How does intelligence quotient correlate with weight?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[__ Science __ ] Intelligence Quotient and weight
- Thread starter Daniel L Newhouse
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
The Bottom Line
Based on my analysis of the chart Jayman’s cited and my analysis of anorexic IQ, I estimate that among people of the same country, gender, and ethnicity, the negative correlation between IQ and weight/height ratio is -0.13 to -0.31; splitting the difference, about -0.22. This is may be a low correlation, but small correlations can have big effects, and what this correlation really suggests is that among people of the same age, gender, race and nationality, the scrawniest 2% will be a full 13 IQ points smarter (on average) than the least skinny 2%, though virtually the full range of human intelligence can be found at virtually every body type. So before you condescend to the big bury bouncer, just remember, he might be the smartest man in America.
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/iq-weightheight-ratio/
Based on my analysis of the chart Jayman’s cited and my analysis of anorexic IQ, I estimate that among people of the same country, gender, and ethnicity, the negative correlation between IQ and weight/height ratio is -0.13 to -0.31; splitting the difference, about -0.22. This is may be a low correlation, but small correlations can have big effects, and what this correlation really suggests is that among people of the same age, gender, race and nationality, the scrawniest 2% will be a full 13 IQ points smarter (on average) than the least skinny 2%, though virtually the full range of human intelligence can be found at virtually every body type. So before you condescend to the big bury bouncer, just remember, he might be the smartest man in America.
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/iq-weightheight-ratio/
Christ_empowered
Member
my best guess is that the -real- connections would be education level, occupational prestige, and income...3 big components that go into determining overall social class, basically.
IQ itself is not the best scale ever. Kind of has a shady history, too, what with eugenics and all.
IQ itself is not the best scale ever. Kind of has a shady history, too, what with eugenics and all.
Jim Parker
Member
It doesn't
The grey aliens photo is a nice gag. What I should have asked is, is there any correlation between intelligence quotient and body mass index?
Jim Parker
Member
Same answer: No.
Research found a slight correlation between height and IQ. To a degree this makes sense, as height is correlated with good nutrition while young. Good nutrition would be good for the brain, as well as the body.
This may also be part of the Flynn effect. Gradually better childhood nutrition as the 20th century unfolded was good for people's brains.
This may also be part of the Flynn effect. Gradually better childhood nutrition as the 20th century unfolded was good for people's brains.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
Wanna be smart? Listen to the classics (as in Beethoven and Mozart and Bach) and play an instrument. Learn a foreign language and read a lot. The brain considers such food and gobbles it up. There are lots of ways to cultivate the garden of the brain - to keep it sharp and help it flourish. Watching soap operas isn't one of them. Playing chess is.
Barbarian
Member
Yes, on the bottom end, you'd expect taller people to be smarter, for the reason you mentioned. Top end of the curve, I don't think it holds very well.
(Barbarian checks)
Data is kind of sketchy, but...
Einstein was 5'9", a bit shorter than average.
Stephen Hawking, before his illness, was 5'7", below average.
Paul Dirac was almost 6 feet tall.
Carl Sagen was 5'11"
I don't see much of a pattern.
The brightest guy I ever worked for was very short. Me being 5'8" and taller than he was, didn't seem to be a problem for him, but he did give me some advice that has served me well.
"Tall guys don't like taking orders from shorter guys. If you have to direct a taller guy, particularly something he won't like, make sure you do it when you are both sitting down. He'll take it better that way."
And it's true. It shouldn't matter, but it does.
(Barbarian checks)
Data is kind of sketchy, but...
Einstein was 5'9", a bit shorter than average.
Stephen Hawking, before his illness, was 5'7", below average.
Paul Dirac was almost 6 feet tall.
Carl Sagen was 5'11"
I don't see much of a pattern.
The brightest guy I ever worked for was very short. Me being 5'8" and taller than he was, didn't seem to be a problem for him, but he did give me some advice that has served me well.
"Tall guys don't like taking orders from shorter guys. If you have to direct a taller guy, particularly something he won't like, make sure you do it when you are both sitting down. He'll take it better that way."
And it's true. It shouldn't matter, but it does.
