I agree IQ is largely meaningless, and I could have formulated my standpoint better, but... > I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not ne

I agree IQ is largely meaningless, and I could have formulated my standpoint better, but... > I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things If it is then I'm quite sure this conclusion is in no way backed by the referenced scientific article. > nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc... It would be great if this was true, but it's just not. For example, I see myself as a few standard deviations out on the mathematical talent/ability scale, but I would not stand a chance against somebody like Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao. Why is it so important to pretend that it isn't so...?