This issue is funny. There's a youtuber who wrote a book called "cursed of high IQ" claiming he basically is a looner because no one match his intelligence. But he clearly have angry personality.
Tangential to this "Zone of Tolerance" idea..... Exchanges between conservatives and progressives in modern times - and especially high IQ ones - are almost entirely a dialogue of the deaf. All of us journalists and Substackers are mostly talking to the already convinced.
My understanding was that if you were a standard deviation in IQ above someone, that when *using language at your highest level*, you wouldn't be understood - not that you couldn't be understood, if you were trying to do so.
Darwin was appointed to HMS Beagle mainly to be someone smart, educated and from an gentlemanly background to keep company to captain Robert FitzRoy.
The IQ gap might have been a thing when it was accompanied by big differences in education and manners between social classes. A 19th C british navy officer class drawn from the sons of officers, rich merchants and landowners might have had problems communicating with seamen drawn from the lowest classes. Plus being too familiar with the lower classes was frowned upon.
Now that you've dispensed with this practically non-existent IQ problem, would you kindly look into the real problem of not being able to get on with sociopaths. I simply can't manage to enjoy being around them.
Matches experience, I find personality factors to be a bigger obstacle to communication than actual incomprehension. The exception is things like math where you'd have to teach people the prerequisites on the spot.
The truth is that I have 2 sons, adults. My oldest son has and, mmr, adhd. His iq is 68, give or take. My other son has an iq higher than mine, but not much. I can easily talk to both, but I have a hard time being interested in what my oldest son finds interesting. It's okay, I'm his mom, so he doesn't know this. But, I have to cut conversations shorter. This isn't about ability so much as it is being interested.
Seems likely that if there is a "range of tolerance" it's only a small effect compared to just having good and broad social skills.
I have a friend who probably has a similar IQ to me who can just get along with anyone from any walk of life instantly. He knows I'm into "intellectual" things, so when we chat we often get straight into econ/ history/ geopolitics books/ blogs we've read etc. But when he's talking to a sheep farmer or someone's illiterate grandma, he can switch styles gloriously, and has zero trouble communicating with (and charming) someone with a massively different IQ/ educational background.
I aspire to being able to do this, but it's genuinely a sign of my limited social skills, and probably a gap in my general intelligence, that I struggle a lot more than him. Interestingly, I find it easier chatting to lower-education/IQ people outside of my culture/ language, because curiousity is a massive catalyst for me, and possibly (supporting the "range of tolerance" theory) because I get an obvious verbal IQ drop when I speak in a second or third language.
Although this could all just be a false effect, I guess there could be a weird effect where, relative to your own IQ, communication skills across gaps actually correlates fairly strongly with IQ (a 140 IQ person is, on average, much better at communicating with a 100 IQ person than a 120 IQ person is with an 80 IQ person), but they have more people outside their range.
IQ tests are notoriously unreliable when you start getting into the 160-170 range and above. There's simply too few in that range to derive an accurate measure, even aggregating historical data. So when someone claims to have an IQ above 170 a great deal of skepticism is advised, you'll find their score will have high fluctuations from test design to test design and they've likely cherrypicked the most favorable result.
And as to the importance of IQ tests you'll find those who place high value on the types of information IQ tests measures give them higher value. Just as those who place high value on the types of information EQ tests measure give them higher value. And SQ, AQ. And the other Q's that exist within the human experience they haven't designed a test for yet.
All of the Q measures have high value for the totality of the human experience. All are equally valuable and necessary for societies to thrive. A high IQ society that lacks EQ would be a grim, heartless one that would be insufferable. As would one that lacks AQ, or SQ. Or the ?Q's we haven't bothered to probe yet.
As a high IQ test scorer I'm put off by other high IQ scorers who overvalue their intelligence and under value the other types of "intelligence" that the sum of humanity possesses. There's an arrogance of intelligence that too many who possess gifted IQ's succumb to.
A truly intelligent person understands that ALL humanity is equally valuable and necessary for healthy, high-achieving human society to exist. None is more crucial than the others. Of course you want a high IQ person engineering sophisticated machines or analyzing microscopic organics and chemicals. But theirs isn't the final, unquestioned word about those endeavors, their work product must pass through the other quotient filters to understand the true value and necessity of their work. Some endeavors that seem to be the most important and valuable to a high IQ person lack true value to the sum of humanity and don't warrant the resources those endeavors require. And sometimes all of the collective weight of the high IQ people focused on one subject or another should be disregarded by society if it loses connection with the rest of the quotient filters.
