[KSig RC]

Until you define 'intelligence' in a manner that provides for quantification (i.e. "He is more intelligent than she") this is all conjecture - except yours is somewhat circular, and really relies on some assumptions I can't agree with. You also run right into the 'exceptions' fallacy I mentioned, but hey. To pick:

Originally posted by sugar and spice

In my opinion, people who do well in college tend to be successful in the work world as well -- not because they're necessarily more intelligent than non-college graduates, but because the skills needed to do well in college are similar to those needed to do well at a job. If you learn how to work well with deadlines, work well under pressure, work well with authority figures directing you, accomplish tasks you don't necessarily want to do without whining, work to achieve based on internal drive, not external awards -- you're probably going to be relatively successful at work as well.

Does this relate to anything other than money? Because my point was unrelated to money (although by extension you would expect certain outcomes...) - I'm merely positing that it's almost impossible for there not to be correlation between "higher intelligence" and "went to college" for a variety of reasons, including the sheer number of people that went to college to the way that we view 'intelligence' as a measuring stick.

Part of my contention, however, does state that we base our ratings of intelligence on certain skills or etc - so your points may apply there, although against the hypothesis you're expressing.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
This is similar to my thoughts that while IQ scores or standardized tests don't necessarily correlate with pure intelligence, they correlate with the kind of intelligence that is valued in our society and thus predict success fairly well.

"Kind of intelligence" hm? Now, unless you can break intelligences down into discrete items with a certain valuation, then this is speculative at best. At worst, you're essentially ceding to my point, since 'the types of intelligence society values' can probably be shortened to 'intelligence' (since without a quantifiable definition, perception may as well equal reality here, no?).

'Pure' intelligence seems out of place, as well - what is 'intelligence' being mixed with to create impurities, whether these be real or perceived?

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Bottom line: Success in school reflects learned behaviors that can or can't be changed, and that can be learned in or outside of school. Success at standardized testing is mostly genetic/learned early in life, and thus fairly stabilized by the time you hit high school/college. People who have high IQs but don't do well in situations that require deadlines or working well with authority figures, etc., will still be relatively succesful at less conventional jobs.

So intelligence is related to success, no?

Can't income be seen as a tangible measurement of one type of success?

Can't graduation from college be seen as another?

Additionally . . . If we're deciding on a definition of 'intelligence', shouldn't it include the increased ability to learn, process, or integrate knowledge for positive benefit . . . and as such, the 'learned behaviors' you're dismissing would certainly fall within the affinities that should be symptomatic of 'intelligence' (although not a necessary condition, I think you can make a case for sufficient), right?

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Those who aren't particularly naturally intelligent but have learned how to play the game can do decently at conventional jobs but will probably never be CEO. I don't think Bill Gates could have ever started at the bottom and worked his way to the top because he probably never learned those "playing well with others" skills, but he managed to use his intelligence to become successful.

So what you're saying is that those of moderate intelligence will be able to adapt to 'playing the game', but those of above-average intelligence will learn to 'play the game' better (even if it's by playing different)?

AKA they'll be more successful?