltered by vanity. It is rather paradoxical that our reasoning, the gray matter of our intelligence, drives us in certain circumstances to move away from reality and truth.

Even Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or groups as the
Hutus or Nazis, looked at themselves as
beings with values that under the oath of
righteousness and virtuosity justified the
atrocities committed. In fact, what to some
is repentance is no more than some kind
of self-indulgence gimmick to assume that they now live in good, that they are indeed, after all, good. The problem is that our brain is not trustworthy, and dedicates itself to work like a personal attorney constantly on the lookout for evidence to exempt us from guilt, rather than to seek the truth as an unbiased jury.

It is quite astonishing that this personal attorney also has the ability to look for “witnesses” to legitimate our cases –identifying books and theories that backup principles and values, such as churches and people that self-proclaim our own language. In summary, our brain is not only entitled to have a tendency to make us believe ourselves superior than average, but that we have been “blessed” by some divine order, with qualities that make us special. The amazing fact is that we are all special, nonetheless. This also leads us to be surrounded by and to spend more time with people that flatter us, accept us and really feel that we are what we would like to see in ourselves.

As if this were not enough, our brain makes us feel that this special manner of being, makes us somehow invulnerable to “statistics” that reflect the “average” of vulnerabilities of “others in life.” For example, we perceive ourselves to be different, different from the rest: “cigarette smoking and alcohol will not hurt us;” “since we are exempted from disease we may undergo unsafe sex;” “our political party is the probable winner;” “Our God and our religion is the true one, therefore we are the chosen ones,” etc., etc., etc. In the end our brain is a great manipulator.

This presents us two morals to the story:
(1) don’t believe everything you think, and
(2) never trust your brain. However, don’t
get mad with your brain for manipulating
your worldview. Actually there are people
that have a better outlook of their place in the
world; people who are overall “more
balanced” about their perceptions. In
general, they are known as “pessimists” and
probably are not as happy. Even though our
self-manipulating brain makes us get sick
less, survive to diseases in an easier way, live
longer and smile more often about life.

The shameful, sad part is that our brain drives us to place responsibility (blame) regarding most of our errors on our fellows and/or the circumstances, like so we repeat the same errors and mistaken patterns intermittently –and sometimes- for life.

Published in Opinión y Análisis

El Universal

January 10^th, 2009