8 ms·

How good you are at Go (or chess for that matter) has no correlation with your IQ. There are plenty of examples of people extremely good at chess that struggle,

by llamaz 9y ago

How good you are at Go (or chess for that matter) has no correlation with your IQ. There are plenty of examples of people extremely good at chess that struggle, seriously, with academics (e.g. world champion Jose Raul Capablanca, and the youtuber and grandmaster Eric Hansen). Kasparov doesn't have 180+ IQ, which is a common myth. At some point he took the test and it turned out he had a respectable but definitely sub-Mensa IQ.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
Richard Feynman, one of the most respected geniuses of our era, tested as only having an IQ of 125. IQ tests are far from perfect, to say the least. This means our concept of IQ is likely inherently flawed. Feynman seemed to take glee in sharing his "low" IQ of only a 125. He was one of the smartest men on the planet in the last 100 years. Surely, we should defer to his opinion that the concept IQ is sort of a joke. ;)
- fileeditview 9y ago
  It always struck me as crazy to represent all that is intelligence in one number. Also AFAIK many things such as "social intelligence" are not tested at all. I always smile at people putting that much weight into IQ numbers..
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I usually cringe.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    The crazy thing you think people are doing is not actually being done. IQ is not intended to represent 'all that intelligence is'. It is simply one way to measure a cross section of particular capacities that are valuable in a modern society and are easy to test. E.g It doesn't attempt to measure the ability to track an animal, or remember the face of a person you met once last year. This test is of interest because it is strongly predictive of other things we do care about, like educational attainment, criminal behavior, economic outcomes, etc.
  - 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
    > Also AFAIK many things such as "social intelligence" are not tested at all. As far as I've read about it (not an expert; I've just seen this debate more than once before and tried to educate myself on the basics), that's because every time someone proposes an actual objective test for one of the "other intelligences", it turns out to either be primarily dependent on training (i.e. measuring conditioned behaviors) or to correlate so strongly with IQ that the test is effectively an IQ test.
- nzjrs 9y ago
  > This means our concept of IQ > is likely inherently flawed. Equally flawed, taking one outlier as evidence of something inherent.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    FWIW, I have studied the space some. I was Director of Community Life for The TAG Project for a bit. http://tagfam.org/ http://tagfam.org/ The last time I had this argument in a big way with people telling me I had no clue what I was talking about, some forum I belonged to was having a heated argument because they had the habit of posting ridiculous tests, like "What kind of dog are you?", and someone had posted an online IQ test and things were getting pretty ugly (in part because a lot of people felt it was scoring them too low). I stated up front that it likely only went up to 140, then took the test to shut people up and scored a 140. I had training in test taking in my high school gifted classes, so I tend to do well on such tests. But, whatever.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      They aren't saying your wrong about IQ tests. Pointing out one outlier isn't proof that it is flawed. Plus, this study doesn't care if IQ tests are a good way to rate intelligence, people who score well on them also are more likely to suffer disorders.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        Mensa does not actually base membership exclusively on IQ tests, so your assertion doesn't accurately reflect the content of the study. There are other ways to get into Mensa, such as submitting your SAT scores. I was coached in gifted classes on how to take the SAT. Is it any wonder I did better than average? Should we not expect kids with training in test taking to perform better than those without, generally speaking? If we are going to discuss some correlation between supposed high IQ and various disorders, is it meaningless to talk about how one ascertains IQ and what on earth that even means? I think it is not terribly different from asking "What color is your aura?" but I am quite sure that if I went around asking that on HN (or, you know, posting articles about auras, chakras, etc), it would be flagged to death. Yet, IQ is equally invisible. You cannot look at someone and say "brown hair, 6 feet tall, IQ of 145." That just isn't a thing.
- vostok 9y ago
  To be fair, success has a lot to do with luck, circumstance, hard work, and political/social skills too.
  - icantdrive55 9y ago
    And a sympathetic wealthy father in your twenties. (Sorry guys--just see it too much.)
- ralfd 9y ago
