

"no indication that people with higher IQ are able to reach the top faster" - nickb
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/entertainment/how_you__too__can_be_a_genius_entertainment_farrah_weinstein.htm

======
mathogre
"Basically, there is no indication that people with higher IQ are able to
reach the top faster. We are finding people who meet the criteria for being
skilled surgeons, chess masters, athletes or magicians. Once you start looking
at what makes them successful, IQ doesn't make any difference."

Hogwash. While IQ is no guarantee of success, how would a city look that had
"skilled" surgeons of average or below intelligence? Chess masters? Uh huh.
Sure. Athletes? Sorry, I'm not aware that athletics have anything to do with
intelligence. Magicians? Shall I laugh now?

Hmmm... it's not April Fools day yet.

~~~
alyx
You do realize that we have no way of accurately defining nor measuring
Intelligence.

IQ tests are nothing short of an ego booster and have been shown time and time
again to be inaccurately ways of measuring intelligence.

[http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.ht...](http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm)

------
ojbyrne
A former HR professor had a theory for this. According to him the key to
understanding American management is that homogeneity is crucial. Middle
managers (and that's the path to the top) are almost always white males
(though white females are increasingly acceptable) in the 115-130 IQ range.
Lower and you're dumb, higher and you're a flake (or not a team player).

So I found it interesting that they mentioned the 130 as a cutoff for the
school where the students generally led "ordinary" lives.

~~~
DaniFong
Leta Hollingworth first introduced the concept; she postulated a
'communication range' of around 30 IQ points, beyond which, the impedance
mismatch would make it difficult to build friendships.

------
jedberg
I would not expect any correlation between IQ and success.

A good IQ test will give you a general indication of a person's logic,
reasoning and spacial abilities. It does not test one's ability to empathize
or interact with others, two skills which are essential for "reaching the
top".

Therefore, IQ is really only good for measuring a person's potential for
gaining new knowledge quickly, not measuring what their future success should
be.

~~~
strey
Could a person's definition of success change with IQ? Many people we consider
geniuses had wide ranging interests, so I'm not sure you would catch many of
these people if success is defined as expertise in a specific field, as it
seems to be in this article.

Also, here is another interesting take on that question:
<http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/realworld.html>

------
vlad
Wait, so an old test designed to measure the abilities of young kids not
relative to each other, but to see if they pass a certain score in order to
know if they should be getting special assistance in school, means nothing
when trying to "measure" skills, goals, ambitions, and future chance of
success of adults, to each other, as well as individually?

------
vlad
One does not need only a mentor; it helps a lot if the person has initiative
and can notice patterns themselves that a mentor might never have thought of
telling them about. But it does seem true that with a great mentor and lots of
practice, many people will achieve greatness regardless of what their "IQ"
score might be measured that week.

