Different opinions about Leta Hollingworth’s Communication Range

It seems that IQ is a topic that rocks the boat for people all around the world, and many wager on the fact that it greatly impacts how our lives were to be drawn out.

It’s also no surprise that there is a massive cult following of the concept of effective communication across people with disparate IQs, after Leta Hollingworth’s research in children denoted that there is an observable gap between those who are too far apart — especially in communication, and most notably, leadership.

On Quora, there are two very opposing sides from both Omar Bessa and Susanna Viljanen, with the former taking the study with heavy skepticism and the latter popularizing the concept.

First, let’s look at what the communication range is, from Susanna’s answer here;

The communication range of +/- 2 standard deviations or 30 points (60 points total) has originally been suggested by researcher Leta Hollingworth and popularized by Grady M. Towers, Michael J. Ferguson and Darryl Miyaguchi. It denotes the range of difference on intelligence between two individuals where meaningful human interaction is possible. Note the word “meaningful”. Not all human interaction is “meaningful”.[1]

So now that we know the communication range touches on the term meaningful, we can safely state that the communication range does not hinder basic interactions, so statements such as “someone with an IQ of 180 can never be understood with someone who has an IQ of 100” should be a scatological statement, generally agreed on by most.

However, the vagueness of the term “meaningful” is incredibly broad; one’s interpretation can greatly differ from another’s.

(So, now we know the main perpetrator to all of these varying disagreements.)

Originally, I’ve been a very heavy skeptic of the communication range — until my own military experience coincided with it (and even more with Susanna’s). Maybe it’s confirmation bias, maybe it isn’t — because it’s from a first-person point-of-view, I’m pretty tied in-between. I’ve also had shared many personal relationships and bonds with people far below my supposed communication range too, not on a very intellectual level, but a strong emotional level, so we can easily say that kind of emotional bonding was most definitely “meaningful” in itself.

In a sense, you can say I’ve sort of experienced “both sides” of the communication range taking effect and lack thereof.

Omar stated in which the interpretation of the communication range in a certain manner[2] —

I am smarter than others, therefore I can’t speak with creatures lower than myself because the bandwidth and high complexity of my symbols are no match for their simple brains.

is complete bollocks.

In this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with him, as doing so seems more like an effort to cut off communication rather than an attempt to bridge it i.e. intentional use of technical jargon and a heavy use of verbose language, when in reality, one can always speak more in a concise fashion or use holophrasis to express themselves. Being intentionally periphrastic seems more like a neurotic defense mechanism and means of escape and surrender, if you ask me.

Omar goes on to elaborate this further:

It is very well known that people can empathize with creatures of lesser intelligence, as an extreme example we bond with pets by just transmitting emotion. Dogs are even hard-wired to pick up our mood changes.

One does not need to be able to speak about highly complex topics or at full bandwidth in order to bond with someone. Human beings have a core set of experiences that characterize their life: romance, family, personal development, etc.

Omar’s argument against the communication range in this aspect, was pretty compelling, and his criticisms ring true.

Susanna and her interpretation of the communication range differs, and as she puts it; —

The communication range thus denotes the range of IQ within which all meaningful human interaction occurs (including: friendships, marriages, organizations cohabitation, employment, hobbies, interests, any discourse deeper than a coffee cup). It does NOT mean that any communication over that 30 points’ gap was impossible; things such as small talk, customer service, discussion over irrelevant matters, everyday communication, patient-doctor relations, client-service relations etc are perfectly possible over that 30 points’ range. But they are meaningless interactions — they do not convey meaningful messages.

The communication range is far more a qualitative than quantitative thing. It also is not about how you communicate. It is about what you communicate.

To put it bluntly: I am not interested in pro wrestling and they are not interested in history re-enactment.

Her argument seems pretty succinct. This is because the dimensions and approach one takes of perceiving life and living greatly differs. Though I don’t believe it’s strictly numerically precise, I’m sure there is still some form of weight to this. Of course, as she (harshly) puts it: one can only “dumb-down”, but not “smart-up”.

To further elaborate on Susanna’s stance:

To draw an analogy; think of both the low and high IQ individuals as both student and professor.

The interaction of a mathematics professor and a mathematics (high-school) student is how the mathematics professor is able to talk to (or teach) the student about menial concepts, but none on a tertiary/advanced level.

Now, let’s assume both really love math, and both are only interested in their own level of understanding.

Both student and professor only want to talk about their own perspectives and discoveries of the topic. Since both are talking about two very different things, they’re bound to clash somewhere.

In a hostile situation: one will feel talked down upon and the other will feel the other is a complete dullard.

In this sense, though the student and professor have this subject of understanding in common, it’s natural if communication breaks when trying to convey thoughts beyond one’s comprehension. The professor will discombobulate the student.

Therefore; the professor will not be able to share certain things in depth, especially when he needs/wants to.

Though this seems like an argument against Omar Bessa’s stance on the communication range, it actually supports it, as it leads to the phenomenon Omar described (for the proverbial professor):

What very very intelligent people can lack is a special feeling of propinquity.

You can share this feeling of propinquity on many things. The propinquity vector can take many variables.

Propinquity=A∗Tastes+B∗SharedExperiences+…+n∗mPropinquity=A∗Tastes+B∗SharedExperiences+…+n∗m

As you can extrapolate — through a linear model like this — one could say that there could be a state of max propinquity.

