IQ and deep meditation

[Jhanananda]

Having a high IQ and discovering deep meditation might be related.  I happen to score in the top .1% of the human IQ bell curve.  While I knew that my IQ was above 145 during my freshman year of high school; nonetheless, I did not know until recently that my IQ was in the  top .1% of the human IQ bell curve. If I did my career would have been much different.  I also happen to be a polymath.

The point here is I stumbled across the deep meditation experience in my first year of taking up a contemplative life more than 40 years ago; whereas, most people who practice meditation never find the deep meditation experience.  Thus, I believe it is reasonable to consider that possibly all of the people who stumble upon the deep meditation experience might be geniuses.  So, it would be very useful if those posting their case histories here also posted their IQ, if you are comfortable with doing so.

An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence...When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less...By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores an IQ between 85 and 115, and about 5 percent of the population scores above 125...IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[32][33][34][35][36] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points...The correlation between IQ test results and achievement test results is about 0.7.

2.1% of the population scores above 130, and 1% of the population scores above 140 and .1% of the population scores above 145. 

Related concepts are genius and polymath.

A genius is a person who displays exceptional superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge. A scholar in many subjects or a scholar in a single subject may be referred to as a genius.[1] There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.

A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, "having learned much")[1] is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. The term was first used in the seventeenth century; the related term, polyhistor, is an ancient term with similar meaning.[2]

The term is often used to describe great thinkers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment who excelled at several fields in science and the arts. In the Italian Renaissance, the idea of the polymath was expressed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472), in the statement that "a man can do all things if he will."[3] Embodying a basic tenet of Renaissance humanism that humans are limitless in their capacity for development, the concept led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible. This was expressed in the term "Renaissance man" which is often applied to the gifted people of that age who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social and physical. This term entered the lexicon during the twentieth century and has now been applied to great thinkers living before and after the Renaissance.

"Renaissance man" was first recorded in written English in the early 20th century.[4] It is now used to refer to great thinkers living before, during, or after the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance man, a man of "unquenchable curiosity" and "feverishly inventive imagination".[5]

Many notable polymaths lived during the Renaissance period, a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through to the 17th century and that began in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spread to the rest of Europe. These polymaths had a rounded approach to education that reflected the ideals of the humanists of the time. A gentleman or courtier of that era was expected to speak several languages, play a musical instrument, write poetry, and so on, thus fulfilling the Renaissance ideal. The idea of a universal education was essential to achieving polymath ability, hence the word university was used to describe a seat of learning. At this time universities did not specialize in specific areas but rather trained students in a broad array of science, philosophy, and theology. This universal education gave them a grounding from which they could continue into apprenticeship toward becoming a Master of a specific field.

[bodhimind]

I can attest to being a polymath as well. My IQ is 140 on a fluid-intelligence test (raven progressive matrices) and 145 on a Cattell test. Perhaps it could be possible to look at past polymath geniuses such as Leonardo Da Vinci (200+), Albert Einstein (160),  Descartes (180), Isaac Newton (190), Charles Dickens (145), Galileo (145), etc... (I would not trust the actual values though, since most of them are probably guessed.)

I can't help but remember Einstein's words:

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”

"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."

"The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man."

What do you think? Einstein sounds like a mystic... with Buddhist ideals at that. I do not know if they are bogus quotes, but if they are true, it might add to the hypothesis. Da Vinci's work is also inspiration-based in a way. I find like all of them seem to have had intuitive insight at a certain point.

[Jhanananda]

We have discussed geniuses and polymaths being possible mystics here before.  The quotes from Einstein are very probably apocryphal.

Both my father and his father had IQs around 145, and my grandfather was a polymath; however, there is nothing in the family history about either of them to suggest that they were mystics.  In fact my father was an atheist until about 2 years before his death, when he became a born-again Christian.  If anything they should tell you my father took a moron's approach to religion.

The history of the major geniuses also shows that many of them had very unhealthy relationships with their families of origin.  Wolfgang Mozart comes to mind.

