What was the IQ of Jack?!

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I'd have to ask when and where this was determined. In the UK today, for instance, it could be argued that it's intelligence that dictates whether we stuff our faces with crisps and doughnuts or spend the same money or less on a mountain of fresh veg. So I'm not sure how one would go about proving the reverse effect, ie that the crisps and doughnuts can adversely affect intelligence.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Good points. OK, it's believed that everyone has a potential IQ (even if you don't believe in IQ as such, any educational psychologist will do a test and give you a score so we'll go with that definition). Now, in terms of how you perform in applying your IQ, a poor diet will make you perform less well (or act less intelligently) than a diet rich in fruit, veg, fish, grains and so on.

Also, intelligence needs to be intellectually nurtured, so a person who has a relatively high IQ but is unaware of it, or whose intellects are not fully challenged, will tend to perfom less well and therefore appear less intelligent.It is perfectly possible to have a high IQ, but be relatively illiterate, due to poor education, no education, lack of access to reading material etc.

As for your point about the choices people make about their diet, well that can come down to common sense (a quality which is much more valuable than blind intelligence, and some would say that common sense is the application of every day intelligence) and also motivation. If you are 'locked into' a habit of placating yourself with foods rich in sugars and fats, it can be a very hard habit to break even though you know it's not doing you any good. As an analogy, my daughter works in the health profession and it has shocked her that many high ranking health professionals drink to excess and some of them even smoke as well even though they see the fall-out from such habits most days of their working lives.

However, as I previously wrote, the value of traditional intelligence tests in determining ability and potential is being questioned more and more every day. There are people who score low in intelligence tests (and indeed, their ability to function fully in every day life is impaired) and yet they can comose beautiful and complex pieces of music or draw beautiful cityscapes from memory. Other people score high in intelligence tests and cannot hold down a job or choose jobs in which they are called on to perform far below their ability - but they are happy.

Back to the main question - what was Jack's IQ - higher than average I'd say.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

To begin with, a tanka for Saucy Jacky:

Polly is dead now
After Annie The Meatball
Someone comes
Not Liz now, Katie later
Like I do, wait Mary!

Then; yes, IQ is a bit difficult to measure intelligence (at least alone!).

Besides, to us completely unmathematical persons, it's unfair, I think!

Yes, training brain is always good!

What it comes to score low in intelligence tests; I know some people, that focus on one field and do it damn good!

If I can get a high IQ by eating dougnuts and vegetables, I have to remember it, while going to my store for the next time!

Then one thing; Arthur Brown has a high IQ and his most memorable and only achievement we know of can be defined in the following word: "Fire!"

Well, there is probably the same range of people from different fields of life as with the rest!

All the best
Jukka

[Robert]

One of the best kinds of "intelligence" question is the type that gives you a stream of unconnected data, and then asks "Who is the guard of the train?" or some such question. That tests reasoning ability.

Questions which require some form of knowledge should be excluded. Even everyday knowledge should be excluded, because some people with an interest in the subject will bring it to the fore of their brain faster than those with no interest, and that matters in a test against the clock. For example, I have no interest in fruit so any question involving fruit has me at a slight disadvantage.

Vegetables aren't much better either.

[dougie]

Im assuming the I.Q question implies that jack must have been pretty clever to commit these crimes AND get away with it.Would that neccessarilly have been the case? O r was it more a case of luck? And if he was a clever guy with a high I.Q what on earth would he be doing wasting his time in 1888 whitechapel?....apart from killing prostitutes of course
regards

[Ben]

And if he was a clever guy with a high I.Q what on earth would he be doing wasting his time in 1888 whitechapel?....

Because he lived and worked there, most probably, Dougie.

[dougie]

Ben ,
Would he need to have a high I.Q to get away with these crimes in your opinion? and how clever would one have to be to realise whitechapel wasnt the best place to be if one had talent and ability ...and high intelligence?
regards

[Ben]

Hi Dougie,

and how clever would one have to be to realise whitechapel wasnt the best place to be if one had talent and ability

It's perfectly possible to hail from the lower classes, live in a rough area, work at a menial job, and still be endowed of above average intelligence. This would have held true especially for the LVP when class bounderies and prejudices were much harder to surmount than they are today.

Best regards,
Ben

[CraigInTwinCities]

Hate to say it, but this post is wrong in SO many ways.

The image of a high-IQ is VASTLY overrated. Lt. Ken Landwehr, who headed the team that captured BTK, commented that after his capture, it quickly became clear that Rader was both lucky and not very bright, rather than a criminal mastermind.

The list of serials who are similarly lacking in IQ is a long one, and those who are considered of high IQ may be the beneficiaries of good press, rather than actual high IQs. As Landwehr has said, all a person really needs to do is have no connection to the victim, be careful not to leave behind evidence, wipe stuff down and keep their mouth shut about what they've done and often they'll get away with it.

I have a direct quote on another thread, so I'm not going to copy that here.