If your personality as a very high IQ individual includes a really high value in very-high-IQ related propinquity, you’re going to have a lonely existence.

Thus, accounts of both authors could coincide in parallel — if interpreted as such. Both sources do not contradict in this aspect.

So under normal circumstances, and by rationale alone, I’d be pretty convinced with Omar’s standpoint on the communication range.

However;

I can’t help but notice a phenomenon that readily occurs in every environment I’ve seen and lived in so far.

It’s definitely something I can’t ignore.

Leonard Teo the other day had been recounting (in a conversation) on the phenomenon that smart people are somehow not readily liked by others.

A little (paraphrased, not precise) excerpt from his conversation with another:

Acquaintance: “I don’t like the guy.” (referring to someone with a high GPA)

Leonard: “Why? Did he do anything wrong to you?”

Acquaintance: “No, I just don’t like him. There’s something off about him, I just don’t like him.”

And this isn’t the only time he or I have seen this happen right before our eyes.

I also had a brief conversation with one of my military bunk-mates in Basic Military Training, and he told me insider information about what the others thought of me; particularly about the guy who tried to pick a fight with me.

Bunk-mate: He said he didn’t like you and wants to punch you in the face.”

Me: “Why, did I offend him? I’d like to make peace if I did.”

Bunk-mate: “He’d been complaining about you the past week and how he can’t stand you. He just didn’t like you and your face from the first instant he saw you.”

And another past acquaintance with mine about Leonard:

Me: What don’t you like about Leonard? What did he do to you?

Acquaintance: He’s just weird. I can’t really like him, and I don’t think I will.

Me: But did he do anything to explicitly or unintentionally offend you?

Acquaintance: “No, he’s just weird, and I can’t stand him.”

And this was one of the rare accounts that the dissatisfaction became somewhat two-way (to the anonymous acquaintance’s fault), where I had been tied between two friends.

And like numerous other accounts — no viable explanation (by the persecutor).

People don’t like others, just because. No rhyme, no reason, just that they’re different and they don’t like it.

(Naturally, people who hear this believe and assume it’s because such people have low EQs to begin with and have deficits in their social adaptability.)

Of course, people who face and experience such horrible circumstances would typically/eventually turn invariably hostile — some even surrendering themselves to the explanation of the communication range.

Which I hold a hypothesis as to why:

Bigotry.

If having a high IQ affects your personality, behaviors, demeanor, and appearance, in any atypical fashion;

Having an extensively disproportionate IQ may/may not invite hostility, just as:

1. How being a person of a minority ethnicity/color invites racism/xenophobia,
2. Disability/neurodiversity invites ableism/anapirophobia,
3. Having gender dysphoria/atypical gender identification invites homophobia/transphobia etc,
4. Being a having a different financial status quo invites classicism/elitism,

so on and so forth.

People dislike others because of their IQ — simply because they’re different.

Most of the time, this ability to gauge one’s differences neurologically is quite instinctual. It seems hard-wired.

And there is an observable pattern; people who tend to be hostile to others (based on somewhat of an observable communication range) also tend to display strong degrees of bigoted (xenophobic, homophobic, anapirophobic, etc.) sentiments and tendencies which also translates to poor reception and tolerance to diversity.

Which leads me to a few possible findings:

1. People can instinctively gauge one’s IQ’s heterogeneousness to his/her own.
2. There is somewhat of an intangible (and not-so-numerically-strict), but observable IQ communication range.
3. Conflict arises, not consistently with both parties on both sides, but mostly by an aggressor.
4. Conflicts are instigated from instinctual impressions.
5. This conflict is not absolute and certain, as resolutions and choices lie in the responsibility of both parties’ choices and cooperation. (Whether one party is willing to set differences aside, it takes two hands to clap.)

Which though, does not measure anything tangible or numerically precise, still shows somewhat empirical evidence that this communication range may somewhat exist.

Whether it’s your modus operandi, or some form of je ne sais quoi you possess, regardless of respectful, impeccable character, some people will invariably dislike you if you’re too atypical.

My inference (or assumption, by lack of any substantial evidence) to the validity of the theory of the communication range:

There is a communication range, though it may not weigh as heavily as it’s impression on the online community.

It seems to only be able to take into effect whenever:

1. There is an intentional communication barrier set up.
2. Instinctual impressions and immediate intolerance.
3. In the context of propinquity.
4. Failure of comprehension by the lower IQ individual to abstract concepts beyond their understanding.

And although the communication range takes effect that may hinder, it is not the only factor that enables meaningful communication.

In terms of anything remotely cold, logical, and abstract — the communication range seems more substantial.

However, if it’s an emotional connection or bond between two individuals — the communication range theory tends to fall apart.

Like most skeptics of the theory — it is indeed correct to state that the communication range is not absolute or determinate to all extents, as other factors will always come into play.

However, this is also not to say that the communication range is completely invalid — under some circumstances does the theory apply. It exists in some form that seems applicable.

But this is just an opinion of mine, based on my observations, experiences, findings, and perception.

If you actually look hard enough: both stances for and against the communication range theory don’t actually contradict — they just tell two very different experiences and nuances of it.

Footnotes

[1] Susanna Viljanen’s answer to What do people with an IQ of 140 think of the 30 IQ point communication range?

[2] Omar Bessa’s answer to Are extremely intelligent and smart people generally lonely people?