People with higher IQs tend to make more accurate predictions about probabilities and are better at making decisions.
Researchers at the University of Bath’s School of Management have found that people with higher IQs tend to make more accurate and realistic predictions about future events, which in turn supports stronger decision-making and can contribute to better outcomes in life.
Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the study reveals that individuals with lower IQ scores (those in the bottom 2.5% of the population) make prediction errors that are more than twice as large as those made by individuals with high IQs (the top 2.5%).
Measuring probability and longevity beliefs
The study drew on data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a nationally representative sample of individuals over the age of 50 in England, to examine how well people could estimate their own life expectancy.
Participants were asked to estimate their chances of living to specific ages, and their responses were compared to official probabilities from the Office for National Statistics life tables (a demographic resource used to evaluate mortality rates and calculate expected lifespan at various ages). The researchers accounted for factors such as health status, lifestyle habits, and inherited longevity.
Chris Dawson, Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science at the University of Bath, analyzed participants’ results on multiple cognitive assessments along with genetic indicators associated with intelligence and academic achievement. His findings show that individuals with higher cognitive ability are generally more accurate in judging uncertain outcomes and better at evaluating probability.
Fewer errors, more consistent judgment
Individuals with a higher IQ are significantly better at forecasting, making fewer errors (both positive and negative), and showing more consistent judgment compared to those with a lower IQ.
“Accurately assessing the probability of good and bad things happening to us is central to good decision-making,” said Professor Dawson. “Almost all decisions we make, whether it’s starting a business, investing, crossing the road, choosing who to date, all require probabilistic assessments.
“IQ is already known to predict health, wealth, income, occupational status, and educational attainment and this research highlights one possible channel through which people with a lower IQ do worse on all these outcomes.”
Professor Dawson suggests that explicitly stating probability estimates on information relating to health and finance, for example, rather than relying on individuals to do their own calculations, could help people prone to forecasting errors make more informed, accurate decisions.
“The study shows that certain genetic traits linked to intelligence and education are associated with more accurate predictions, suggesting that lower cognitive ability may causally contribute to the formation of more biased assessments,” said Professor Dawson. “Probability estimation is the most important aspect of decision-making and people who struggle with this are at a distinct disadvantage.
“Expectations about the future shape how households make critical decisions – like how much to save, when to retire, or whether to invest. Poorly calibrated expectations can lead to bad financial decisions, and reduced economic welfare, which can adversely affect national growth.”
Reference: “IQ, Genes, and Miscalibrated Expectations” by Chris Dawson, 2025, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000567
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
14 Comments
But of course; intelligent people can analyse stuff including consequences of stuff more effectively. Sorry King Donald; your stupidity over Iran drove it to first start enriching uranium beyond that agreed upon, which was quite a logical response to your breaking the agreement with Iran back in your first term as Prez of the USA: and, as you have dropped some bombs on Iran, the logic is that the USA certainly cannot be trusted and with nuclear-armed, psychopath-run Israel just across the desert, Iran’s logical action would be to build a bomb or two on the quiet, at sometime in the future.
What can one expect otherwise? Not a nice result for anyone with intelligence! But after all, nukes have kept the peace, or something, for the last 80 years, haven’t they? More mad logic by dumb politicians.
Good reasoning, poorly informed. That’s how our anciently evolved hominid cognitive machinery can and often does go wrong at every point on the IQ bell curve – including at both tail ends. This biased narrative about huge mistakes in discernment illustrates just that- huge mis-takes in ill informed discernment, logic, reasoning, and yes- the very narrative itself. See what happened there?!
Obviously if the narratives fell in alignment with logic we wouldn’t have anything to discuss.
I guess you could call repeating the same insight 10 times an article
According to MS’s LLM Copilot:
Iran’s uranium enrichment program began in earnest in the early 1980s, but its roots stretch back further:
🧪 Foundations and Early Development
– 1957: Iran signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program.
– 1967: The Tehran Nuclear Research Center was established, and Iran received enriched uranium and a research reactor from the U.S.
