IQ and its relation to progression

obclassicut said:
Joined this exquisite site less than a month ago, my unawareness of this previous post can be blamed on my failure to go through every post preceding my join date. i am so very sorry:(
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying it was a thread recently. If I could find the thread, I'd link to it as there were probably a lot of replies that would apply to your question.

Personally, I think high IQ adds or detracts nothing of significance to learning this game. Billiard gods are equal opportunity in torture.

Freddie <~~~ being dumb didn't help or hert me
 
Chopdoc said:
He said they were equally dedicated, so it can't be the deciding factor.






.
Click to expand...

You're right, my mistake. Considering that they are equally dedicated, and the ONLY difference is IQ then I would have to agree that the higher IQ would win out over time.

But I hope people don't assume a person with a higher IQ is automatically going to be the better player. My son has a high IQ, he started college two years early at North West Missouri academy, he got his associates degree in applied science the same week he graduated High School and he is now majoring in nano genetics. BUT, he cannot understand how to make a cue ball do what is required to run out a table. His head gets in the way and he has no comprehension of what he is doing at the table. He also has very limited athletic ability.

My daughter on the other hand is not as gifted as he is when it comes to IQ, but is still smart, and also has limited athletic ability. She can run circles around him at the table. She is dedicated to learning the game.
 
Scott Lee said:
Good post Brian, and something I expect you have dealt with, in your career as a sales trainer! :thumbup: In my experience, it can go either way. Sometimes working with students with a high IQ sometimes gets in the way of trying to learn something simple. The conscious/unconscious brain has a way of "blurting out" something like, "It can't be this simple!"...when it fact it is! Also, there are many very intelligent people who are perfectionsists (:eek:), which also can contribute to a difficulty in achieving quick success! Someone posted about Einstein being dyslexic...he was also an avid billiards enthusiast. Mark Twain, one of the 19th century's foremost authors (and someone who was well versed on a huge variety of subjects) was a billiards addict (like most of us here)!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...


Of course it can go either way. Which way will it more often go?


Or do you really think it's dead even?



.
 
obclassicut said:
Two players have the same experience in pocket billiards which is none, One has double the IQ of the other player. They both go on the same practice regimen for one year: By how much would the progression of the higher IQ player exceed the others if the both had the same desire to improve?
Maybe this question cant be accurately answered or have any relevance to most of us but input is still appreciated.:)
Click to expand...


there is no correlation between IQ and pool knowledge. I have seen some very rudimentary people play very good and very smart people play bad. If anything(5% of the time) there is a inverse correlation between the 2, a simple open mind seems to hold up better in pool than a words polluted mind.

I have paid careful attention to this over the years.
 
Cornerman said:
I'm simply saying it was a thread recently. If I could find the thread, I'd link to it as there were probably a lot of replies that would apply to your question.

Personally, I think high IQ adds or detracts nothing of significance to learning this game. Billiard gods are equal opportunity in torture.

Freddie <~~~ being dumb didn't help or hert me
Click to expand...

My bad, thought you were telling me to not waste your time, haha. no hard feelings, im a little contentious on this site cause a small amount of the people are &^%$, like the above poster.
 
Last edited:
Fatboy said:
there is no correlation between IQ and pool knowledge. I have seen some very rudimentary people play very good and very smart people play bad. If anything(5% of the time) there is a inverse correlation between the 2, a simple open mind seems to hold up better in pool than a words polluted mind.

I have paid careful attention to this over the years.
Click to expand...


How do you know the IQ of the people you are talking about?

I think it is more likely you were incorrect about their IQs.


.
 
In general the IQ that most people refer to, the one assigned in school or derived by one of the usual IQ tests, is composed of two primary components.

1. The ability to learn in new situations (such as Raven Matrices).
2. An estimate of what the person has retained from exposure to our culture (education primarily).

When taken together they are an estimate of one’s ability to function in and benefit from the available resources. People with higher IQs are likely to be able to use their prior experience to learn more quickly. They are also able to pick up new things more quickly.

IQ can be thought of as the engine’s horsepower. Most of us have the standard 8 cylinder Chevy V8. It gets us down the road of life with few if any problems because we have structured our culture for the average engine.

Someone could have a Corvette engine that looks like hell because no one took care of it. The person might look, walk, and talk like your average redneck who begins his next adventure with, “Here hold my beer and watch this.”

