This isn't science, it's sociology and psychology in equal measure. Reaction time is an innately crude measure, and extrapolating from reaction time to intellig

This isn't science, it's sociology and psychology in equal measure. Reaction time is an innately crude measure, and extrapolating from reaction time to intelligence is dubious at best. To see my point, imagine using it to measure Stephen Hawking's intelligence. I'm a pretty bright person, but I'm almost 70 years old and I just don't have the reaction times of a young person -- or that I did when I was younger and a great deal dumber :). If readers watched me typing at my keyboard, some would likely find it frustrating and might wonder how anything useful could possibly issue from all that slow pecking. But the end result is a crude approximation of intelligence -- created slowly, and in a way that would flunk the kind of examination on which the linked study relies. At the very least, the study relies on a superficial correlation between reaction time and intelligence in young people, while ignoring the fact that as the years pass one's intelligence might increase, while one's reaction times decrease. When I was about 20 I took an IQ test at NYU, one that relied more than anything else on speed of response. The outcome was that I got the "very superior" designation I expected and was accustomed to in those days. But on reflection I realized I had taken so many of those kinds of tests that I was simply nailing the test, not the property it was meant to measure. If I took the same test today I would probably not do very well, but I'm certainly functioning at a higher level than I did then. Closing remark. When Alfred Binet was asked what IQ was, he replied, "It's what my test measures."