I work in a large, high-IQ organisation. I am now on a project team with about a dozen people I’d never worked before. We are quite similar in terms of age, role in organisation, educational level. You’d assume something like a 115-135 IQ range.
But I struggle to tell from interactions alone where people would fall on an IQ scale. Bachelor’s degree is actually the best clue and the smartest two on the team are probably those with computer science and maths respectively. These two are probably also the best able to challenge some shaky assumptions that are underpinning the whole project.
However the most objectively successful in the team are the midwits. They have some imposter syndrome concerning their own intelligence and compensate via conscientious and obedience to management, no matter how silly the instruction. The midwits create neologisms to confuse everyone. They skirt around key design questions even though project implementation will be harder, even though it will still be on their plate in a year’s time. However the midwits are the ones producing the result that management wants! Many of the midwits will go far within the organisation. The high-IQ types have their uses, but their inate scepticism and ability to engage in higher-order thinking is often not what is in demand.
“…that “midwit” has to some extent degraded into a generic term of derision.”
Midwit here. Ever since I read the initial description in one of Dutton’s books a few years ago, I’ve been confused. With apologies, after this article still am. I simply have an impossible time analyzing my behavioral characteristics as associated with my IQ, which has been consistently in the 90th percentile since HS. I don’t pretend to be a genius, but what I have got me to the PhD level. Never had a problem with being the “dumbest guy in the room” when at university. Best I can figure is there seems a very tenuous connection with IQ and those negative behavioral characteristics a “normal”, bright person would wish not to be associated with. On the other hand, your article was perhaps the most positive portrayal of us “poor midwits” I’ve encountered. Thanks. ;-)
Midwits don't admit to being Midwits. Certainly don't pretend to wear it as a badge of (dis)honor. Perhaps what you truly are is a borderline Midwit. A castaway of both divides.
Regarding the Wisconsin data, even if an HLvM pattern of political identification did exist, it wouldn't necessarily reflect a miscalculation of "wits." It's not that midwits have Dunning-Kruger and are wrongly voting for Republicans, but that they accurately understand that a low tax environment is economically beneficial, since the middle class is the most affected by taxes. Those who are less intelligent benefit from high taxes, and those who are highly intelligent can avoid taxation. Midwits are not incorrectly calculating their interests by being overly pedantic, but are following them rationally. There are many other issues at play than taxes, but I think the pattern holds on feminism, affirmative action, and immigration.
I agree that midwit is an insult against those who act pedantically and seek status, regardless of their actual intelligence. It describes someone who invests heavily in their credentials and waves them around, rather than letting their intelligence or material accomplishments speak for themselves.
Regarding Kaltenbrunner: he had a dueling scar on his face (very high status among the Nazis) and was extremely handsome and 6'4", the tallest Nazi leader. He was also an Austrian who led a hunger strike of Nazis against Dollfuss, which was important for the Anschluss. He was a revolutionary who took orders even under extreme duress. The fact that he was considered elite demonstrates that Himmler's organizational strategy prioritized obedience over competence, which was validated in the case of Admiral Canaris.
I am skeptical of the idea that sub-120s seldom become politically eminent. The Nazi sample did only have 3 sub-120s, but that’s still around 15% of the sample, in a small sample mind you. I know that studies predicting presidential IQs have concluded that a lot of them are sub-120, but they probably aren’t as reliable.
I would say 115 is the convenient upper bound of midwittery. It is a nice clean standard deviation from the mean, it’s a round number, and it’s around the point where men begin to outnumber women at IQ percentiles. If midwittery is a real observation, it’s probably just an observation of how women act.
The vidya example is a good one. My brother grew up with gifted friends. I am sure he’s above average in intelligence, but I don’t think he’s gifted or anything like that. He was sometimes upset about how he was not good at video games while his friends were, even though he played very often.
I’ve been in and around minor politicians professionally. I have sometimes seen their eyes glaze over when counterfactuals and hypotheticals are brought up. Likewise for things like the difference between a level and a growth rate. They just can’t process them. So I think something like 120 IQ is a kind of soft floor for political eminence.
