Twin study suggests rationality and intelligence share the same genetic roots - the study suggests that being irrational, or making illogical choices, might simply be another way of measuring lower intelligence.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/twin-study-suggests-rationality-and-intelligence-share-the-same-genetic-roots/

[u/Dmeechropher]

Academics are a better proxy for discipline, grit, and upbringing than for intelligence. There's a little more overlap between recall and intelligence (smart people often have strong ability to recall important facts). However, if you've ever met a dumb person with encyclopedic sports knowledge, you've encountered the counterexample.

Intelligent people are drawn towards knowledge because knowledge makes decisions more efficient and effective. There are many other reasons to be drawn towards knowledge, and many intelligent people don't feel academic knowledge is vital to their specific success.

[u/itrivers → u/Dmeechropher]

Unfortunately society in general demands proof of intelligence via some form of higher learning certification. A lot of intelligent people struggle with the rigid education systems.

[u/Dmeechropher → u/itrivers]

Yes and no. There are plenty of leadership positions in technical disciplines which require a basic bachelor degree and networking/experience.

Usually, the qualification matters way less than proving yourself as intelligent AND able to get things done. People who are smart, but can't even fake it til they make it in university usually have other issues which make them a bad worker or team member.

I would be the first to advocate for a more equitable education environment, both in terms of support for different neurotypes (I have ADHD, for instance) and financially.

I've spent some time inside and outside of academia, and, frankly, most "misunderstood genius" types were not especially different in intelligence from other smart folks I've met, but often have glaring personality, behavioral, or character flaws which prevent them from being a good worker. I'm of the general belief that it's ok to use an educational document as one proxy for qualification, as long as that document isn't sufficient for a good candidate.

[u/BlipOnNobodysRadar → u/Dmeechropher]

"require a basic bachelor degree and experience"

That's not a counterpoint. That's just saying "no but actually yes". 4 years, lots of money, and working off credentialism just to get your foot in the door to even be *considered* for an impactful position. That's not even accounting for the likelihood you'll be passed over in favor of some incompetent person with more impressive sounding credentials.

Empirical assessments relevant to the position at hand would be infinitely preferable to the current professional system of networking and credentialism. Alas, it seems to have been made semi-illegal.

[u/plopliplopipol → u/Dmeechropher]

with the other side of the example being so many intelligent people academicaly failing from many other issues than their competence of understanding

[u/koolaidismything → u/Dmeechropher]

Yeah memorizing something through sheer will is different than understanding it intuitively. Lots of people that aren’t very bright make it far from that alone.. just being determined.

[u/steviebowillie65 → u/Dmeechropher]

As a highly educated person I will tell you I have met many similarly educated idiots and many brilliant uneducated persons. And I take exception to the notion that recalling facts is intelligence. Recalling facts is memory. Synergizing the recalled facts into a logical conclusion or in a new and insightful way is true intelligence. Memorizing atomic structure (which anyone with a science degree has done) compares in comparison to genius who discovered that these structures exist. My stepfather is a highly educated attorney with literally, a photographic memory however he doesn’t have an intellectual bone in his body. And can’t argue with him because he can quote so many facts (even fake facts).

[u/Dmeechropher → u/steviebowillie65]

I believe what I said is that intelligence and recall are often coincident.

I was specifically trying to indicate that very smart people are generally good at discerning the critical pieces of information which they may need to recall or rederive, and therefore, better at recalling them.

This, then, looks to outside observers as though recall and intelligence are the same thing. A smart person appears to remember everything, because they consistently remember everything they need to solve the problem.

I don't think there's any issue arguing with someone who's dumb but has great recall. People who aren't smart are bad at building testable hypotheses and predictive models. If someone tries to swamp you with facts, the easy answer is just to ask what principle they're using to divide spurious information and anecdote from systematic evidence. People with good recall usually waffle, dodge the question, or gish gallop you after this, so you can just do all the normal things for that sort of "discussion". The real problem with this kind of conversation, in my opinion, is that someone who abuses strong recall of anecdotes in a conversation is not trying to be correct, they're trying to be believed. That's not an intelligence issue so much as a motivational one.

As a highly educated person I will tell you I have met many similarly educated idiots and many brilliant uneducated persons.

Me too. You wouldn't believe some of the people I met during PhD, in both directions. The range was incredible. Some of the smartest people I know have little or no formal education. I totally agree that formal educational criteria are an imperfect proxy for intelligence.