Introductory Note
- I sent a link to this Paper to Rebecca Roache, on 14th Dec 2008 in response to a request for literature on the question "can you be too intelligent"?
- Full text of request (presumably on Philos-List:
It generally seems to be accepted among philosophers (and no doubt among lots of other groups too) that, other things being equal, it is better to be more intelligent rather than less intelligent. I've often wondered whether this is an academic prejudice: in conversations with people who work outside of education, and particularly people in deprived circumstances, I've occasionally encountered the view that it is possible for one to be too intelligent. Those perceived as too intelligent are typically those who are intelligent but have few opportunities to flourish, who languish in unchallenging jobs, and as a result become frustrated and depressed about their lives. As such, it might be that the good of being very intelligent is conditional on having opportunities to engage in certain sorts of activities. What I would like to know is, has this view been expressed by any writers? Either by philosophers, other academics, or in literature.
- I don't think I heard back.
- A critique appeared - under the name of Neuroskeptic on Aug 31, 2017 in Discover Magazine (link: Discover Magazine: The Myth of The 30 IQ Point 'Communication Range')
The Myth of The 30 IQ Point "Communication Range": Are people with very high IQs generally happy? (Neuroskeptic: Aug 31, 2017 9:34 AM)
- Earlier this week I tweeted a link to a Quora post which, I felt, was rather silly. The post was a response to the question “Are people with very high IQs generally happy?” and it answered in the negative:
- Let’s say high IQ is a blessing which comes with a terrible price. And each and every person with reading east from 135 has paid that price.
- High IQ persons usually have also extremely vivid and wide spectrum of emotions and emotional life, and when they are happy, they are in rapture, and when they are unhappy, it is sheer emotional hell. The IQ is a great enabler, and it unfortunately also enables to experience unhappiness in much deeper and profound way than anyone with mediocre IQ would.
- The reason for the frequent misery of the intelligent, according to the Quoran, was something called the ‘communication range’
- The concept of communication range was established by Leta Hollingworth. It is +/- 2 standard deviations (roughly 30 points) up or down on one’s own IQ. It denotes the range where meaningful interaction (communication, discussion, conversation and socializing) is possible. If the IQ difference between two persons is more than 30 points, the communication breaks up. The higher IQ person will look like an incomprehensible nerd and the lower IQ as a moronic dullard – and they will not find anything common.
- When I read this, the ‘communication range’ struck me as at best an oversimplification. However, many people replied to my tweet, and a fair proportion seemed to take the idea seriously. I also found several references to the concept online. So I decided to look into it. Here’s what I found.
- As far as I can tell, the idea of the 2 standard deviation IQ communication range did not start with Leta Hollingworth. Hollingworth (Wikipedia: Leta Stetter Hollingworth; 1886 – 1939) was a pioneering psychologist who did conduct research on high IQ individuals and published extensively on the topic, however she never used the term ‘communication range’ nor explicitly discussed such an idea.
- The term was I think coined by Grady M. Towers in 1987 in an article called ‘The Outsiders’ (Grady Towers - The Outsiders). Towers there said that Hollingworth implicitly defined the 30 IQ point communication range when she wrote that:
- Observation shows that there is a direct ratio between the intelligence of the leader and that of the led. To be a leader of his contemporaries a child must be more intelligent but not too much more intelligent than those to be led… But generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form–or it will break up–when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led.
- Towers comments on this passage as follows:
- The implication is that there is a limit beyond which genuine communication between different levels of intelligence becomes impossible.
- This seems to me a significant logical leap. Hollingworth was writing specifically about leadership, and in children, but Towers extrapolates the point to claim that any kind of ‘genuine’ communication is impossible across a 30 IQ point gap.
- It is worth noting that although Hollingworth was an academic psychologist, her remark about leadership does not seem to have been stated as a scientific conclusion from research, but simply as an ‘observation’. Towers was not a psychologist but was a member of various high-IQ societies.
- ‘The Outsiders’ was published in Gift of Fire (Prometheus Society: Gift Of Fire), the journal (not a peer-reviewed scientific one) of the Prometheus Society (Prometheus Society), membership of which is open to anyone scoring above the 99.997th percentile of IQ.
- Grady Towers died in 2000 at the age of 55 (Mega Society: Noesis - Grady Towers) while working as a security guard.
- So as far as I can see the ‘communication range’ is just an idea someone came up with. It’s not based on data. The reference to specific numbers (“+/- 2 standard deviations, 30 points”) gives the illusion of scientific precision, but these numbers were plucked from the air.
- Of course, that two people might struggle to communicate because of differences in their mental capacities (or any other personal differences) is hard to doubt, but that this always does happen once a specific difference in IQ points is reached seems doubtful.
Other interesting links:-
Comment:
For the full text on-line, see Prometheus Society: Grady Towers - The Outsiders.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2025
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)