For sure dumb and average people often get into high office but there are various checkpoints along the way where they can be stopped or sidetracked.
I would say "midwit" refers less to people who "understand the material but can't add to it", and more to people who "don't understand the material but insist you don't add to it". Someone who argues the "expert opinion" by actually making the arguments the experts make is a lot different from someone who argues the expert opinion by saying "it's the expert opinion". A lot of the people in the former category do fall into the latter category as they get older and maybe lose some of their wit, but a lot of highly intelligent people also act this way with subjects they don't care about.
Being a midwit is more of a character problem than anything else
I could just reduce it to poor abductive reasoning, but that's surely just a part of the larger problem of character
In esotericist terms, it's being unable to shed the ego and instead perceive raw signal away from noise, whether that of baser desires or of categorical imperatives and epicycle churning
“Can think in a complex and detail-oriented manner, but find it difficult to judge when this is the right way to tackle a problem. This is where I think the spirit of the midwit meme comes through, that a midwit will not know when to scale the complexity of a solution to the problem involved, but that highly intelligent and unintelligent people will arrive at a similar solution if the problem involved has a very simple solution. “ common example in your view?
How leaders react when presented with problematic subordinates:
Midwit: "We need to understand their exact personalities, work and home environments, family matters, and how they relate to other subordinates and managers first before we continue fixing them, this is a very complex problem
(I don't actually understand how to solve it but there must be many things going on that we need to figure them out first before we proceed to the next decision)"
Dimwit: "Just instill more discipline through reward and punishment
(based on my experience, it works)"
Highwit: "Just instill more discipline through reward and punishment
(based on my understanding of operant conditioning, it works)"
I work in a large, high-IQ organisation. I am now on a project team with about a dozen people I’d never worked before. We are quite similar in terms of age, role in organisation, educational level. You’d assume something like a 115-135 IQ range.
But I struggle to tell from interactions alone where people would fall on an IQ scale. Bachelor’s degree is actually the best clue and the smartest two on the team are probably those with computer science and maths respectively. These two are probably also the best able to challenge some shaky assumptions that are underpinning the whole project.
However the most objectively successful in the team are the midwits. They have some imposter syndrome concerning their own intelligence and compensate via conscientious and obedience to management, no matter how silly the instruction. The midwits create neologisms to confuse everyone. They skirt around key design questions even though project implementation will be harder, even though it will still be on their plate in a year’s time. However the midwits are the ones producing the result that management wants! Many of the midwits will go far within the organisation. The high-IQ types have their uses, but their inate scepticism and ability to engage in higher-order thinking is often not what is in demand.
I would assume openess and extraversion and low neuroticism boost productivity in high iq people
Extraversion helps with convincing other people that your work is valuable, rather than making more work itself.
“…that “midwit” has to some extent degraded into a generic term of derision.”
Midwit here. Ever since I read the initial description in one of Dutton’s books a few years ago, I’ve been confused. With apologies, after this article still am. I simply have an impossible time analyzing my behavioral characteristics as associated with my IQ, which has been consistently in the 90th percentile since HS. I don’t pretend to be a genius, but what I have got me to the PhD level. Never had a problem with being the “dumbest guy in the room” when at university. Best I can figure is there seems a very tenuous connection with IQ and those negative behavioral characteristics a “normal”, bright person would wish not to be associated with. On the other hand, your article was perhaps the most positive portrayal of us “poor midwits” I’ve encountered. Thanks. ;-)
> 90th percentile
That's more or less the bound at which people stop being midwits. Hard bounds rarely occur in psychology.
And I appreciate it.
Midwits don't admit to being Midwits. Certainly don't pretend to wear it as a badge of (dis)honor. Perhaps what you truly are is a borderline Midwit. A castaway of both divides.
I refer my understanding to Dutton’s writings (or video) where he pegs midwittery at an IQ somewhere around 120-125. I deemed that fairly high.