  http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iq... Stephen Hsu argued there that Feynmans school iq test must have had a low ceiling. From what we know about the consistently high IQ scores of other incredibly bright theoretical scientists that sounds likely.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    The reality is that most IQ tests do not go all that high. It is quite challenging to get an accurate IQ score above a certain range. It requires not only the right assessment tools -- ie tests -- but a trained professional administering it. Gifted kids mess with test administrators all the time, sometimes intentionally so. (Plus, to get a super high score, you need to test the child by about age 7. After that age, we just cannot reliably assert that someone's IQ is, say, above 200.) If the test administered to Feynman only went to 130, as some do, then a test score anywhere close to that, such as 125, can be assumed to have "ceilinged the test." It can be viewed as a floor for the person's IQ, a minimum score suggesting it is at least that high. Thus, Stephen Hsu's assertion that it must have just been a bad test with a low ceiling suggests to me that Mr. Hsu knows a great deal less about IQ tests than I know, so I see no reason to defer to his opinion. Yet, also, IQ tests are strongly influenced by cultural knowledge, good scores in kids strongly correlate to kids coming from upper middle class families with well educated parents, etc. So I think there is quite a lot of room for saying that if you take any child and feed them excellently well, dote on them, invest a lot of parental and societal time, effort and other resources in them, they will tend to perform better than average, both on IQ tests and in life generally. I am not just screwing with people here. I have studied the space and I think there are serious problems with talking about IQ like it is concrete, unchangeable, primarily inherited with minimal influence from environmental inputs, etc.
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      If the test administered to Feynman only went to 130, as some do, then a test score anywhere close to that, such as 125, can be assumed to have "ceilinged the test." It can be viewed as a floor for the person's IQ, a minimum score suggesting it is at least that high. Thus, Stephen Hsu's assertion that it must have just been a bad test with a low ceiling suggests to me that Mr. Hsu knows a great deal less about IQ tests than I know, so I see no reason to defer to his opinion. Maybe there is some nuance I'm missing, but those two paragraphs seem to be arguing the same point - that a 125 score was probably not accurate, but hitting the ceiling of the test? I.e. you and Hsu agree. Here is Hsu's full quotation (never said "bad"). To understand this score we have to remember that typical IQ tests (e.g., administered to public school children) tend to have low ceilings. They are not of the kind that Roe used in her study. One can imagine that the ceiling on Feynman's exam was roughly 135 (say, 99th percentile). If Feynman received the highest score on the mathematical portion, and a modest score of 115 on the verbal, we can easily understand the resulting average of 124.
- curun1r 9y ago
  > This means our concept of IQ is likely inherently flawed I'm not sure I'd say flawed so much as I'd say myopic. Which is absolutely still a flaw, but a very specific one that allows you to contextualize the results of an IQ test rather than discard them as worthless. IQ measures a subset of human intelligence pretty effectively, but misses the bigger picture. There's large parts of human intelligence that can't be measured using a test like that. A test can only provide stimuli for the mind and measure its reaction over the short period of time while taking the test. Among other things, it can't measure long-term recall or the ability to rehearse/learn information and skills over time, both qualities people would naturally associate with intelligence. It's our need to have a single spectrum from mental retardation to genius-level that's led us to try to create a test which assigns a number to intelligence. But intelligence is multidimensional and an IQ test just fills in some of those dimensions.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    It's like predicting an NFL player's performance based on stats--40 time，bench press, etc. They do these rather arbitrary tests, and over a lot of players there is some limited positive correlation with performance, but individually it does not mean very much. There are people with amazing stats that do not succeed. Then for baseball players, everyhing changes. Intelligence or smart are low-information, high-emotional-signalling terms. It means more about social status than anything else. Everyone has a mix of abilities. Some of the best engineers are terrible writers. Some are incompetent fathers (Steve Jobs). Some people are great at consuming and regurgitating a lot of info, but bad at original/critical thought. Some who would thrive in one life circumstance may struggle in another. Academically, IQ is supposed to correlate with g, general intelligence. In other words，we're just creatures making up nonsense terms to, at face value, signal about ability, but it's often more of a social construct.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    >Among other things, it can't measure long-term recall or the ability to rehearse/learn information and skills over time The vocabulary battery would seem to measure long term memorization ability. It actually correlates with IQ better than any other test. Also SAT tests are often used as a proxy for IQ because they correlate so well with it. >It's our need to have a single spectrum from mental retardation to genius-level that's led us to try to create a test which assigns a number to intelligence. But intelligence is multidimensional and an IQ test just fills in some of those dimensions. No, it's not. Please learn what you are talking about. It was once believed that intelligence was multidimensional. But then scientists realized all those different dimensions correlated amazingly well. E.g. people with better memory were much more likely to be better at puzzle solving. And a single factor, g, could explain most of the variance. IQ tests try to measure g, which is very predictive of general cognitive ability.