Often times those with high IQ's are just to full of themselves. And find themselves dangling by their suspenders from school locker doors because the high EQ's, AQ's, SQ's and others get tired of being talked down to.
And pandemic, climate, gender, race, etc high IQ "experts" I'm talking about you.
True intelligence synthesizes all of the "intelligences," the other quotients, and has humility about whichever gift they possess in high measure. Or maybe that's wisdom. And high IQ without wisdom is often how the worst of man comes about, how the worst crimes against humanity are rationalized and justified.
So when someone wants to assert their unreliable 180 IQ test as a reason their ideas should be respected and relied upon proceed with caution, and engage with the other Q's to find the collective wisdom those ideas should be regarded with. Just some thoughts from an intelligent Fox who's gained some wisdom on a long life journey.
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
The fact there is no data on this issue proves the population at large does not give a f*ck about really smart people, which confirms my own personal experience. Sure, we do "fine," but society should want us performing at our highest level. But they don't want that, for obvious reasons (they're stupid, jealous, and selfish). We intelligent are greatly outnumbered, so in a democracy where seeking "consensus" is the highest goal, we're f*cked. Mediocrity reigns. So we do enough to do just fine, and no more. I'm a minimalist and have withdrawn from the overall society to take care of my family, renovate my house, pursue my hobbies and interests, learn new things, etc. Who knows what I could be accomplishing for society if my intelligence was desired, encouraged, and put to work? I'm a Professional Civil Engineer (horribly mediocre field I've quit) and I'm only IQ 140. I can't imagine what it's like for people IQ 160-180.
This is so true. I see myself in some rooms and my wife says I enjoy my lone time with the kids better than adults....
Also if you know of any early career researcher such as Post-Docs, PhDs, and Students(current and aspiring PhD and Masters students) please send them to subscribe to my newsletter as I have a lot for them in their career moves: https://gradinterface.substack.com/
I think for me. I've noticed that interest and vocabulary variability understand show the most difference - which is the link to IQ. Not IQ itself, but where IQ "takes you" in terms of being away from others.
People with a higher IQ have interests that are differentiated by their IQ. Ie, politics, philosophy I have read, Bronski on Twitter if I recall correctly, stating there is a link between subjects like this and IQ. I find this myself when talking to people that when you bring up these and other high-IQ interest conversations there is a complete resistance in interest - which then leads to a breakdown in ability to communicate. Also, restricting your vocabulary itself to meet the opposing vocabulary limit - based on how much time you spend with a variety of people it can be very difficult. When I speak to someone, I can change my vocabulary of internal use (I talk to myself with certain words and notice I cannot speak them to others due to their lack of ability to receive their definitions fast enough within spoken dialogue so its just better to use average terminology) verses external use creates stress for me. The more you read, the bigger your easily-accessed vocabulary, etc. Talking with my dad and brother push my vocabulary to its limit and then I turn to talk to my mum and my vocabulary variance changes massively to meet her standards of acceptible word use - which is fine, but to me its very noticeable just within my family alone. It also counts for disagreeable vs agreeable vocabulary choice. Men and women speak with different word choices, "cute" "rad" "fart" "homie" "biology" whatever - have vastly different terminological differences based off agreeable vs disagreeable because exert things like biological disgust response (fart) gendered vocabulary (cute/homie) age variables (rad) word meaning (biology - women will exhibit a wider range of things to something not normally in their interest, they will let you "play" with an idea more because they have different interests in those subjects, men will restrict the vocabulary more to specifically factual things because say for biology, science is more of a disagreeable interest as its "separating things" into chunks of knowledge - ie systemising vs empathising), etc.
I relate it to what I've heard in a common phrase about Dutch people. Dutch people will "talk to you in English, but it's hard to make friends with them if you only speak English and not Dutch. Because they prefer to speak about their emotions and etc in Dutch." It's just common knowledge I think. I imagine it's the same, you just "feel different" based off your vocabulary of choice, interests, etc. It's harder to talk about "hard things" and also "double triple check what your saying is accurate" whilst being genuine. And vice versa for IQ. For high IQ you feel its "in excess" to need to change your vocabulary and for the lower IQ person if someone speaks in a way that makes you feel dumb, you separate - you feel "disinterest" in them, its unconscious. Assortative mating as you say, like attracts like. People are disenfranchised by your conversational style and it creates a tenseness due to them having to work harder to talk with you. It's not easy, a little boring, the more they have to work when they are tired after a hard day of work. Or the more you have to work to tone down.