Regarding the Wisconsin data, even if an HLvM pattern of political identification did exist, it wouldn't necessarily reflect a miscalculation of "wits." It's not that midwits have Dunning-Kruger and are wrongly voting for Republicans, but that they accurately understand that a low tax environment is economically beneficial, since the middle class is the most affected by taxes. Those who are less intelligent benefit from high taxes, and those who are highly intelligent can avoid taxation. Midwits are not incorrectly calculating their interests by being overly pedantic, but are following them rationally. There are many other issues at play than taxes, but I think the pattern holds on feminism, affirmative action, and immigration.
I agree that midwit is an insult against those who act pedantically and seek status, regardless of their actual intelligence. It describes someone who invests heavily in their credentials and waves them around, rather than letting their intelligence or material accomplishments speak for themselves.
Regarding Kaltenbrunner: he had a dueling scar on his face (very high status among the Nazis) and was extremely handsome and 6'4", the tallest Nazi leader. He was also an Austrian who led a hunger strike of Nazis against Dollfuss, which was important for the Anschluss. He was a revolutionary who took orders even under extreme duress. The fact that he was considered elite demonstrates that Himmler's organizational strategy prioritized obedience over competence, which was validated in the case of Admiral Canaris.
I am skeptical of the idea that sub-120s seldom become politically eminent. The Nazi sample did only have 3 sub-120s, but that’s still around 15% of the sample, in a small sample mind you. I know that studies predicting presidential IQs have concluded that a lot of them are sub-120, but they probably aren’t as reliable.
I would say 115 is the convenient upper bound of midwittery. It is a nice clean standard deviation from the mean, it’s a round number, and it’s around the point where men begin to outnumber women at IQ percentiles. If midwittery is a real observation, it’s probably just an observation of how women act.
The vidya example is a good one. My brother grew up with gifted friends. I am sure he’s above average in intelligence, but I don’t think he’s gifted or anything like that. He was sometimes upset about how he was not good at video games while his friends were, even though he played very often.
I’ve been in and around minor politicians professionally. I have sometimes seen their eyes glaze over when counterfactuals and hypotheticals are brought up. Likewise for things like the difference between a level and a growth rate. They just can’t process them. So I think something like 120 IQ is a kind of soft floor for political eminence.
For sure dumb and average people often get into high office but there are various checkpoints along the way where they can be stopped or sidetracked.
You’ve been in minor politicians? 🤨🚨
I would say "midwit" refers less to people who "understand the material but can't add to it", and more to people who "don't understand the material but insist you don't add to it". Someone who argues the "expert opinion" by actually making the arguments the experts make is a lot different from someone who argues the expert opinion by saying "it's the expert opinion". A lot of the people in the former category do fall into the latter category as they get older and maybe lose some of their wit, but a lot of highly intelligent people also act this way with subjects they don't care about.
Being a midwit is more of a character problem than anything else
I could just reduce it to poor abductive reasoning, but that's surely just a part of the larger problem of character
In esotericist terms, it's being unable to shed the ego and instead perceive raw signal away from noise, whether that of baser desires or of categorical imperatives and epicycle churning
In a world of retards, the midwit can feel like a genius
1) "Acumen" has 1 "c", and
2) guilty as charged
I don't understand the last paragraph
What was the age at which children were filtered to Terman study? Maybe young Alvarez was filtered out at age before IQ stabilizes.
William Shockley was filtered, and he accomplished more than anyone else with the "genius" rank.
“Can think in a complex and detail-oriented manner, but find it difficult to judge when this is the right way to tackle a problem. This is where I think the spirit of the midwit meme comes through, that a midwit will not know when to scale the complexity of a solution to the problem involved, but that highly intelligent and unintelligent people will arrive at a similar solution if the problem involved has a very simple solution. “ common example in your view?
Not him but here is my example
How leaders react when presented with problematic subordinates:
Midwit: "We need to understand their exact personalities, work and home environments, family matters, and how they relate to other subordinates and managers first before we continue fixing them, this is a very complex problem
(I don't actually understand how to solve it but there must be many things going on that we need to figure them out first before we proceed to the next decision)"
Dimwit: "Just instill more discipline through reward and punishment
(based on my experience, it works)"
Highwit: "Just instill more discipline through reward and punishment
(based on my understanding of operant conditioning, it works)"
This is only one out of many example out there