Place this guy in most any environment where he is exposed to good opportunities and he has the motivation to succeed and he will graduate in about 1/4th the time it takes us lesser mortals.

Playing pool well requires average intelligence and above average hand eye coordination. I would think the latter is far more important.

BTW for those who can think of one instance where a high IQ person has some sort of limitation, it is well known that people with high IQs are better looking, more successful, have wider interests, and are even taller than the rest of us. Seems that in general they succeed in many ways. Sure you can find people with high IQs and deficiencies but if you want to know what they are really like go visit a few Physics departments where they list their faculty's interests and you will find that the average high IQ is way above average in many areas.

They are often rocket scientist, concert violinist, semi pro baseball player and members of the local charities and art associations.
 
Last edited:
Ok, replace IQ with "street smart"

obclassicut said:
OK, i forgot one thing. these players have the same physical make-up and ability( like twins with different brains) Intelligence and memory are correlated. I know for a fact memory is a huge factor in determining how fast a player will progress. You must remember what you have done wrong over and over. pool is kind of like guess and check so i thats why i was thinking the higher iq player would have an advantage. i could be off on this thats why i posted it, (uncertainty and curiosity):smile:

Also this theory is going on my assumption that iq and intelligence are affiliated, haha
Click to expand...
If we use "Street Smart" as the the measure of intelligence, I would expect that the top pool players would all be classified as "Genius". :D Well the old school road players anyway.:D
 
I simply wanted to see certain opinions on this subject, i have my own opinion on it. as you can see the consensus is split, which is not surprising considering the difference of intelligence of posters on this site. Why do i want opinions? because i believe certain people have natural ability to succeed in pool even with no experience and wanted to assure them of this so they they can have some confidence when approaching the table. Physical ability is key but intelligence a bonus that will help players progress at faster rates. needed some back up on this. Contrasting opinions have been given credit from me because they have some valid points. They have not wavered my belief though


rrick33 said:
I think that many here are reading far too much into the OP's proposition. I hear some interjecting all sorts of variables like the differnecses in measuring IQ or the intracacies of physical prowess opposed to those less talented and a dozen other options.

Simply put...all things being equal, except for IQ, which person would be more likely to progress at a faster rate.

Quite simply, the person with the higher potential for learning would have an advantage over the person with less potential.

We must also conclude that since IQ is just a number, then the measure of the IQ for each individual would also have been measured against the same standards since all things are equal except the resulting outcome.

We can assume that the person with the higher IQ has already demonstrated the ability to learn more quickly by virtue of a higher IQ, since all other variables are equal.

I think that if you don't look for all the odd variables and simply apply the OP's supposition that all things being equal other than IQ, you must conclude that the higher IQ would have advantages.

All this brings me to ask the question...since all things being equal is a key component of the initial question and eliminates all variables, the answer would seem to be quite apparent. So why ask this question...unless the goal was to prompt irrelivant variable debate? If that was the case, then the OP has suceeded.
Click to expand...
 
alstl said:
Do these two fictional players have the same ability? If so, I would take the one with the IQ. I've seen some very high level pool players who can barely spell or form a coherent sentence. I'll take the guy with the ability to become the better player but the guy with twice the IQ will probably have a more successful life and end up with more cash.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I remember about 10-15 years ago it was a TIME magazine issue where they collected the stories of the people with the highest IQ in the U.S.A. above 180
Only a couple of them had a success in life, most were like the society likes to call them " losers", some were still living in a basement with their parents during their 40s or 50s and some were homeless.
 
I had a related post not too long ago, it may be what cornerman was thinking of or something else entirely: Is it possible being a smart, analytical type can actually hold back your game?

-----------

In general, being smart is an advantage.

A smarter person can take limited existing information and squeeze new information out of it,
by making some logical deductions. A less intelligent person can learn the same information,
but it will either take longer for him to figure it out, or he may never get it without some external helper handing it to him.

I see some posters suggesting that an excess of brains is a problem, but they're making some big generalizations... like assuming the smart person is resistant to learning because they think they know it all, or the smart person will look for some shortcut to avoid hours of practice.

The question isn't "will a smart person with an obvious character flaw or bad attitude learn faster than a dumb person who lacks these flaws"... it's assuming all other things are equal.

A lot of these terms are just loaded with expectations - "High IQ", "Smart", "dumb" "Street smarts" etc. I shouldn't even be using "smart" and "high IQ" interchangeably.