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  125 is still in the top 5% of the population. Anyway Feynman gave the results of a childhood IQ test, and one that was taken before IQ tests were standardized. Feynman reported being exceptionally good at puzzle solving and math even at a very young age, so I am very skeptical of that. IQ definitely matters. The average IQ of physics majors is like 2 standard deviations above average for instance. Suggesting some fields are very selective of IQ and low IQ people are much less likely to be able to do them.
  - Gargoyle 9y ago
    When there's an HN thread on IQ, you can count on two things: 1. There will be a number of comments saying IQ is outright meaningless. 2. There will be a comment saying Feynman only had an IQ of whatever it was. Never fails. Anyway, as I've said here before, Feynman's books are primarily collections of stories. What's presented in them was selected to maximize the impact and entertainment value of the story. And Feynman was very, very good at storytelling.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      To be perfectly clear, I am not saying IQ scores are completely meaningless. I am saying they probably do not measure some sort of objective, DNA-based trait of "smarts". You cannot separate these scores from a very long list of environmental factors and I am very leery of the mental model we have that people who test well are some sort of innately superior beings rather than people who have benefited more than average from an accumulation of societal and parental investment of various sorts. I am very leery of the power of IQ tests to justify entrenching The Haves and Have Nots. Our mental models have scary amounts of power to shape outcomes and this mental model seems to justify classism as a kind of manifest destiny. One of the videos linked here in reply to me has some smart authority figure type asserting that university students all have IQs above average. That seems pretty well tautological to me. One would hope that those getting more schooling would do better on tests. But that fails to genuinely prove that what these tests measure is some fundamental personal trait unrelated to the fabric of your life experience. I was homeless for nearly six years. A lot of people wanted to see me as stupid and incompetent during that time. Those classist perceptions helped deny me opportunities which helped keep me poor which helped deny me opportunities. I can never seem to get that across to well off people that their tautologies simply entrench class based outcomes and really say nothing about personal competence. When we design a world that closes doors to people arbitrarily, we design a world that actively wastes human potential. This makes all of us the poorer.
otalp 9y ago
Interestingly in analysis of both children and grandmasters, IQ was negatively correlated with chess skills amongst elite players in the group.
- Recursing 9y ago
  Can you provide a source for that?
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    There's really no need; that's exactly what you would expect to see in a thresholded population ("elite players").
    - gleb 9y ago
      Please elaborate
      - thaumasiotes 9y ago
        On the assumption that IQ and "chess skills" both contribute to "chess performance", then everyone achieving a threshold of "chess performance", such as being an "elite player", has been selected to have at least a certain sum of "IQ + chess skills". This means that, given high IQ, it's not necessary to have good chess skills to be in the elite group, whereas given low IQ, it is necessary to have good chess skills to be in the elite group. This will establish a negative correlation between "chess skills" and IQ within the elite group even though they are positively correlated overall. Similarly, SAT math and verbal scores tend to be negatively correlated within the student population of any particular university, because universities will reject applicants whose total scores are low, despite the fact that the math and verbal scores are very strongly positively correlated in the larger population.
        gleb 9y ago
        Thank you, this makes a lot of sense
Recursing 9y ago
There is definitely a correlation, it's just not as strong as most people assume. Saying that there's lots of great chess players with low IQ doesn't mean the two things are not correlated For some actual numbers, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307874653_The_relationship_between_cognitive_ability_and_chess_skill_A_comprehensive_meta-analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307874653_The_relat...
waster 9y ago
How good you are at academics actually correlates with IQ only up to a certain extent. When your IQ is more than 3-4 standard deviations from the norm, academic high performance is less likely, most likely because thinking and learning patterns in that segment of the population are so dramatically different from how material is taught (and from how it is learned by everybody else). Source: I've worked with a lot of the nation's (and world's) leading specialists on profound giftedness and twice exceptionality, especially in kids. There is literature and research on this, but sample sizes are (obviously, for statistical reasons) small.