I too had a very unhealthy relationship with my family of origin.  I was abused constantly throughout my childhood.  My father did nothing to help me; and I came to find after his death that he had made a career out of hijacking my career, even up to his death.  I now realize that he was behind most of the abuses that I encountered at the hands of my family of origin from birth to the present.

So, we have to conclude that just being a genius does not make one a mystic.  On the other hand, I believe it might be true that the major mystics of the world might very well have been geniuses.  After all, the earliest example of logic and critical thinking is in the Pali Canon.  Since logic and critical thinking typifies geniuses, then we can use the Pali Canon as reasonable proof that Siddhartha Gautama was most probably a genius.

[Alexander]

I think the greatest manifestation of real intelligence is to see life as a problem: and one that has to have a solution. If the world is just, there must be a way to escape.

I remember reading a quote from the Maharshi's life: that when he was an adolescent in school, he reacted one time to his brother studying. He asked, "What is the point of it?" In context, his brother thought how ignorant the Maharshi was. But, that was ironic. Rather, the question was evidence of how intelligent the Maharshi was at that young age: and how far he surpassed his brother. At 15 or 16 he knew what the only reasonable approach to life was.

What the young Maharshi meant was: "If we're subject to aging, sickness, pain, dissatisfaction, failure, death... if life is so short, if we're so limited and frail and unimportant... why are you spending this time studying? What value is worldly knowledge? What value is title, wealth, or education? The only sensible thing is to dedicate all one's time/energy to the spirit, and to hope there is a way out."

The facts of life are there for everyone... but few react to them in an intelligent way.

[Jhanananda]

I think the greatest manifestation of real intelligence is to see life as a problem: and one that has to have a solution. If the world is just, there must be a way to escape.

I remember reading a quote from the Maharshi's life: that when he was an adolescent in school, he reacted one time to his brother studying. He asked, "What is the point of it?" In context, his brother thought how ignorant the Maharshi was. But, that was ironic. Rather, the question was evidence of how intelligent the Maharshi was at that young age: and how far he surpassed his brother. At 15 or 16 he knew what the only reasonable approach to life was.

What the young Maharshi meant was:

"If we're subject to aging, sickness, pain, dissatisfaction, failure, death... if life is so short, if we're so limited and frail and unimportant... why are you spending this time studying? What value is worldly knowledge? What value is title, wealth, or education? The only sensible thing is to dedicate all one's time/energy to the spirit, and to hope there is a way out."

The facts of life are there for everyone... but few react to them in an intelligent way.

Yes, I agree.  We are all running after name, fame, power and wealth, but all we end up with is death.  So why pursue the 7 deadly sins?  instead let us live our lives in bliss, joy, and ecstasy.

[Jhanon]

Between 138 and 143--depending on test. I am unsure if I could be considered a polymath, but I can say that THESE DAYS almost anything I find interesting I catch onto rapidly. It seems to be related to the nature of intuitive insight, and seeing the recurring patterns in life.

I have the rough IQ's (memory) of other mystics in my local area which are between 134-150. I know some who can access 1st-2nd jhana with guidance, but are below 134.

I was actually just talking about this the other day. Not every genius is a mystic, but every mystic whom I know the IQ of is a genius.

Interestingly, I am finding that an IQ beyond 130-150 usually results in too much intellectualizing and I have yet to meet a 150+ mystic. "Middle-way" is my simplistic explanation for that.

Lastly, although I endured a lot of physical/emotional abuse and family dysfunction in the first 2/3rds of life, I have been able to unite most of my family, including extended family. About 40 percent are proto-mystic, and 20 are mystic. Once I unpacked that 60 percent's terminology (because I wanted to understand them), and subsequently helped them see their commonality, they became very close and functional.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Jhanon, for contributing more data points to the hypothesis that there might be a correlation between IQ and mysticism.  I would hold off on any assumption that IQs in the upper .1 percentile result in too much intellectualization, and therefore a mid-range IQ is better, because we only have 3 data points for now, and finding enough people in the upper .1 percentile of the IQ range to make any assumption should be quite difficult. 