Crime was a lot easier to get away with in Jack's time... they didn't even embrace fingerprinting yet... although photographing the eyes of victims was apparently all the rage... LOL.

So no, the nature of the crime is absolutely no indication of a high IQ, or a low IQ. We'd only be able to determine that once we had "Jack" in hand and even then it might not be all that relevant. Wichita Police, the KBI and the FBI were all expecting BTK to be a real-life Hannible Lecter... and were vastly disappointed by Rader, once they caught him, on that point.

[Robert]

I don't really know what is meant by a high IQ. It could be argued that anyone from the poorer classes who managed to survive at all in East London during that period, without the safety net of the welfare state, would have been possesssed of sharp wits at least. That's not to say that any of those people would necessarily have been able to master, say, university physics, even if they'd been given the time and education. I just find the idea of IQ rather nebulous.

The opposite is a lot easier to define - a stupid person isn't someone who doesn't have any answers - it's someone who doesn't have any questions.

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

----- good thinking Robert and neatly put......quite right .One of the main IQ tests that was given to children was called a "verbal reasoning" test.Maybe thats OK , if a child"s home language matches the language of the classroom [and therefore text book language] which is usually the case for many children from middle class backgrounds but when the child comes from a home background where the language spoken is not that of "middle England" then there can be a "mismatch" and a child"s performance on a "verbal" reasoning test becomes less reliable because such a child is less likely to do as well as a middle class child whose spoken and written language matches that of the school and the verbal test.

[Robert]

Hi Nats

There are all kinds of problems with IQ tests, not the least of them being that it's possible to train for them, because the people setting them aren't clever enough to think up new kinds of question.

I have managed to obtain, in a very expensive auction on Ebay, two tests from yesteryear, with the answers. The first is from 1912 :

"You are a Government minister rersponsible for shipping. Should you let passenger liners set sail without enough lifeboats?"

The correct answer is "Yes, you SHOULD." This answer would have earned you a genius level rating. The alternative answer, "No, it's a bit risky" only earns you moron status.

The other test is from 1914-18 :

"You are a commanding officer in the Army. Should you keep sending men over the top? NB The enemy have machine guns."

The correct answer is "Yes, you SHOULD." This earns you a brilliant rating. The alternative answer, "Senseless waste of life" apparently makes you a moron.

Oi think oi'll leave IQ tests to brilliant politicians and generals. Them tests be too clever for such as oi.

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

That gave me a good laugh Robert Cheers!

[perrymason]

Theres good reason to imagine that people who might test highly on an IQ Test are from all walks of life...including those occupations the lower classes might toil in...so theres no reason to imagine that a toothless docker wasnt capable of very clever thought or brilliance even.

That being said, I dont think we necessarily have events or circumstances that are more than some very fortunate "timings" in the killers favour. He seems to come and go very successfully. Leaving just in the nick of time at perhaps 2 or 3 Canon deaths.

That might mean escape planning, but thats not too difficult if you know the variables. Some of the variables in these cases are the police coverage of locations. Did he know the variables? And what of the plainclothed and vigilantees? How do you plan for them?

I think he was really, really lucky....or perhaps someone a bit anal on details. That second one would fit a guy who doesnt want to be stopped.

Best regards all.

[Robert]

I suppose one must allow for a certain police bias in assessing the intelligence of serial killers - they won't like to admit that they've been led a merry dance by an idiot.

Robert

[Christine]

Well, I doubt he was an idiot, in the literal sense of the word.

I also doubt he was a genius, even in the "brilliant salesman" or "genius hairstylist" way. He must have been deranged. How can you say someone was truly smart when he thought killing women was a good idea? He probably had some sort of brain damage that effected his judgment and impulse control, and this would have shown up in other areas of his life.

Anyhow, IQ is straightforward. It's a score on a test that hadn't even been invented when Jack was active. It's a good predictor of academic performance, and a decent predictor of job performance, especially if the job requires academic ability (duh). There's very little we can say about Jack's IQ other than the general "if he was brain damaged..." statement. Unless he was Montague Druitt or Lewis Carroll, who seem to have had high IQ.

As far as outsmarting the police...that shows a certain amount of intelligence, but maybe not as much as you'd think. It's not a equal competition. He was motivated by the desire not be caught and executed, and he got to pick the circumstances. If there was evidence pointing to him, it was because HE left it. If there were witnesses, it was because HE stood in front of them. If there were geographic and temporal patterns, it was because HE acted in a certain place and time.

I think a lot of us on this board could kill and mutilate people in a way that that police couldn't track down, and do even better than Jack. Certainly none of us would do something as lame as send an identifiable floppy disk to the police. Except that we'd object to the whole "kill and mutilate" part. Does that make us all smarter than Jack to begin with?

PS: That bit about "genius hairstylist" had me visualizing Kosminiski saying "I'll just hack off all your hair with this knife and put it by your feet!" A good illustration of why I don't think Jack would have been known as a brilliant anything.