The specific numerical rating of IQ doesn't matter. I picked 130 to grab a arbitrary instance of "equal performance on an IQ test". "120 vs. 140 IQ" doesn't giv

The specific numerical rating of IQ doesn't matter. I picked 130 to grab a arbitrary instance of "equal performance on an IQ test". "120 vs. 140 IQ" doesn't give a tremendous amount of insight; what gives a tremendous amount of insight is "performs very highly on all forms of IQ tests" vs. "performs poorly on the same IQ tests". Most people that are good at physics tend to gravitate towards the same things- strategic games like Go and Chess, computer programming, puzzles, riddles, etc. Those people also tend to score highly on IQ tests, because for whatever reason their spacial reasoning, short- and long-term memory, and ability to track multiple chains of logical steps and substitutions are superior when compared to other humans. This article was quite literally about how a "person that tended to be a high persistence achiever" failed at physics relative to other students who apparently achieved superior results with less effort. The author made allusion to failing to track the same mental tinkertoy model that his advisor had no trouble constructing. What I am alleging is that people who score highly on IQ tests have less trouble following tinkertoy models in physics. That, combined with early preparation in formal math, is how the foreign students easily outcompeted the author. Not only did they beat him on physics topics, they'd beat him on arbitrary tests of memory, logic, and spacial reasoning as well. It doesn't matter how great my tenacity is, how hard I knuckle down and hit the books- I will never pick up on concepts and remember logical chains like Steven Wolfram. It's not a matter of practice and application. He and others are running better hardware than I am. I focus on my own strengths and am very happy. The author did not, and he is not happy per his own admission.