We just need to focus on the mystics, and find out their IQs.  If we find that a statistically significant group of mystics have above average IQs, then we have something of significance to record.

[Anatta]

To add to a data point, my IQ is 135 on official IQ tests.

However, to really get a scientifically unbiased study, one would have to collect a random sample of all mystics.  And of course, doing so would be quite difficult.  So for now, we have this convenience sample from the GWV.

Because the GWV appeals to those who enjoy discourse, it may be that more intellectual and therefore conventionally intelligent mystics happen to land here.    It may also be true (though probably much less true here) that those of lower intelligence may not feel as comfortable posting their score, if they know it.

It may be interesting to know that there are multiple intelligences that are measured, such as emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and so on.  Some theorists call for a spiritual (or existential) intelligence, though they have not yet developed a valid tool to measure it, as so far they can only rely on self-reporting of specific internal behaviors and experiences.

[Jhanananda]

To add to a data point, my IQ is 135 on official IQ tests.

Thank-you, Anatta, for providing us with another data point in favor of the premise.

However, to really get a scientifically unbiased study, one would have to collect a random sample of all mystics.  And of course, doing so would be quite difficult.  So for now, we have this convenience sample from the GWV.

Random sampling will not work for studying mystics, because mystics are not randomly available.  To make this study more useful we would need to test the IQ of every subject in the study ourselves.

Because the GWV appeals to those who enjoy discourse, it may be that more intellectual and therefore conventionally intelligent mystics happen to land here.

   
This might be quite true, but we do receive a fair number of case histories from people who never otherwise post.  I am not sure if we could argue that they have less intellectually acuity.  I believe it would be better to say that mystics tend to shy away from dialog of any kind, and especially intellectualism.

It may also be true (though probably much less true here) that those of lower intelligence may not feel as comfortable posting their score, if they know it.

This is a good point.  We can only rely upon honesty, but I suppose for the most part we will only receive IQ scores from those who have a high IQ score.  I do have a premise that anyone can become a mystic, but it is the geniuses who stumble naturally upon mysticism.

It may be interesting to know that there are multiple intelligences that are measured, such as emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and so on.  Some theorists call for a spiritual (or existential) intelligence, though they have not yet developed a valid tool to measure it, as so far they can only rely on self-reporting of specific internal behaviors and experiences.

Good point, if we had IQ scores for all of the above measured intelligences, then that might be more useful.  However, the problem with measuring spiritual intelligence is the psychiatric and religious communities have only proven that they are completely clueless as to what is "spiritual," if we consider that being a mystic is being spiritual.

[Sam Lim]

I don't think I have a high IQ. I have never had a full education. Only had 10 years of education and the rest is life education.

[Michel]

Back in the mid-seventies the psychiatrist decided I should have an IQ test. He was probably wondering why I was stupid enough to see a psychiatrist in the first place. So I presented myself to the psychologist for testing. I found the experience totally unpleasant. I resented being defined by a test. I got the whole nine-yards complete with the stop watch to measure my speed and a Rorschach test to top it all. According to their test I was labelled as being bright. They didn't tell me what the score was . I swore I would never submit to such a test again.

How do you define intelligence? I would say that intelligence is knowing what is worth pursuing.

I like to learn things on my own and I excel at certain creative things like original musical composition, building classical guitars, carving and sculpturing 3-d objects, and was good at calculus. I have a good eye for what is beautiful. Some of these things are not represented in an IQ test. I never went beyond high school. Unfortunately, I can't say I am gifted at meditation like most of you here. But I'm a genius at diligence and patience. 

[Jhanananda]

I am certain that both you, Michel, and gandarloda are geniuses.  A genius learns by doing, and does not need a formal education.

[Anatta]

I don't think I have a high IQ. I have never had a full education. Only had 10 years of education and the rest is life education.