IQ is basically a test score, and not everyone agrees on how it should be tested, and whether it's a useful way to predict how successful you'll be in life. There's a book called Emotional Intelligence that deals with this topic. Attitude and maturity have so much more to do with success than whether you can visualize how a 3d box would look unfolded, or whether you can spot the pattern in a series of colored circles.

To answer your question, the higher IQ guy should learn faster but nobody can put a percentage on it. Having double the IQ isn't enough information... are we talking 100 vs 200? Or 60 vs. 30? Huge difference.

PS:
A little editorializing:
Don't worry too much about rehashing old threads. Old topics are 98% of AZB posts. But new people sign up and give new perspectives, and the game/equipment/etc. changes too.

Scolding newbies for reposts, or failing to search, is a time-honored tradition on the internet. It's been around since the days of usenet and even BBSes. And after many years of it, I find the scolding (whether polite, like cornerman... or nasty like black-balled) is much more tiresome than seeing a popular topic revisited.

It's not like the question is even that common, it's not exactly "should I buy a low deflection shaft?" or "which chalk is best?". In any case, props to you for handling it pretty well. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
madmiller said:
Not necessarily. I remember about 10-15 years ago it was a TIME magazine issue where they collected the stories of the people with the highest IQ in the U.S.A. above 180
Only a couple of them had a success in life, most were like the society likes to call them " losers", some were still living in a basement with their parents during their 40s or 50s and some were homeless.
Click to expand...


Interesting Time article. Obviously popular journalism and not a peer reviewed journal.


Invariably you will find the brightest tend toward the head of any particular field. That is simply true.


That there are very bright people who do not succeed is obvious. But do you think most 40 year olds living in their parents' basement are geniuses? :rolleyes:

Do you think most bright people live in their parents basement? :confused:


:wink:


.
 
CreeDo said:
I had a related post not too long ago, it may be what cornerman was thinking of or something else entirely: Is it possible being a smart, analytical type can actually hold back your game?

-----------

In general, being smart is an advantage.

A smarter person can take limited existing information and squeeze new information out of it,
by making some logical deductions. A less intelligent person can learn the same information,
but it will either take longer for him to figure it out, or he may never get it without some external helper handing it to him.

I see some posters suggesting that an excess of brains is a problem, but they're making some big generalizations... like assuming the smart person is resistant to learning because they think they know it all, or the smart person will look for some shortcut to avoid hours of practice.

The question isn't "will a smart person with an obvious character flaw or bad attitude learn faster than a dumb person who lacks these flaws"... it's assuming all other things are equal.

A lot of these terms are just loaded with expectations - "High IQ", "Smart", "dumb" "Street smarts" etc. I shouldn't even be using "smart" and "high IQ" interchangeably.

IQ is basically a test score, and not everyone agrees on how it should be tested, and whether it's a useful way to predict how successful you'll be in life. There's a book called Emotional Intelligence that deals with this topic. Attitude and maturity have so much more to do with success than whether you can visualize how a 3d box would look unfolded, or whether you can spot the pattern in a series of colored circles.

To answer your question, the higher IQ guy should learn faster but nobody can put a percentage on it. Having double the IQ isn't enough information... are we talking 100 vs 200? Or 60 vs. 30? Huge difference.

PS:
A little editorializing:
Don't worry too much about rehashing old threads. Old topics are 98% of AZB posts. But new people sign up and give new perspectives, and the game/equipment/etc. changes too.

Scolding newbies for reposts, or failing to search, is a time-honored tradition on the internet. It's been around since the days of usenet and even BBSes. And after many years of it, I find the scolding (whether polite, like cornerman... or nasty like black-balled) is much more tiresome than seeing a popular topic revisited.

It's not like the question is even that common, it's not exactly "should I buy a low deflection shaft?" or "which chalk is best?". In any case, props to you for handling it pretty well. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Thanks man. I agree that IQ might not be the exact term i was looking for but everyone gets the idea. Shot making ability has less to do with intelligence than the problems solved on the pool table with the shot making ability. Always here people say that pool has nothing to do with intelligence. idk about that. running a table usually involves some problem solving but not always. shooting is physical,( for the most part, feed-forward image) finding the best way to take those shots to make the run the absolute easiest is where intelligence will take you a long way. Ihave seen some amazing shot makers that lose on a regular basis because they dont know how to solve the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top