A large portion of the student body at every American college is "drowning thems... (2024)

There you go.

Why are people lazy and self-sabotaging? Because they're human. They want to do pleasant things more than they want to do unpleasant things.

It's just school. A few years down the road people don't care about most of what you did there. Better enjoy the ride as much as you can without torpedoing your career.

Exactly this. There is no need for overthinking things, like in the article.

When I was in college I noticed one group who managed well above all the others. They where in their 30s.

My now-deceased mother earned her bachelors [UTSA] in her early-50's, and always commented how "few of my classmates attend office hours and even fewer seem to care about what we're learning."

Lady: they're just trying to survive while all these intoxicating chemicals [hormones, drugs, rage] pollute their very existences.

> reads a new book once per week" type of discipline that the average ivy leaguer tends to have

I got two degrees and spent five years at Harvard, and -- no, they don't.

People who attend institutions considered "elite" have on average been told since early childhood that they are part of the elite.

In my experience, such people tend to have less self-discipline and fewer inhibitions than regular folks. That's a natural consequence of knowing that nothing truly bad can ever happen to you, no matter what you do.

> IQ is highly associated with self-control and discipline.

I'd like to see a citation for that, especially for the idea that the self-control/discipline associated with high IQs transfers over to non-academic aspects of life, which is what's in question here.

Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2614657/

> Delay behavior in both sexes was also correlated positively with IQ and with Q-sort-derived indexes of ego resiliency and ego control. The relationship between ego control and delay behavior was particularly strong after both IQ and ego resiliency were partialled. These results were interpreted as reflecting the fundamental importance of both cognitive skillfulness and impulse control for adaptive delay behavior in situations that contain strong motivational inducements.

This study doesn’t measure academic related delayed gratification. I’m surprised to be asked for a source. This has been settled science for decades.

I'm pretty sure they're conflating a higher likelihood of determining an action precluding risk factor prior to action with actual self control and discipline....

It's more just that the smarter you are the more likely you are to both recognize the existence of the risk factor as well as "do the math" before your impulses induce action.

Estimated average IQ from SAT score.

So it's bullsh*t. They just cram SAT prep non-stop with private tutors.

And this explains the question pose as well. They don't self-sabotage. They just "jump through academic hoops" ... but not through their own effort, or only with great assistance. This help they get just really breaks for most in the university years.

They don't self-sabotage, they just lose their advantage.

> So it's bullsh*t.

That’s quite the opinion. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Countless studies have found that SAT scores are highly correlated with intelligence. Both “g” and IQ, which are roughly equivalent for this context. For example: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf?origin=...

And here is another: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdf

I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, the controversy is that IQ test results can be increased significantly by training.

But that discussion ultimately boils down to what intelligence really is... You either subscribe to the believe that it's essentially something you're born with or something that can be improved by training.

IQ tests fundamentally cannot measure for the former definition, but I does a decent job for the latter.

The user I replied to is clearly arguing that SATs do not provide any correlation with IQ. They called the proposition “bullsh*t.”

As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondents to practise the type of question and answer faster and more accurately. Obviously this would produce an inaccurate result, over-estimating the intelligence of the individual.

To draw parallels with the SAT, I see evidence that repeated attempts reveal gaps in one’s knowledge and skill, and these are prerequisites for the test. This permits the individual to study those areas and practise the kinds of skills required to improve their score. Given this, we should acknowledge that the SAT is not a perfect analogue for IQ tests, but in aggregate, they do yield striking correlation. To tie this to my premise above, it is highly likely that the average Harvard student has an above-average IQ.

They are BS under the first definition.

And I think we've gotten quiet far from the context their statement was made in.

The premise was that intelligence increases self control/delayed gratification. From this, we've extrapolated that havard students will have on average a higher self control, because they've had the the privilege of a much better education, which caused their IQ scores to be quiet high.

Personally, I'd agree that this extrapolation is flawed, because both factors are only correlated with no causal link.

> They are BS under the first definition.

I provided a study which shows high correlation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I don’t agree with your summary of the premise. It doesn’t follow that more training means higher IQ scores, but I acknowledge it could mean higher SAT scores for individuals. Just not in aggregate.

Correlation is not causation and is meaningless for extrapolations. The only thing it provides is interesting data to discover the causality through further study.

But I guess you're too far gone into narcissism to understand how dumb this has gotten.

you're extrapolation, thus you're using it as a causation.

Let me give you an example:

Swiss cheese has holes, by studying its properties you can find a correlation between the size of the cheese and the total volume of holes.

You do another study and find that as you increase the size of the holes the cheese, you're left with less grams of cheese.

by your logic, which extrapolates between these two unrelated studies finding different correlations, you can confidently state this:

 more cheese correlates with more holes more holes correlates with less cheese more cheese == less cheese

outstanding logic, indeed.

It’s my understanding that a lot of people who could make the cut for Harvard etc but do not due to resource constraints (limited student numbers, limited finances).

These people then go on to other universities. So yes I believe you’ll find all levels of self-discipline across all the universities.