I think this is the same as saying "You're very tall, you should be a basketball player!" or perhaps "You're very well endowed. It'd be a waste not to go into porn!"

We all have different motivators. The true freedom is being able to choose your career path because you have more options than someone with more limited capabilities. A career is a significant life decision and to a degree it's imperative to disregard what other people want or expect from you in order to have long-term satisfaction.

Perhaps some people are "too smart" for business because the inherent illogic and stupidity of it all can be a constant source of irritation, but that's something you can learn to accept.

Since when are people like Wolfram ridiculed? Maybe you're confusing the perverse American-style backlash against intellectuals with some specific grudge against polymaths.

Maybe the freedom comes from other factors. Is your family rich enough? Do they pressure you a lot? I remember that intelligent people from working class at university used to be very puritan compared with middle class. It's terrible to be the only hope of your family to put someone "there".

From what I've observed, those with an IQ more than two or so standard deviations above normal have social problems because they relate to others poorly.

Especially if they are introverts. Extroverts do better, but often have hidden difficulties masked by their outgoing personalities.

My IQ is more than three standard deviations above normal. In Meyers-Briggs I'm right down the middle between E and I.

Certainly I was never very popular in school, and for a long time there was a feedback loop between peers finding me arrogant and annoying and me becoming even more arrogant and annoying in defense.

But then my family adopted 4 special-needs kids, and I learned that being smart wasn't enough for dealing with everything in life, and also that I wasn't half bad at some of the other stuff: I made a perhaps-surprisingly good big brother. And then I went into the IB program for high school and for the first time personally knew people who were definitely smarter than me (if only in some fields, I told myself). Both experiences were very helpful in teaching me to have an identity outside intelligence.

But as far as relating to people in general, it's not as bad as you might expect. For one thing, almost everyone I know is smart. My parents, my near-age biological brother, my wife, my kids (so I tell myself, but they're too young to know yet really), and most of my friends are all of well above average intelligence.

And overall I find that humility and real (or adequately feigned) interest make interacting with almost anyone pretty workable. For humility, I try to remember that I'm smart through no merit of my own: it's a gift of God (or chance, or the inexorable unfolding of the big bang as you like) through genetics and environment. Of course I participated usefully in my own intellectual growth, but there are any number of sad failures of application and tenacity to count against me in that column, too. For interest, like so many things, it's about faking it till it becomes real.

IB programs really teach you a lot about life. Our program was actually inside an inner city school where the population not in the program had a very low rate of success as far as graduating and careers went. There is a lot of pressure involved with having abilities of any kind. People begin to expect results, regardless of your other passions or wishes.

I agree, humility and genuine respect is absolutely critical to relating up and down the chain of both IQ and command. That said, sometimes you have to think if life wouldn't be easier if everyone had the IQ of a 3 year old. At least then innovation would come naturally, and everyone would learn to share.

I think resilience is the most important trait; a resilient introvert can do fine.

A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s.

My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.

From an evolutionary POV, the number of past sexual partners is the number of women who 'voted' you to have mating potential. Women grant more weight to other women's evaluation of you than they do to what you think about yourself.

Ok, but:

1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past.

2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.

You will not be happy with a woman who does not think for herself. Most people would. It will take you more effort to find someone you'll be happy with, but it will likely be a higher-quality relationship when you do.

"Should"? Evolution laughs at should. Lemmings follow each other because 99% or more of the time that is EXACTLY the right thing to do, and 99% is more than enough to win in evolution.

And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.

A person's reproductive goal, both in evolutionary times as well as by modern standards, is to raise successful offspring. Parental investment is a strong predictor of this.

Thus, a woman benefits by selecting a loyal man rather than a promiscuous one. For her to marry a loyal man with strong genetics (e.g. an attractive man with a limited sexual history, indicating a low disposition toward promiscuity) is optimal. A woman who disqualifies men because they've had a low number of sexual partners is never going to accomplish this.

Anyway, the obsession over the number of past sexual partners means nothing in an evolutionary context, since the whole concept is a social construct. Pre-numerate cave dwellers would have lost count pretty quickly.

Your post reads like a red herring (in the stock sense). A "story stock" has to have a good story, it doesn't have to have numbers behind it.

Anything's reproductive "goal", in any times, is to show up a lot in later generations. Promiscuity and particularity both show up as strategies in humans and broadly beyond. Anybody studying reporductive strategies many generations later will have a strong survivorship bias in their results.

A woman who selects a man who isn't very promiscuous is unlikely to get her genes spread very far by her son(s). This trades off against the part of the story you tell.

I'm not sure I buy the premise. Wolfram and vos Savant are bad certainly examples.

