It would be interesting to see some intelligence metrics of:
CEOs of big companies
CEOs of startups
College Professors
Computer Programmers
Doctors
Chemical Engineers
And decide if the CEOs you are talking about are more intelligent (IQ measure) than all the other groups mentioned above. If the mean IQ of CEOs is not more than the mean IQ of say Doctors, then yes, it is legitimate for people to feel that the CEOs don’t deserve to be where they are and feel a bit bitter about it. I don’t think a story depicting say a neurosurgeon being happy, healthy, lively, tall (who cares?) and rich is unpalatable to the ‘masses’. What bugs people is to know that some guy whose competence is not apparent, who is a CEO, has a private jet.
I don’t understand why it’s something you should ‘fix’.
IQ isn’t good enough. It’s not the only talent required to lead. People have to want to work for you and see your vision. I believe leadership ability and charisma should reasonably be considered aspects of intelligence, but they’re not the type that would show up on an IQ test.
IQ isn’t good enough. It’s not the only talent required to lead. People have to want to work for you and see your vision. I believe leadership ability and charisma should reasonably be considered aspects of intelligence, but they’re not the type that would show up on an IQ test.
Some component of both leadership ability and charisma will show up in an IQ test. IQ helps for those things. There will just be a somewhat weaker correlation between IQ and measures specific to ‘leadership ability’ and ‘charisma’ than there is between IQ and measures of mathematical ability. Most significantly because height and facial symmetry aren’t directly useful for solving equations.
The correlation between IQ and leadership is absolutely there, because some baseline IQ is a prerequisite for reasonable leadership ability. You can’t lead without basic logic abilities or some ability to see patterns, and I would consider leadership and charisma as aspects of intelligence. I made that comment elsewhere in reply to a different comment. However, neither is easy to measure objectively, and these abilities are not measured on an IQ test. It is very possible to have a genius-level IQ and be awful with people.
I would possibly even go farther. I would guess that high IQ people are likely to be closer to the extrema of leadership skills than the general population. Intelligent people who are naturally good with people can apply their intelligence to improving their people skills, and bring themselves closer to the higher extreme. Meanwhile, those closer to the lower extreme are probably more likely than the average person to throw themselves into projects they are good at and decide social interactions are a waste of their time.
That second paragraph is entirely speculation and I have no data to back it up, however, I think the point that while there is some correlation, it is not strong, and that more data would be useful in the original study proposed, is valid.
To a degree, charisma can be learned. Yes, there are some people with natural advantages (height, symmetrical face); but Napoleon is still revered as a leader, despite being famously short.
The right clothes, the right posture, the right attitude, and you could probably persuade most people to do just about anything that doesn’t have immediate negative effects on them (you could probably even persuade some people to do things that do have minor immediate negative effects).
Take a look at the Real Life section on this tvtropes page for examples...
The Napoleon complex is named after Emperor Napoleon I of France. The conventional wisdom is that Napoleon compensated for his lack of height by seeking power, war and conquest. However, Napoleon was actually above average height for his time period; the average 18th century Frenchman stood at 5 ft 3 in (1.6 m).[3] Historians have now suggested Napoleon was 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) tall. Napoleon was often seen with his Imperial Guard, which contributed to the perception of his being short because the Imperial Guards were above average height.
More detail, including confusion possibly caused by English and French inches being different sizes.
Interesting. The man most famous for being a short leader may not have been as short as he’s rumoured to have been.
Despite the fact that I seem to have picked a bad example, there are still a number of short leaders in history; height is a factor, and perhaps an important one, but hardly the only one. There’s a list of a few short Russian leaders over here—and, incidentally, if one puts “Lenin height” into Google, Google will actually display Lenin’s height above the search results. (Google’s heights indicate that the heights on the Yahoo question seem to be a few centimetres short—Lenin was 165cm according to Google, Stalin was 173cm, Putin was 165cm. No result shown for Kruschev.) Average male height in Russia, around 2006-2008, seems to be 176.2cm.
And all of them are tall compared to Benito Juárez, the shortest world leader ever at 137cm, or 4ft 6in.
Yes, there are some people with natural advantages (height, symmetrical face); but Napoleon is still revered as a leader, despite being famously short.