It's impossible when talking to an IQ wide group to meet the exact level to speak with the greatest pizzazz and the perfect vocabulary to meet the IQ level variance. At least I find, at least one subgroup of the IQ distribution is "disatisfied with what you have said". Say it too low, the high IQ perceive you as lower in intellect (if it is a group of strangers), the more varied your vernacular, the lower IQ think you're a snob and harming them by making them feel inferior on purpose.
School is boring due to its simplicity. As is discussing generalised topics that you feel you "know most things about". It's not "bad" to talk about common things, it's just a lot you have already mentally discussed it and with people before - acknowledging better memory correlations with IQ, you can just repeat the old conversations with the new people. So you are bored. I have had the same identical conversation with at least 100 people. Go on autopilot and replay 'correct answers' because I've tried to use my own deviant variance before which causes them to think my unique thoughts are odd. With generally their same answers as the last person, though of course there can be variation. People revert to the default, especially when discussing topics they have never thought of before and have no interest in. Not everyone, but thats the correlation with IQ somewhat.
"What do you think of the weather today?"
> Variance of answers of "good vs bad". Not much changes. It is good, bad, ugly, happy, etc. It's emotional in response. Individualised. It's never, a discussion about precipitation averages at this time of year. Or, a discussion about an interesting article they read about the El Nino weather cycle this year, etc. In talking to a higher IQ person, I image this is the only time I get variance in the answer. But I don't obviously know IQ of strangers fine pointed. Asking, "why" at least spices it up a bit, but it also makes people angry to be asked a non-stock question.
Everyone has an interest, and people with a "passion" for something will always be truly fascinating. Can sit and talk about sports for 10,000 hours with someone passionate about it, even if I have no interest in the game they are referring to. But I find when "I" discuss a higher IQ topic, the interest cannot be recipricated like I do for them. Regardless the kindness of the person, they just cant understand why it's interesting. And even if they do, cannot articulate a good individualised response, they just become recipricals for me speaking. Listeners, rather than actively involved in the conversation. Which makes the conversation lose its value after you notice they arn't contributing. And most of these subjects I'd imagine correlate to IQ (not all, as some of it is obviously compounded on personality, but I dont think Politics as Bronski's example, is of more interest to either side - and I mean like talking about Policy and niche subjects in Politics not just "red vs blue" (especially as red vs blue colouring flips in each country (UK/AUS has opposite colouring to the US, lol). I can talk to anyone about what they think of store layouts (bully them into having an opinion) but, not everyone wants to develop an opinion about Texas' right to erect a fence even though the federal government knocked the last one down (topical news). Or, talk about what we should do about used books and how to institute policy for the more easily transfer of books for free community projects. Or talk about the gender differences in medical treatment not being acknowledged in the medical trial phase so causing probably millions of people to die per year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQcgD5DpVlQ. How about chronological age verses biological age and why humans age differently and whether genetics is involved in that or its all lifestyle choices. You know... anything thats not a convo I've had before -.-.
I can ask 100 variances of questions about Beer and it's quality and origin and validity and legality and use whilst doing other acts. But bring up and higher IQ topic and the conversation flatlines in terms of their input and often, apparent in their body language, a resistance to the conversation.
This would be a good teaching example for stats or econometrics.
How do you think about whether a relationship is linear or curved?
It is conventional to add a quadratic term, x**2 as well as x in y = x*beta+ x**2* gamma. But how many theoretical relationships are perfectly linear, even in the physical sciences, that we will be actually testing? (Sure, F= MA, but think engineering.) Adding x**2 will always increase R**2 in a finite sample. Would it always be significant in an infinite sample if the theoretical relationship is not perfectly linear? We must look at the coefficient size. And eyeballing the data in the post, it's hard to see a curve.
IQ. Jew construct, same with psychiatry and most pharmaceutical$ etc. etc. Religion, obvious. Not necessary to write paragraph after paragraph. Stop here 12,000 word explanation.
This issue is funny. There's a youtuber who wrote a book called "cursed of high IQ" claiming he basically is a looner because no one match his intelligence. But he clearly have angry personality.