Savant is not so much ridiculed as ignored. She may be fantastically smart, but she is nothing more than "Dear Abby" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03...) with a gimmick. She did waste her brain power, but it hasn't really harmed her.

Wolfram, on the other hand, is not really a target of ridicule. He is mocked a bit because his claims about cellular automata are overblown (and probably false), but everyone takes him seriously. A few idiot academics may feel he wasted his talents, but that's all.

Plenty of other very smart people who have exercised significant freedom are treated quite respectably. I think the premise is wrong.

But what do I know, I'm a guy with an IQ 1 standard deviation below the mean.

Assuming the individual is emotionally healthy, I think higher IQ means more freedom.

Some dangers are that some very bright people get sucked into academe or other prestige occupations... rather than things that truly allow them to engage their intellect.

The premise of this question confuses freedom with entropy.

A smart person who does all sorts of stupid things to screw herself up, drinking, who knows what else, can easily live the life of a stupid person.

But what can a stupid person do to live the life of a smart person?

Clearly smart people have more choices.

"Isn't academia safer?"

In the long term, assuming you can get tenure, yes. This is a terrible time to be looking for a job as a professor, though - practically every institution has a hiring freeze.

This sort of "freedom" has more to do with upbringing than IQ. A 115 IQ is more than enough brainpower to become a doctor or attorney and a person born in that range in a family with high expectations will be expected to perform at that level. Conversely, there are people with 140+ IQs whose families expect little or nothing of them, although that sort of "freedom" isn't desirable either.

For maximizing life success, I'd say that an IQ in the low 130s is optimal, but anything above 140 is dangerous and rather useless unless you want to "swing for the fences" and achieve something that will be remembered after you die (something that, in my mind, is overrated). People selected as leaders are usually 75-90th percentile (intellectually) within their reference frame, and almost never 95+. The upshot is that the frame of reference gets smarter as one gets older; people with 130 IQs are virtually never popular in high school, but can do well in adulthood. In general, the smarter you are, the later in life you hit your stride, socially speaking.

The risk is that not everyone recovers, although most do, from the negative experiences earlier on. A 30-year-old with a 145 IQ has probably recovered from any innate social problems and become socially normal, neurologically speaking, but in the corporate world he's going to be competing against people in the 120-130 range who have the advantage of positive past experiences.

If my car can only reach 50mph, I can't drive at 100mph. If my car can reach 150mph, I can cruise at 100mph if I wish to do so.

What is it that a high IQ prevents me from doing that a lower IQ would allow?

It's not so logical. As explained, there's the feeling that you are "wasting" your IQ if you pursue certain career paths.

Even if the individual does not fall into this trap, there is social pressure to worry about.

Or the old question, if you're so smart, how come you ain't rich? Smarts often don't correlate with savvy (or IQ != EQ or however you want to express it). I'd happily trade some of the former for more of the latter. For reason and other, I've never been able to exploit my IQ to the extent that I'd like.

Perhaps someone not able to navigate the waters of social pressure isn't that bright to begin with. After all, IQ is only one metric, and it's not like there is a dearth of literature on the subject of living in a social world. What use is a high IQ if it's not applied to the problem at hand, anyway?

You're asking an illogical question about a test built on logic and wanting a quantified logical response.

As an aside: I get the feeling this is about you personally feeling you are capable of something more than you are currently doing with your career, is that the case?

I have a high IQ, and I've worked quite a few jobs that others would consider beneath me. I enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed 'better' jobs and as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm enjoying what I'm doing I'm not wasting a thing.

Another example: I've had an awesome idea for a start-up kicking around in my head for the best part of 10 years now... People think it's a good idea (I only ask those who are brutally honest about other things); there's a definite untapped market for it; I'd enjoy it; and I've got everything I need to be able to get it going by myself, without any significant cost. I'm convinced it would be a respectable success - so why am I still doing my day job? I'm too busy making music with two bands (at a cost, too), which I enjoy more. How's that a waste?

As for peer pressure - I care very little what other people think about my life, and besides which, I tend to hang around with people who feel the same way (regardless of their IQ, FWIW), so there's not that much peer pressure for me to disregard in the first place.

You're going to have hard time cruising at 100 mph if everyone around you is doing 50. And to stick with the road metaphor, while you could go find some isolated piece of highway and scream down it at maximum speed, you won't necessarily find many people interested in following you (or in academic terms, appreciating your result).

Perhaps having a high IQ slows down some kinds of learning because the holder tends to discount advice that is not presented in an intellectually compelling fashion. Telling a high-IQ child to behave a certain way 'because I said so' isn't terribly convincing. Even though the advice itself may be valuable, an inability to articulate why will hinder its delivery.

Good points, both.