– 1974: Under the Shah, Iran announced plans for a full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, and invested in European enrichment facilities like Eurodif.
🔐 Post-Revolution Secrecy and Acceleration
– 1979: The Islamic Revolution halted many nuclear collaborations, but by the mid-1980s, Iran began covertly pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities.
– 1987–1995: Iran acquired centrifuge designs and components from the A.Q. Khan network (Pakistan), laying the groundwork for its enrichment infrastructure.
– 2002: The existence of secret enrichment facilities at Natanz and Arak was revealed by an opposition group, prompting international scrutiny.
⚛️ Modern Era and International Tensions
– 2003: Iran admitted to enrichment activities and agreed to temporarily suspend them under international pressure.
– 2006: Iran resumed enrichment at Natanz, asserting its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
– 2015: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) imposed limits on enrichment, which Iran began breaching after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018.
So while Iran’s technical enrichment efforts began in the late 1980s, the program’s political and infrastructural roots go back to the 1970s.
In order to logically reason and expect to come to the correct conclusion, one has to start with facts that are correct. You skipped that part and substituted emotionally-based opinions for easily obtained facts. In your zeal to denigrate someone you obviously have very strong feelings about, you created a fantasy. What does that imply about your IQ?
Given that in 2018 the USA broke the previous agreement brokered by several entities and imposed further sanctions on Iran then one shouldn’t be surprised about the Iranian government being bloody-minded about carrying out further enrichment of uranium. At least Iran did sign the NPT, unlike a nearby neighbour that would appear to have developed its nuclear weapons program in some secrecy, as revealed by Mordachai Vanunu who was jailed by his government for doing so. So far and despite 30-something years of a certain person’s international and prominent assertions to the contrary, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has the “bomb”. Sort of like the fuss about Saddam Hussein’s “bomb”. I am indeed aware of the role the USA played in promoting the atoms for peace programme in Iran, amongst other things amongst the troubled relations promoting discord across the Middle East, both historic and at the present time. The assorted idiocies going on in that part of the world are basically tribal warfare involving payback, which involves stupidity amongst the parties involved and that, unfortunately, is a very human failing as discussed in the original article
It started during the Shah s regime in the 70 ‘s.
Rob, you’re not taking into account a number of factors that would have informed you of Iran’s long-held intentions to create and use a nuclear bomb at their earliest opportunity. Maybe you’re too young to be aware of the history or your interests don’t align with Middle East politics/ radical-Islamic philosophy, but (not that it matters now) you are dead wrong in your assertions. Look into either if you care about correctly assessing the future of your world.
Isn’t making better decisions what defines being smart in the first place?
I kinda thought this was common knowledge but I guess not.
Yep, I was thinking along similar lines while reading the article. It’s yet another article about how smart people are smarter than non-smart people. I’ve also noticed articles about healthy people being healthier than non-healthy people. I have to wonder who is funding these studies and why.
I’m referring to a recent article I read about how people who exercised during cancer treatment ended up with better results from the treatment and living longer or whatever. If a person is healthy enough to exercise while undergoing chemo, well of course they will do better than someone who puking their guts out, can’t eat or drink enough, losing weight and having severe fatigue and neuropathy. As if it’s their fault for getting so sick from cancer and chemo and not exercising. Bizarre non-logic.
These studies will only be used to shame people for things beyond their control. Nobody chooses to be stupid. Nobody chooses to be intelligent. Nobody chooses to be healthy or sick. These are not decisions that one can make. It’s just the luck of the draw. Genetics and environment.
Richly fully deeply widely educed Recursive Relevance Realization of the humans’ cognitive capacities alongside affective balance makes for great IQ or of any and every kind of intelligence, presupposing no damage or lack in the organic and bio electro chemical physiology of any given cognitive agent’s organic substrate – AKA: brain and embodied nervous system.
Depends on who you ask analyze or compare too.
I guess you could call repeating the same insight 10 times an article