Explanation-Required, “ER” = 1 / IQ
Note that the only time when ER is zero is when the IQ is infinite.
And that when the ER is merely 1 is when the IQ is merely 1.
There is serious religious and philosophical significance in that.
So a person with an IQ of 70 only needs twice as much explanation as one with an IQ of 140? And how do you explain emotions to high-functioning autists?
An alpha: ER α 1/IQ might have helped you here.
I think this hypothesis neglects the significance of pride - on both sides.
Well, in reality, it is inversely exponential. I was considering how much explanation that I would have to give to the audience here, so I began with a simple formula. One always must begin an explanation in a simpler form than reality would dictate.
Need I explain more?
My students’ IQ is in the range of 40 to 50. How long ought my explanations be? Perhaps more importantly, what should I explain? Is there an end to explanation?
The ratio still doesn’t explain the high-functioning autist, or the tone-deaf rocket scientist, or the math-blind poet laureate. So if there’s a point to be made, please do explain more! 
Satisfaction.
My original title was “Relevant Explanation Required vs Relevant IQ”, but was too long.
Intelligence doesn’t reality come on a single linear scale as is so often presumed. Intelligence ratings must fit the particular type of situation or problem to be solved.
The autistic child is usually extremely intelligent, far above average, but only in specific realms. His communication skills (used to learn from the outside world of their problems) is greatly hampered, thus he lacks that type of problem solving skill. And then because he can’t learn from those around him, they deem him as lacking intelligence. They aren’t entirely wrong, but far from being entirely right.
Simply repair the attention deficiency in the autistic child and he will invariably far out rank the average. His state happens to leave him with some extremely pure and rapid thought processes that the normal person never conditions himself for. Actually, I’m pretty sure that everyone would be far more intelligent if they were raised as autistic for the first 3 years of their life and then set free of it (although I haven’t seen that tested).
So yes it does actually “explain” the intelligence of the “idiot savant” category of people.
… it just doesn’t yield the explanation until you understand it. 
… much like the autistic child… requires understanding in order to discover the intelligence under the surface.
Of course the moron testing the autistic child doesn’t believe that he has to understand intelligence in order to make a test for it… typical homoape.
I’m not well versed in Physics. I dropped out of school at a young age and for most of my adult life, have never required a deep understanding of how the world operates at tiny scales and what are the initial causes and influences that brought existence into being and maintain it’s current state.
Therefore, I lack knowledge in regards to Physics, and the skills and practices employed by physicists.
If you were to attempt to explain to me a new discovery in Physics, whilst also explaining to a physicist the new discovery, even if we were of equal intelligence, I’m confident you could explain to the physicist faster and more concisely than me. The physicist would understand the concept and it’s ramifications faster.
I view knowledge as information, and intelligence one’s ability to manipulate, gather and employ knowledge to one’s will.
I believe current knowledge has a contributing factor to one’s comprehension rates as opposed to sheer intelligence.
You are certainly right about that. I didn’t say that “the only thing that affects the length of an explanation is the intelligence of the listener.” That would be a bit absurd. But once an equal amount of relevant knowledge has been obtained on a subject, it is merely the intelligence differences that causes one to require more explanation than another. One might have even obtained that knowledge much faster than the one who ended up requiring more explanation concerning understanding what had been memorized.
Haha, yes.
IQ is only a general measure, nowhere near a precise gauge. Other kinds of intelligence exist beyond what IQ cares to measure.
IQ is more like a measure of how well your intelligence will fit into molds of economic usefulness. Obviously there is a correlation between such a measure and “actual” intelligence, but also obviously that correlation is a secondary association, and thus skewed, and not a primary or direct cause.
“Economic usefulness” carries with it a whole host of biases, errors and assumptions not the least of which is that, as James said, test-makers and judgers don’t even bother to try and understand what “intelligence” even is. That would require “philosophy”, or we might say, “consciousness”, which is something beyond the ability of IQ to measure.
I wouldn’t agree with this. I have a high IQ but my economic usefulness is low. And this is not uncommon for people with a high IQ.
Perhaps philosophy doesn’t correlate with intelligence strongly enough to say there’s a direct correlation. But I think it’s fairly obvious that intelligence test-makers and judgers understand what they’re measuring - logical ability with regard to complexity and creativity. Some tests are more obvious than others in dividing sections into “find the common ground” (AND) and “find the different ground” (NOR) etc., but they all share pattern recognition and/or completion which requires logical ability with regard to complexity and creativity. I’m just applying what IQ tests test to IQ tests themselves.
I have no problem saying that these measures test intelligence of the most obvious kind, though I would agree that there are forms of intelligence that this doesn’t include. Taking an analyical look at IQ tests, I would concentrate on the form that they take and the medium through which they are delivered. Paper’s limitations are mostly obviously those of spatial reasoning, and verbal and numerical representation (perhaps pictorially assisted). Secondarily to these are memory and speed - I do somewhat resent the time restriction element usually involved in more “official” tests, since I will usually get the answer given more time and less pressure. Presumably there are media beyond paper that can test other types of intelligence better (since logical ability with regard to complexity and creativity has to be applied to something in order to amount to intelligence).
Personally I find that people with a high IQ praise IQ tests, and those without defame them. Not surprising, of course.