Comedian's IQ

[David Sklansky]

Although the following is NOT the reaon why Andy Fox's ARGUMENTS are totally fallacious, they do show that even some of his EXAMPLEs are completely (and obviously) wrong as well.

Did you know that comedians need a high IQ?
By Jack Malvern, Arts Reporter


HAVE you heard the one about the stupid comedian? No? Well, you’re not likely to. A Mensa test organised by The Times suggests that intelligence is a prerequisite for a career as a stand-up comic.
We asked 12 comedians at the Edinburgh Fringe — including Stewart Lee, who co-wrote Jerry Springer — the Opera — to sit a formal test and found that they were overwhelmingly smarter than average.


Four were automatically invited to join Mensa and three were told that they were borderline candidates who would probably gain membership after a second test. Half of the comedians were in the top 3 per cent of brainboxes in Britain and one, Natalie Haynes, was in the top 1 per cent.

On the most common scale for measuring IQ, a score of 130 or more puts a candidate in the top 2 per cent in the country. Haynes, whose show Run or Die involves a rapidly spoken monologue about an urban dystopia and parrots’ IQ, came top of the 12 with a score of 134.

Cerebral comedians often hide their intelligence behind a comedy persona, she said. Al Murray, who graduated from Cambridge University with one of the highest marks in his subject, has become a highprofile comedian with his character of the pub landlord. “It is less threatening,” Haynes said. “People are more likely to like Al Murray, pub landlord, than Alastair Murray, history graduate.”

Rob Deering, who scored 130, said that stand-up attracts geeks. “There is a train spotterish aspect of stand-up. There are so many people on the circuit who collect stamps or beer mats or whatever. I like to think I’m a rock star but I am a bit nerdy when it comes to film knowledge.”

It is unusual to find someone who does not display quick wit on the circuit, he said. “You expect a certain level of speed and wit. Every now and then you meet a comedian who isn’t keeping up with the dressing-room banter and you think: ‘Ooh, that’s unusual’.”

Caroline Garbatt, a spokeswoman for Mensa, said that writing comedy could be a way of sharpening the mind. “Comedians are exercising their brains on a daily basis,” she said. “They are not doing mundane, repetitive activities. The way they look at the world and find ways to make everything amusing requires intelligence. You only have to look at David Baddiel and the That Was the Week That Was team to see that comedy is full of intelligent people.”

Colin Cooper, senior lecturer in psychology at Queen’s University Belfast and a consultant for the BBC’s Test the Nation, said that verbal reasoning was a very good indicator of intelligence.

“One thing you do need to be a comedian is to be able to think on your feet,” he said.

[J. Stew]

That makes sense, comedians need to be sharp-witted and be able to improv. easily. This is the same mind that calculates pot odds instantly while considering many others things, which is the same mind that allows a guitarist to be creative in a solo, which is the same mind that Michael Jordan wields when he's 'in the zone', which all stem from a creative life force inherent in each of us that some call genius and some call God.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
That makes sense, comedians need to be sharp-witted and be able to improv. easily. This is the same mind that calculates pot odds instantly while considering many others things, which is the same mind that allows a guitarist to be creative in a solo, which is the same mind that Michael Jordan wields when he's 'in the zone', which all stem from a creative life force inherent in each of us that some call genius and some call God.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little correlation between speed of thinking and how smart someone is. There are super geniuses out there who are slow. You can see examples of this in chess in speed chess vs correspondence chess.

A better reason comedians are intelligent is because they are able to analyze situations to see what the background assumption /axiom is for people to react in a certain way, then make fun of it. I'm fairly sure almost all comedy is based on background assumptions people have for stupid reasons. The type of mind who finds pleasure at analyzing the background assumptions of all conclusions isn't far removed from problem solving ability.

[xniNja]

You only need 130+ to be top 2%??

[ QUOTE ]
You only need 130+ to be top 2%??

[/ QUOTE ]
On standardised, timed tests taken in a testing room, such as the army or a Mensa test.

Internet doesn't count [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And yes, ave. IQ is 100, std. deviation is 15, you do the math.

[Spaded]

[ QUOTE ]
You only need 130+ to be top 2%??

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye. IQ follows a bell curve. The curve falls fast at around 90 and 110, making (i think) 90 to 95% of the population within 90-110. Mitch Hedburg must have been 150+

[FNHinVA]

It differs slightly by test. The Stanford Binet test requirement is 132 while the Wechsler is 130.

Mensa accepts many different test types. Their requirements are here.

[Lestat]

This doesn't surprise me. One of the first things I replied to Andy about was that most comedians are quick-witted and have the ability to "think on their feet". This was also my contention to YOU about salespeople, negotiators, etc. But had I made this connection (between salespeople and comedians), ealrier I would have realized that Bob Newhart was of all things an accountant before turning comedian and I would have toned down my response to you regarding math minded people performing competently in the sales world.

I still say that Newhart is an exception and that for the most part, mathematical minded people don't have the two-way mind needed for sales and comedy. That is, they are either thinking or responding and aren't good at performing both tasks well simultaneously.

But at least your point about above average intelligence has been driven home. If I were looking to recruit a salesman or a comedian who had to make it, I would definitely prefer someone out of an intelligent group. If I had to financially back a random person to play poker, I would also want someone with above average intelligence. So while I realize there are exceptions (like slower running athletes), above average intelligence does increase the likelihood of success at almost any endeavor.

[andyfox]

I was wrong.

David has clearly thought more, and thought better, about the issue than I have. Plus I both misread and misunderstood his assertions. It makes sense that the more intelligent a person is the better chance he has to excel, in most fields, or to do better, than a less intelligent person. (A better example of that would be my arguments vs. David's arguments than the cited article; the Edinburgh Fringe is open to both amateurs and professionals and there's no evidence the named comedians are capable of coming up with "good jokes"; in fact, recent reviews of the comedy there often complain that the comedy is not as funny as it once was.)

A difference between math and comedy, however, is that there are no correct answers in comedy. David said, "If a martian is more likely to figure out how to stop hurricanes than you, he is more likely to be correct if he disagrees with you about any subject assuming you have spent the same time and effort investigating it. Religion baseball, tuning a piano, or even coming up with a good joke."

The problem I see is that there is no objective definition of a good joke. It seems to me that having a good sense of humor is more important for comedy than being intelligent. But again, given two people with equal senses of humor (if such a thing can be measured), and everything else being equal, one would think that the more intelligent person would be the more capable one.

In fact, if a major element of comedy is quirkiness, or a quirky way of viewing things, one would think more intelligent people would have an extra advantage, as they do in science. If we define quirkiness as an unusual way of viewing the world, this probably is more common in smarter people than in others. As David ponted out in another thread, scientists are used to, upon finding facts or conclusions that don't fit their axioms, changing their axioms to accommodate the facts or conclusions. Whereas Andy Fox types usually just have conclusions and axioms that don't match and fail to see, or worry about (or both) the discrepancies. Many of the discoveries of modern science, such as quantum mechanics, or curved space, or black holes, one would think, required that their discoverers adopt a new, "quirky" way of looking at things.

[David Sklansky]

Bravo