by llamaz 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Richard Feynman, one of the most respected geniuses of our era, tested as only having an IQ of 125. IQ tests are far from perfect, to say the least. This means our concept of IQ is likely inherently flawed. Feynman seemed to take glee in sharing his "low" IQ of only a 125. He was one of the smartest men on the planet in the last 100 years. Surely, we should defer to his opinion that the concept IQ is sort of a joke. ;)

fileeditview 9y ago
It always struck me as crazy to represent all that is intelligence in one number. Also AFAIK many things such as "social intelligence" are not tested at all. I always smile at people putting that much weight into IQ numbers..
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I usually cringe.
- Banthum 9y ago
  The crazy thing you think people are doing is not actually being done. IQ is not intended to represent 'all that intelligence is'. It is simply one way to measure a cross section of particular capacities that are valuable in a modern society and are easy to test. E.g It doesn't attempt to measure the ability to track an animal, or remember the face of a person you met once last year. This test is of interest because it is strongly predictive of other things we do care about, like educational attainment, criminal behavior, economic outcomes, etc.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  > Also AFAIK many things such as "social intelligence" are not tested at all. As far as I've read about it (not an expert; I've just seen this debate more than once before and tried to educate myself on the basics), that's because every time someone proposes an actual objective test for one of the "other intelligences", it turns out to either be primarily dependent on training (i.e. measuring conditioned behaviors) or to correlate so strongly with IQ that the test is effectively an IQ test.
nzjrs 9y ago
> This means our concept of IQ > is likely inherently flawed. Equally flawed, taking one outlier as evidence of something inherent.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  FWIW, I have studied the space some. I was Director of Community Life for The TAG Project for a bit. http://tagfam.org/ http://tagfam.org/ The last time I had this argument in a big way with people telling me I had no clue what I was talking about, some forum I belonged to was having a heated argument because they had the habit of posting ridiculous tests, like "What kind of dog are you?", and someone had posted an online IQ test and things were getting pretty ugly (in part because a lot of people felt it was scoring them too low). I stated up front that it likely only went up to 140, then took the test to shut people up and scored a 140. I had training in test taking in my high school gifted classes, so I tend to do well on such tests. But, whatever.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    They aren't saying your wrong about IQ tests. Pointing out one outlier isn't proof that it is flawed. Plus, this study doesn't care if IQ tests are a good way to rate intelligence, people who score well on them also are more likely to suffer disorders.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      Mensa does not actually base membership exclusively on IQ tests, so your assertion doesn't accurately reflect the content of the study. There are other ways to get into Mensa, such as submitting your SAT scores. I was coached in gifted classes on how to take the SAT. Is it any wonder I did better than average? Should we not expect kids with training in test taking to perform better than those without, generally speaking? If we are going to discuss some correlation between supposed high IQ and various disorders, is it meaningless to talk about how one ascertains IQ and what on earth that even means? I think it is not terribly different from asking "What color is your aura?" but I am quite sure that if I went around asking that on HN (or, you know, posting articles about auras, chakras, etc), it would be flagged to death. Yet, IQ is equally invisible. You cannot look at someone and say "brown hair, 6 feet tall, IQ of 145." That just isn't a thing.
vostok 9y ago
To be fair, success has a lot to do with luck, circumstance, hard work, and political/social skills too.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  And a sympathetic wealthy father in your twenties. (Sorry guys--just see it too much.)
ralfd 9y ago
http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iqs-of-eminent.html http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-iq... Stephen Hsu argued there that Feynmans school iq test must have had a low ceiling. From what we know about the consistently high IQ scores of other incredibly bright theoretical scientists that sounds likely.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  The reality is that most IQ tests do not go all that high. It is quite challenging to get an accurate IQ score above a certain range. It requires not only the right assessment tools -- ie tests -- but a trained professional administering it. Gifted kids mess with test administrators all the time, sometimes intentionally so. (Plus, to get a super high score, you need to test the child by about age 7. After that age, we just cannot reliably assert that someone's IQ is, say, above 200.) If the test administered to Feynman only went to 130, as some do, then a test score anywhere close to that, such as 125, can be assumed to have "ceilinged the test." It can be viewed as a floor for the person's IQ, a minimum score suggesting it is at least that high. Thus, Stephen Hsu's assertion that it must have just been a bad test with a low ceiling suggests to me that Mr. Hsu knows a great deal less about IQ tests than I know, so I see no reason to defer to his opinion. Yet, also, IQ tests are strongly influenced by cultural knowledge, good scores in kids strongly correlate to kids coming from upper middle class families with well educated parents, etc. So I think there is quite a lot of room for saying that if you take any child and feed them excellently well, dote on them, invest a lot of parental and societal time, effort and other resources in them, they will tend to perform better than average, both on IQ tests and in life generally. I am not just screwing with people here. I have studied the space and I think there are serious problems with talking about IQ like it is concrete, unchangeable, primarily inherited with minimal influence from environmental inputs, etc.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    If the test administered to Feynman only went to 130, as some do, then a test score anywhere close to that, such as 125, can be assumed to have "ceilinged the test." It can be viewed as a floor for the person's IQ, a minimum score suggesting it is at least that high. Thus, Stephen Hsu's assertion that it must have just been a bad test with a low ceiling suggests to me that Mr. Hsu knows a great deal less about IQ tests than I know, so I see no reason to defer to his opinion. Maybe there is some nuance I'm missing, but those two paragraphs seem to be arguing the same point - that a 125 score was probably not accurate, but hitting the ceiling of the test? I.e. you and Hsu agree. Here is Hsu's full quotation (never said "bad"). To understand this score we have to remember that typical IQ tests (e.g., administered to public school children) tend to have low ceilings. They are not of the kind that Roe used in her study. One can imagine that the ceiling on Feynman's exam was roughly 135 (say, 99th percentile). If Feynman received the highest score on the mathematical portion, and a modest score of 115 on the verbal, we can easily understand the resulting average of 124.