Tangential to this "Zone of Tolerance" idea..... Exchanges between conservatives and progressives in modern times - and especially high IQ ones - are almost entirely a dialogue of the deaf. All of us journalists and Substackers are mostly talking to the already convinced.
My understanding was that if you were a standard deviation in IQ above someone, that when *using language at your highest level*, you wouldn't be understood - not that you couldn't be understood, if you were trying to do so.
I could be wrong.
Darwin was appointed to HMS Beagle mainly to be someone smart, educated and from an gentlemanly background to keep company to captain Robert FitzRoy.
The IQ gap might have been a thing when it was accompanied by big differences in education and manners between social classes. A 19th C british navy officer class drawn from the sons of officers, rich merchants and landowners might have had problems communicating with seamen drawn from the lowest classes. Plus being too familiar with the lower classes was frowned upon.
Now that you've dispensed with this practically non-existent IQ problem, would you kindly look into the real problem of not being able to get on with sociopaths. I simply can't manage to enjoy being around them.
Matches experience, I find personality factors to be a bigger obstacle to communication than actual incomprehension. The exception is things like math where you'd have to teach people the prerequisites on the spot.
The truth is that I have 2 sons, adults. My oldest son has and, mmr, adhd. His iq is 68, give or take. My other son has an iq higher than mine, but not much. I can easily talk to both, but I have a hard time being interested in what my oldest son finds interesting. It's okay, I'm his mom, so he doesn't know this. But, I have to cut conversations shorter. This isn't about ability so much as it is being interested.
Seems likely that if there is a "range of tolerance" it's only a small effect compared to just having good and broad social skills.
I have a friend who probably has a similar IQ to me who can just get along with anyone from any walk of life instantly. He knows I'm into "intellectual" things, so when we chat we often get straight into econ/ history/ geopolitics books/ blogs we've read etc. But when he's talking to a sheep farmer or someone's illiterate grandma, he can switch styles gloriously, and has zero trouble communicating with (and charming) someone with a massively different IQ/ educational background.
I aspire to being able to do this, but it's genuinely a sign of my limited social skills, and probably a gap in my general intelligence, that I struggle a lot more than him. Interestingly, I find it easier chatting to lower-education/IQ people outside of my culture/ language, because curiousity is a massive catalyst for me, and possibly (supporting the "range of tolerance" theory) because I get an obvious verbal IQ drop when I speak in a second or third language.
Although this could all just be a false effect, I guess there could be a weird effect where, relative to your own IQ, communication skills across gaps actually correlates fairly strongly with IQ (a 140 IQ person is, on average, much better at communicating with a 100 IQ person than a 120 IQ person is with an 80 IQ person), but they have more people outside their range.
IQ tests are notoriously unreliable when you start getting into the 160-170 range and above. There's simply too few in that range to derive an accurate measure, even aggregating historical data. So when someone claims to have an IQ above 170 a great deal of skepticism is advised, you'll find their score will have high fluctuations from test design to test design and they've likely cherrypicked the most favorable result.
And as to the importance of IQ tests you'll find those who place high value on the types of information IQ tests measures give them higher value. Just as those who place high value on the types of information EQ tests measure give them higher value. And SQ, AQ. And the other Q's that exist within the human experience they haven't designed a test for yet.
All of the Q measures have high value for the totality of the human experience. All are equally valuable and necessary for societies to thrive. A high IQ society that lacks EQ would be a grim, heartless one that would be insufferable. As would one that lacks AQ, or SQ. Or the ?Q's we haven't bothered to probe yet.
As a high IQ test scorer I'm put off by other high IQ scorers who overvalue their intelligence and under value the other types of "intelligence" that the sum of humanity possesses. There's an arrogance of intelligence that too many who possess gifted IQ's succumb to.
A truly intelligent person understands that ALL humanity is equally valuable and necessary for healthy, high-achieving human society to exist. None is more crucial than the others. Of course you want a high IQ person engineering sophisticated machines or analyzing microscopic organics and chemicals. But theirs isn't the final, unquestioned word about those endeavors, their work product must pass through the other quotient filters to understand the true value and necessity of their work. Some endeavors that seem to be the most important and valuable to a high IQ person lack true value to the sum of humanity and don't warrant the resources those endeavors require. And sometimes all of the collective weight of the high IQ people focused on one subject or another should be disregarded by society if it loses connection with the rest of the quotient filters.