Barbarian
Member
Good advice. As you age, it's generally good to find something you aren't very good at, and become good at it. That forces the brain to make new connections, and the number of connections is strongly correlated with intelligence and alertness. Chinese and woodworking are my current brain builders. And don't let anyone tell you that woodworking doesn't involve a lot of intelligence. It's demanding, if you want to do things right.
I used to play chess a lot in college. To the point that I'd be out somehere, and think "if that pickup truck was a knight, it could take that Buick." Different kind of intelligence, but a useful one to cultivate.
Christ_empowered
Member
i dunno. I think the IQ scale is kinda flawed. I mean...yes, when I had a dull-normal IQ and obvious brain damage, I could not handle stuff that I can now with a "high(er) IQ," whatever the official current estimate is (I think most mental health pros estimate IQs for patients and clients...). And yet...
I can see an obvious difference between where I was and, say, a 150 IQ intellectual. But what about the differences between, say, 115 and 130? 130 and 145? 100 and 120? Other thing...
eugenics. cannot tell you how frightening it is to me, as a "mental patient" who has seen some of the darker aspects of mental health, inc. to see how mental health-speak has saturated all aspects of the culture, including much of the church. psychiatry and psychology aren't all about compassionate, helpful 'experts' guiding people along...
not to sound too, too 70s-style, antipsychiatry, but...there's a whole lot of force, fraud, and coercion in all aspects of mental health, inc. the IQ scale was devised by white, upper class mental health people...and its been used to justify forced sterilizations. I think in the US, those finally stopped in the 60s or 70s, but...
controlling "mental defectives" and the "feeble minded" is a big part of what psychiatry does. from an economic standpoint, controlling the poor and/or economically un(der)-productive is one of psychiatry's functions, too. Autistic kids and intellectually challenged kids are often given antipsychotics/tranquilizers...drugs that were originally described as a "chemical lobotomy."
sorry to ramble. I just don't think there's very much substance to a lot of this mental health stuff. some people need tranquilizers, obviously (right now, I'm one of them...). some people are smarter than others, some people have problems keeping up with stuff at their age level, some people need more intellectual challenge+stimulation...
these are common sense observations. do we really need a whole industry dedicated to testing people, labeling people, etc.?
and...im finished..for now.
I can see an obvious difference between where I was and, say, a 150 IQ intellectual. But what about the differences between, say, 115 and 130? 130 and 145? 100 and 120? Other thing...
eugenics. cannot tell you how frightening it is to me, as a "mental patient" who has seen some of the darker aspects of mental health, inc. to see how mental health-speak has saturated all aspects of the culture, including much of the church. psychiatry and psychology aren't all about compassionate, helpful 'experts' guiding people along...
not to sound too, too 70s-style, antipsychiatry, but...there's a whole lot of force, fraud, and coercion in all aspects of mental health, inc. the IQ scale was devised by white, upper class mental health people...and its been used to justify forced sterilizations. I think in the US, those finally stopped in the 60s or 70s, but...
controlling "mental defectives" and the "feeble minded" is a big part of what psychiatry does. from an economic standpoint, controlling the poor and/or economically un(der)-productive is one of psychiatry's functions, too. Autistic kids and intellectually challenged kids are often given antipsychotics/tranquilizers...drugs that were originally described as a "chemical lobotomy."
sorry to ramble. I just don't think there's very much substance to a lot of this mental health stuff. some people need tranquilizers, obviously (right now, I'm one of them...). some people are smarter than others, some people have problems keeping up with stuff at their age level, some people need more intellectual challenge+stimulation...
these are common sense observations. do we really need a whole industry dedicated to testing people, labeling people, etc.?
and...im finished..for now.
Barbarian
Member
Sadly, Research hints that lofty IQ is correlated with sub standard physical attributes.
The height thing seems to be for those in the middle.
Its very narrow. It was developed to estimate how well people are likely to do in school. Its pretty good at that, but that's about it. Mensa types tend to like puzzles, so academic aptitude and puzzle solving seem to be what IQ best predicts.
Of course, jobs that require academic learning are obviously best done by above average IQ types. Doctor, scientist, engineer, etc... Schooling is mandatory for those.
