>>11223743You are coupling the claim that iq is less meaningful >3SD and so “quantifying genius” is a foolish notion, this is likely to be true as the correlation with success becomes obscure when comparing say a 135 iq scientist and a 145 iq scientist, we can’t properly account for many hidden variables in their career path or interpersonal randomness that could skew their life outcomes. But, in the isolated space of pure cognitive performance it is less believable that there are no discernible differences between these two individuals. At the far end of the spectrum where Tao would be situated of course we can’t make any serious statements about what it means for someone to have 200+ iq its not even clear Tao is more brilliant than other contemporary mathematicians who might have accomplished far more with a lower tested iq. That does not in any way make the test less useful for the range most individuals fall into 85-115 or even an extended range ~2SD. There is a significant, obvious difference in ability between someone who scores 85 on an iq test and someone who scores 130 this shouldn’t need to be argued. The inability to remember a short list of items, to manipulate objects mentally, to solve basic association problems would suggest serious lack of higher thinking that could affect all kinds of real world task performance, even something as simple as choosing an efficient route for travel, household budgeting, detecting the relative speeds of other cars, handling task switching in the workplace are implicated in that kind of difference in performance on an iq test.