My understanding is that Napoleon’s shortness is a myth. His height was above the average for a Frenchman at the time.
Absolutely. That is the reason for the speculation I provided in the second paragraph. Innate ability is also a large factor, and I think, while improving your charisma is useful for anyone, some intelligent people, primarily those without as much natural ability, pass this up as “not of value”.
It would be interesting to see some intelligence metrics of:
CEOs of big companies
CEOs of startups
College Professors
Computer Programmers
Doctors
Chemical Engineers
And decide if the CEOs you are talking about are more intelligent (IQ measure) than all the other groups mentioned above. If the mean IQ of CEOs is not more than the mean IQ of say Doctors, then yes, it is legitimate for people to feel that the CEOs don’t deserve to be where they are and feel a bit bitter about it. I don’t think a story depicting say a neurosurgeon being happy, healthy, lively, tall (who cares?) and rich is unpalatable to the ‘masses’. What bugs people is to know that some guy whose competence is not apparent, who is a CEO, has a private jet.
I don’t understand why it’s something you should ‘fix’.
IQ isn’t good enough. It’s not the only talent required to lead. People have to want to work for you and see your vision. I believe leadership ability and charisma should reasonably be considered aspects of intelligence, but they’re not the type that would show up on an IQ test.
Some component of both leadership ability and charisma will show up in an IQ test. IQ helps for those things. There will just be a somewhat weaker correlation between IQ and measures specific to ‘leadership ability’ and ‘charisma’ than there is between IQ and measures of mathematical ability. Most significantly because height and facial symmetry aren’t directly useful for solving equations.
The correlation between IQ and leadership is absolutely there, because some baseline IQ is a prerequisite for reasonable leadership ability. You can’t lead without basic logic abilities or some ability to see patterns, and I would consider leadership and charisma as aspects of intelligence. I made that comment elsewhere in reply to a different comment. However, neither is easy to measure objectively, and these abilities are not measured on an IQ test. It is very possible to have a genius-level IQ and be awful with people.
I would possibly even go farther. I would guess that high IQ people are likely to be closer to the extrema of leadership skills than the general population. Intelligent people who are naturally good with people can apply their intelligence to improving their people skills, and bring themselves closer to the higher extreme. Meanwhile, those closer to the lower extreme are probably more likely than the average person to throw themselves into projects they are good at and decide social interactions are a waste of their time.
That second paragraph is entirely speculation and I have no data to back it up, however, I think the point that while there is some correlation, it is not strong, and that more data would be useful in the original study proposed, is valid.
To a degree, charisma can be learned. Yes, there are some people with natural advantages (height, symmetrical face); but Napoleon is still revered as a leader, despite being famously short.
The right clothes, the right posture, the right attitude, and you could probably persuade most people to do just about anything that doesn’t have immediate negative effects on them (you could probably even persuade some people to do things that do have minor immediate negative effects).
Take a look at the Real Life section on this tvtropes page for examples...
Napoleon wasn’t short
More detail, including confusion possibly caused by English and French inches being different sizes.
Interesting. The man most famous for being a short leader may not have been as short as he’s rumoured to have been.
Despite the fact that I seem to have picked a bad example, there are still a number of short leaders in history; height is a factor, and perhaps an important one, but hardly the only one. There’s a list of a few short Russian leaders over here—and, incidentally, if one puts “Lenin height” into Google, Google will actually display Lenin’s height above the search results. (Google’s heights indicate that the heights on the Yahoo question seem to be a few centimetres short—Lenin was 165cm according to Google, Stalin was 173cm, Putin was 165cm. No result shown for Kruschev.) Average male height in Russia, around 2006-2008, seems to be 176.2cm.
And all of them are tall compared to Benito Juárez, the shortest world leader ever at 137cm, or 4ft 6in.
My understanding is that Napoleon’s shortness is a myth. His height was above the average for a Frenchman at the time.
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5519/was-napoleon-as-short-as-common-knowledge-states
Absolutely. That is the reason for the speculation I provided in the second paragraph. Innate ability is also a large factor, and I think, while improving your charisma is useful for anyone, some intelligent people, primarily those without as much natural ability, pass this up as “not of value”.