>>14034571I'm also ~150 IQ, working as a mathematician, and you basically mirror me to the letter. I've had more attempts from people trying to snatch me into their PhD programs than most people get to attend college at all, and I'm getting scouted to be a member of some project at a public Ivy every other month. Despite the fact I was hired into an R1 research lab as an undergraduate student, selected from a literal planet-wide applicant pool, I get walked on by my colleagues who have more experience, broader knowledge, and have been doing math longer that have IQ's as much as 40 points lower than I do.
If you do a bit of digging into what IQ test measure and how IQ tests actually work, what you discover is that they are quite prognostic about life outcomes only when a person is below average intelligence, and are basically fucking meaningless beyond some generalities when a person is above average intelligence.
There are so many things that combine into success that a simple IQ score cannot be a meaningful measure of anything other than IQ. We see that successful people generally have high IQ's, but we also see a roughly equal number of people with high IQ's who are not successful in any particular measure, something that members of the IQ Cult are either blissfully unaware of or simply forget to mention when attempting to brainwash you.
Hell, the only consistent thing we can see about people with high IQ's is that people who are above 160 generally have failed social lives, unless found young and effectively cloistered away from regular society.
Intelligence is multi-surface - each surface itself multi-faceted - and IQ tests probe a single facet of only a handful of those surfaces. They don't describe your potential remotely accurately unless you're below average. Keep building experience and knowledge, and synthesizing everything, as broadly as possible, and stop caring about your IQ.