Gandarloda, the theory of IQ is that it is the mind's capacity to learn, not what it has learned from being afforded certain educational privileges.  People who have had no formal education at all can be geniuses.  However, the people who develop IQ tests have doctorate-level educations, so naturally, they unwittingly skew their tests somewhat in favor of a traditional formal education.

If you can keep up here, you are most likely at least above average in IQ, and if you have had little formal education and can still keep up, then you are probably more than above average.  So while I do not know you, evidence makes me agree with Jhananda's assessment of your intellect as a genius.

[Sam Lim]

Gandarloda, the theory of IQ is that it is the mind's capacity to learn, not what it has learned from being afforded certain educational privileges.  People who have had no formal education at all can be geniuses.  However, the people who develop IQ tests have doctorate-level educations, so naturally, they unwittingly skew their tests somewhat in favor of a traditional formal education

I get bored easily. I don't like repetition and I find it very irritating. I learn everything very fast though. Lots of people told me that I am very intelligent even at a young age and I am not very young now. I don't really think that intelligence is that important as other qualities like diligence and patience as Michel have mentioned is equally important or more so. I don't think I am intelligent anyway. I said this not out of humility but due to the understanding that one quality does not make you know how to survive in any situation and it takes a lot more.

I have a friend who only had 5 years of education. He doesn't read or write well but he is successful in his chosen field and he has never deviate from it. Others who are much more educated and intelligent does not fare as well. I am currently helping to do all his paperwork for his company. He treats me very well. He loves me. (I love him like a son even though he is my age) He is married with 2 kids all quite grown up now. He is my age. He gives me money every month.

All in all, intelligence does not make you a good person either. It takes much more. It would be very arrogant to say that mystic are more intelligent than lay people. It might be good for the ego but it might not be true.

[Jhanananda]

I get bored easily. I don't like repetition and I find it very irritating. I learn everything very fast though. Lots of people told me that I am very intelligent even at a young age and I am not very young now. I don't really think that intelligence is that important as other qualities like diligence and patience as Michel have mentioned is equally important or more so. I don't think I am intelligent anyway. I said this not out of humility but due to the understanding that one quality does not make you know how to survive in any situation and it takes a lot more.

It is a fact about geniuses that they get bored easily, and they often have low grades due to lack of attention span.  For most of them the learning rate in school is just too slow, so they would rather study on their own, and only the subjects that interest them.  I found that true for myself.

I have a friend who only had 5 years of education. He doesn't read or write well but he is successful in his chosen field and he has never deviate from it. Others who are much more educated and intelligent does not fare as well. I am currently helping to do all his paperwork for his company. He treats me very well. He loves me. (I love him like a son even though he is my age) He is married with 2 kids all quite grown up now. He is my age. He gives me money every month.

Another aspect of geniuses is they generally do not get wealthy, because they generally do not seek wealth.  Instead they are busy doing what interests them, and that is often the acquisition of knowledge.

All in all, intelligence does not make you a good person either. It takes much more. It would be very arrogant to say that mystic are more intelligent than lay people. It might be good for the ego but it might not be true.

I agree, IQ does not make one a mystic either.  Steven Hawkins comes to mind as someone who is generally regarded as intelligent, but he is no contemplative, nor mystic.

First, the term 'lay' in English just means someone who is not of the priesthood.  Therefore, I am a layperson, even though I have been a monk for more than 15 years now. 

Thus, I have to disagree on your premise that it is arrogant to say that mystics are more intelligent than lay people.  I could be wrong, because I am just collecting data now, but it is starting to look like mystics might just have a higher IQ.  We just do not know until there is more data.  However, Siddhartha Gautama was no doubt a genius, because the Pali canon clearly shows he used logic and critical thinking to express his teaching.  The Pali canon is the earliest example of logic and critical thinking.  Socrates also used logic and critical thinking to express his philosophy, and he appears to have been a mystic.  And, we have had a few people here post case histories that demonstrate that they are mystics; and they claim to have IQs in the top 1%. Therefore, the evidence is mounting in support of my premise.