The military tends to like lofty IQ in officers. At one time, an IQ of 120 was a prerequisite. Now they have switched to a broader test battery. Sub standard IQ is rejected by the military. They have found that sub standard IQ does not make for good soldiers. Especially in this day and age when technical skill is needed to run war machines.
Private sector employers in non academic jobs have varied opinions. On manager liked average IQ workers best. Sub standard IQ couldn't learn the job. Lofty IQ tended to ignore job training they were given, and try to do things their own way instead. They generally thought that they had a better way of doing things, whether it was actually better or not.
Christ_empowered
Member
i dunno. I had a 120 IQ estimate, then a dull average one, now I have a "high(er) IQ," and...in terms of functioning and all, I do write better, learn more easily, but...I'm also not on drugs, being treated for mental probs, and older now, so...yeah (I mean now compared to when I had the 120 IQ. the dull IQ was a nightmare).
I just wonder...well, even in public schools you have some kids placed in a class 1 year up, then you have Honors, and you also have gifted and talented. What do the base inclusion (or exclusion) on?? and...
not to sound elitist, but most of the people considered "slow learners" and such where I went to school were poor, maybe working class. the honors kids were mostly at least middle class, usually above (upper middle, wealthy, etc.). and...there was exactly -1- black young lady in my 11th grade Honors class. the teacher called her Spot. in my own life, my abilities and such -might- have been under-estimated (especially by shrinks) when my parents were middle-middle class, but now that they're "well-to-do" and we've reconciled, I'm suddenly "extremely intelligent." Ummm...what gives with this situation?
I just wonder...well, even in public schools you have some kids placed in a class 1 year up, then you have Honors, and you also have gifted and talented. What do the base inclusion (or exclusion) on?? and...
not to sound elitist, but most of the people considered "slow learners" and such where I went to school were poor, maybe working class. the honors kids were mostly at least middle class, usually above (upper middle, wealthy, etc.). and...there was exactly -1- black young lady in my 11th grade Honors class. the teacher called her Spot. in my own life, my abilities and such -might- have been under-estimated (especially by shrinks) when my parents were middle-middle class, but now that they're "well-to-do" and we've reconciled, I'm suddenly "extremely intelligent." Ummm...what gives with this situation?
Barbarian
Member
From your link:
The results of this study must be interpreted cautiously because they are correlational. Showing that a disorder is more common in a sample of people with high IQs than in the general population doesn’t prove that high intelligence is the cause of the disorder. It’s also possible that people who join Mensa differ from other people in ways other than just IQ. For example, people preoccupied with intellectual pursuits may spend less time than the average person on physical exercise and social interaction, both of which have been shown to have broad benefits for psychological and physical health.
This seems likely to me. I've passed a Mensa test, but never joined. It seems to me to be a bit vain, like joining a club only open to people who are taller than a certain height. Why would I want to associate with people whose commonality with me was nothing but an elevated IQ?
And there's this:
English Premier League soccer players, NHL hockey players, France's Top 14 club rugby players, and even elite amateur athletes have better developed cognitive functions than the average university student, according to a perception study undertaken by Professor Jocelyn Faubert of the University of Montreal's School of Optometry. The study demonstrates a possible outcome of the increased cortical thickness that has been found in areas of trained athletes' brains. It also offers researchers new avenues for exploring the treatment of people who have issues with attention, such as the elderly. "Study participants were asked to describe a series of simulated objects moving through three dimensions. Although the context had nothing to do with any specific sport, we found that professional athletes were able to process the visual scenes much better than amateur athletes who were in turn better than the students," Faubert explained. The cognitive requirements for correctly interpreting the abstract moving scenes parallel situations such as driving, crossing the street or, case in point, performing sport. "It would appear that athletes are able to hyper-focus their attention to enhance learning, which is key to their abilities."
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uom-jbb012913.php
The "dumb jock" stereotype seems to be just that. It has been noted that really superior athletes tend to be less interested in reading. I had one child who was a division I college athlete, and now coaches professionally. She always got good grades, but she still doesn't like to read. So that might be part of it.