Often times those with high IQ's are just to full of themselves. And find themselves dangling by their suspenders from school locker doors because the high EQ's, AQ's, SQ's and others get tired of being talked down to.
And pandemic, climate, gender, race, etc high IQ "experts" I'm talking about you.
True intelligence synthesizes all of the "intelligences," the other quotients, and has humility about whichever gift they possess in high measure. Or maybe that's wisdom. And high IQ without wisdom is often how the worst of man comes about, how the worst crimes against humanity are rationalized and justified.
So when someone wants to assert their unreliable 180 IQ test as a reason their ideas should be respected and relied upon proceed with caution, and engage with the other Q's to find the collective wisdom those ideas should be regarded with. Just some thoughts from an intelligent Fox who's gained some wisdom on a long life journey.
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
The fact there is no data on this issue proves the population at large does not give a f*ck about really smart people, which confirms my own personal experience. Sure, we do "fine," but society should want us performing at our highest level. But they don't want that, for obvious reasons (they're stupid, jealous, and selfish). We intelligent are greatly outnumbered, so in a democracy where seeking "consensus" is the highest goal, we're f*cked. Mediocrity reigns. So we do enough to do just fine, and no more. I'm a minimalist and have withdrawn from the overall society to take care of my family, renovate my house, pursue my hobbies and interests, learn new things, etc. Who knows what I could be accomplishing for society if my intelligence was desired, encouraged, and put to work? I'm a Professional Civil Engineer (horribly mediocre field I've quit) and I'm only IQ 140. I can't imagine what it's like for people IQ 160-180.
https://youtu.be/fjDXvXACIEA?si=AjOgwTmoW39epE5f does this person seem like someone with an IQ of 70? He really doesn’t, and seems quite capable of having a meaningful conversation.
This is so true. I see myself in some rooms and my wife says I enjoy my lone time with the kids better than adults....
Also if you know of any early career researcher such as Post-Docs, PhDs, and Students(current and aspiring PhD and Masters students) please send them to subscribe to my newsletter as I have a lot for them in their career moves: https://gradinterface.substack.com/
I think for me. I've noticed that interest and vocabulary variability understand show the most difference - which is the link to IQ. Not IQ itself, but where IQ "takes you" in terms of being away from others.
People with a higher IQ have interests that are differentiated by their IQ. Ie, politics, philosophy I have read, Bronski on Twitter if I recall correctly, stating there is a link between subjects like this and IQ. I find this myself when talking to people that when you bring up these and other high-IQ interest conversations there is a complete resistance in interest - which then leads to a breakdown in ability to communicate. Also, restricting your vocabulary itself to meet the opposing vocabulary limit - based on how much time you spend with a variety of people it can be very difficult. When I speak to someone, I can change my vocabulary of internal use (I talk to myself with certain words and notice I cannot speak them to others due to their lack of ability to receive their definitions fast enough within spoken dialogue so its just better to use average terminology) verses external use creates stress for me. The more you read, the bigger your easily-accessed vocabulary, etc. Talking with my dad and brother push my vocabulary to its limit and then I turn to talk to my mum and my vocabulary variance changes massively to meet her standards of acceptible word use - which is fine, but to me its very noticeable just within my family alone. It also counts for disagreeable vs agreeable vocabulary choice. Men and women speak with different word choices, "cute" "rad" "fart" "homie" "biology" whatever - have vastly different terminological differences based off agreeable vs disagreeable because exert things like biological disgust response (fart) gendered vocabulary (cute/homie) age variables (rad) word meaning (biology - women will exhibit a wider range of things to something not normally in their interest, they will let you "play" with an idea more because they have different interests in those subjects, men will restrict the vocabulary more to specifically factual things because say for biology, science is more of a disagreeable interest as its "separating things" into chunks of knowledge - ie systemising vs empathising), etc.
I relate it to what I've heard in a common phrase about Dutch people. Dutch people will "talk to you in English, but it's hard to make friends with them if you only speak English and not Dutch. Because they prefer to speak about their emotions and etc in Dutch." It's just common knowledge I think. I imagine it's the same, you just "feel different" based off your vocabulary of choice, interests, etc. It's harder to talk about "hard things" and also "double triple check what your saying is accurate" whilst being genuine. And vice versa for IQ. For high IQ you feel its "in excess" to need to change your vocabulary and for the lower IQ person if someone speaks in a way that makes you feel dumb, you separate - you feel "disinterest" in them, its unconscious. Assortative mating as you say, like attracts like. People are disenfranchised by your conversational style and it creates a tenseness due to them having to work harder to talk with you. It's not easy, a little boring, the more they have to work when they are tired after a hard day of work. Or the more you have to work to tone down.