curun1r 9y ago
> This means our concept of IQ is likely inherently flawed I'm not sure I'd say flawed so much as I'd say myopic. Which is absolutely still a flaw, but a very specific one that allows you to contextualize the results of an IQ test rather than discard them as worthless. IQ measures a subset of human intelligence pretty effectively, but misses the bigger picture. There's large parts of human intelligence that can't be measured using a test like that. A test can only provide stimuli for the mind and measure its reaction over the short period of time while taking the test. Among other things, it can't measure long-term recall or the ability to rehearse/learn information and skills over time, both qualities people would naturally associate with intelligence. It's our need to have a single spectrum from mental retardation to genius-level that's led us to try to create a test which assigns a number to intelligence. But intelligence is multidimensional and an IQ test just fills in some of those dimensions.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It's like predicting an NFL player's performance based on stats--40 time，bench press, etc. They do these rather arbitrary tests, and over a lot of players there is some limited positive correlation with performance, but individually it does not mean very much. There are people with amazing stats that do not succeed. Then for baseball players, everyhing changes. Intelligence or smart are low-information, high-emotional-signalling terms. It means more about social status than anything else. Everyone has a mix of abilities. Some of the best engineers are terrible writers. Some are incompetent fathers (Steve Jobs). Some people are great at consuming and regurgitating a lot of info, but bad at original/critical thought. Some who would thrive in one life circumstance may struggle in another. Academically, IQ is supposed to correlate with g, general intelligence. In other words，we're just creatures making up nonsense terms to, at face value, signal about ability, but it's often more of a social construct.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  >Among other things, it can't measure long-term recall or the ability to rehearse/learn information and skills over time The vocabulary battery would seem to measure long term memorization ability. It actually correlates with IQ better than any other test. Also SAT tests are often used as a proxy for IQ because they correlate so well with it. >It's our need to have a single spectrum from mental retardation to genius-level that's led us to try to create a test which assigns a number to intelligence. But intelligence is multidimensional and an IQ test just fills in some of those dimensions. No, it's not. Please learn what you are talking about. It was once believed that intelligence was multidimensional. But then scientists realized all those different dimensions correlated amazingly well. E.g. people with better memory were much more likely to be better at puzzle solving. And a single factor, g, could explain most of the variance. IQ tests try to measure g, which is very predictive of general cognitive ability.
Houshalter 9y ago
125 is still in the top 5% of the population. Anyway Feynman gave the results of a childhood IQ test, and one that was taken before IQ tests were standardized. Feynman reported being exceptionally good at puzzle solving and math even at a very young age, so I am very skeptical of that. IQ definitely matters. The average IQ of physics majors is like 2 standard deviations above average for instance. Suggesting some fields are very selective of IQ and low IQ people are much less likely to be able to do them.
- Gargoyle 9y ago
  When there's an HN thread on IQ, you can count on two things: 1. There will be a number of comments saying IQ is outright meaningless. 2. There will be a comment saying Feynman only had an IQ of whatever it was. Never fails. Anyway, as I've said here before, Feynman's books are primarily collections of stories. What's presented in them was selected to maximize the impact and entertainment value of the story. And Feynman was very, very good at storytelling.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    To be perfectly clear, I am not saying IQ scores are completely meaningless. I am saying they probably do not measure some sort of objective, DNA-based trait of "smarts". You cannot separate these scores from a very long list of environmental factors and I am very leery of the mental model we have that people who test well are some sort of innately superior beings rather than people who have benefited more than average from an accumulation of societal and parental investment of various sorts. I am very leery of the power of IQ tests to justify entrenching The Haves and Have Nots. Our mental models have scary amounts of power to shape outcomes and this mental model seems to justify classism as a kind of manifest destiny. One of the videos linked here in reply to me has some smart authority figure type asserting that university students all have IQs above average. That seems pretty well tautological to me. One would hope that those getting more schooling would do better on tests. But that fails to genuinely prove that what these tests measure is some fundamental personal trait unrelated to the fabric of your life experience. I was homeless for nearly six years. A lot of people wanted to see me as stupid and incompetent during that time. Those classist perceptions helped deny me opportunities which helped keep me poor which helped deny me opportunities. I can never seem to get that across to well off people that their tautologies simply entrench class based outcomes and really say nothing about personal competence. When we design a world that closes doors to people arbitrarily, we design a world that actively wastes human potential. This makes all of us the poorer.

