[Sir_Substance]

>IQ tests only measure one's ability to perform IQ tests, are widely criticized as flawed indicators of performance and are at best tangentially related to what most of us would describe as genius or brilliance.

May I ask what measurable yardstick of brilliance you would use, if we are to eschew the most widely accepted yardstick?

Or are you just moving the goalposts because you don't like the current answer?

[na85]

I don't think there exists a reliable yardstick of brilliance. For example IQ tests do not and are not capable of assessing creativity, a trait I would strongly argue is a necessary component of brilliance.

You are free to assume whatever you like about my motives, and you can claim it's moving the goalposts if you like: There's also a racial bias in IQ test performance. Would you therefore argue that e.g. black people are less brilliant than whites? Or Asians?

[michaelbuddy]

It will serve you better to deal with the fear/reality that people are not equal and racial differences do exist, not just on the surface but they manifest in group averages of intelligence, performance. Group averages are not an individual.

If you can accept that there are people smarter and not as smart as you, more athletic or not as athletic, then you understand that people are different. The illusion that races aren't different is just part of a passing PC culture fad. Better to accept reality, better for everyone involved.

[Sir_Substance]

>I don't think there exists a reliable yardstick of brilliance.

I'm afraid that's not an acceptable answer. I'm rejecting your viewpoint in favor of currently accepted mainstream psychology until you can back it up with measurable fact.

[na85]

I'm on mobile and can't link it but I encourage you to read a recent study published in Neuron by Highland, Owen et al about this matter.