It's impossible when talking to an IQ wide group to meet the exact level to speak with the greatest pizzazz and the perfect vocabulary to meet the IQ level variance. At least I find, at least one subgroup of the IQ distribution is "disatisfied with what you have said". Say it too low, the high IQ perceive you as lower in intellect (if it is a group of strangers), the more varied your vernacular, the lower IQ think you're a snob and harming them by making them feel inferior on purpose.
School is boring due to its simplicity. As is discussing generalised topics that you feel you "know most things about". It's not "bad" to talk about common things, it's just a lot you have already mentally discussed it and with people before - acknowledging better memory correlations with IQ, you can just repeat the old conversations with the new people. So you are bored. I have had the same identical conversation with at least 100 people. Go on autopilot and replay 'correct answers' because I've tried to use my own deviant variance before which causes them to think my unique thoughts are odd. With generally their same answers as the last person, though of course there can be variation. People revert to the default, especially when discussing topics they have never thought of before and have no interest in. Not everyone, but thats the correlation with IQ somewhat.
"What do you think of the weather today?"
> Variance of answers of "good vs bad". Not much changes. It is good, bad, ugly, happy, etc. It's emotional in response. Individualised. It's never, a discussion about precipitation averages at this time of year. Or, a discussion about an interesting article they read about the El Nino weather cycle this year, etc. In talking to a higher IQ person, I image this is the only time I get variance in the answer. But I don't obviously know IQ of strangers fine pointed. Asking, "why" at least spices it up a bit, but it also makes people angry to be asked a non-stock question.
Everyone has an interest, and people with a "passion" for something will always be truly fascinating. Can sit and talk about sports for 10,000 hours with someone passionate about it, even if I have no interest in the game they are referring to. But I find when "I" discuss a higher IQ topic, the interest cannot be recipricated like I do for them. Regardless the kindness of the person, they just cant understand why it's interesting. And even if they do, cannot articulate a good individualised response, they just become recipricals for me speaking. Listeners, rather than actively involved in the conversation. Which makes the conversation lose its value after you notice they arn't contributing. And most of these subjects I'd imagine correlate to IQ (not all, as some of it is obviously compounded on personality, but I dont think Politics as Bronski's example, is of more interest to either side - and I mean like talking about Policy and niche subjects in Politics not just "red vs blue" (especially as red vs blue colouring flips in each country (UK/AUS has opposite colouring to the US, lol). I can talk to anyone about what they think of store layouts (bully them into having an opinion) but, not everyone wants to develop an opinion about Texas' right to erect a fence even though the federal government knocked the last one down (topical news). Or, talk about what we should do about used books and how to institute policy for the more easily transfer of books for free community projects. Or talk about the gender differences in medical treatment not being acknowledged in the medical trial phase so causing probably millions of people to die per year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQcgD5DpVlQ. How about chronological age verses biological age and why humans age differently and whether genetics is involved in that or its all lifestyle choices. You know... anything thats not a convo I've had before -.-.
I can ask 100 variances of questions about Beer and it's quality and origin and validity and legality and use whilst doing other acts. But bring up and higher IQ topic and the conversation flatlines in terms of their input and often, apparent in their body language, a resistance to the conversation.
I ranted... lmao. oops.
This would be a good teaching example for stats or econometrics.
How do you think about whether a relationship is linear or curved?
It is conventional to add a quadratic term, x**2 as well as x in y = x*beta+ x**2* gamma. But how many theoretical relationships are perfectly linear, even in the physical sciences, that we will be actually testing? (Sure, F= MA, but think engineering.) Adding x**2 will always increase R**2 in a finite sample. Would it always be significant in an infinite sample if the theoretical relationship is not perfectly linear? We must look at the coefficient size. And eyeballing the data in the post, it's hard to see a curve.
IQ. Jew construct, same with psychiatry and most pharmaceutical$ etc. etc. Religion, obvious. Not necessary to write paragraph after paragraph. Stop here 12,000 word explanation.