otalp 9y ago

Interestingly in analysis of both children and grandmasters, IQ was negatively correlated with chess skills amongst elite players in the group.

Recursing 9y ago
Can you provide a source for that?
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  There's really no need; that's exactly what you would expect to see in a thresholded population ("elite players").
  - gleb 9y ago
    Please elaborate
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      On the assumption that IQ and "chess skills" both contribute to "chess performance", then everyone achieving a threshold of "chess performance", such as being an "elite player", has been selected to have at least a certain sum of "IQ + chess skills". This means that, given high IQ, it's not necessary to have good chess skills to be in the elite group, whereas given low IQ, it is necessary to have good chess skills to be in the elite group. This will establish a negative correlation between "chess skills" and IQ within the elite group even though they are positively correlated overall. Similarly, SAT math and verbal scores tend to be negatively correlated within the student population of any particular university, because universities will reject applicants whose total scores are low, despite the fact that the math and verbal scores are very strongly positively correlated in the larger population.
      - gleb 9y ago
        Thank you, this makes a lot of sense

Recursing 9y ago

There is definitely a correlation, it's just not as strong as most people assume. Saying that there's lots of great chess players with low IQ doesn't mean the two things are not correlated For some actual numbers, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307874653_The_relationship_between_cognitive_ability_and_chess_skill_A_comprehensive_meta-analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307874653_The_relat...

waster 9y ago

How good you are at academics actually correlates with IQ only up to a certain extent. When your IQ is more than 3-4 standard deviations from the norm, academic high performance is less likely, most likely because thinking and learning patterns in that segment of the population are so dramatically different from how material is taught (and from how it is learned by everybody else). Source: I've worked with a lot of the nation's (and world's) leading specialists on profound giftedness and twice exceptionality, especially in kids. There is literature and research on this, but sample sizes are (obviously, for statistical reasons) small.