[cc-d]

Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish.

IQ tests obviously do not account for __every__ variable which we cumulatively call "intelligence", but IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff". The difference in intelligence between two individuals is much less pronounced if both individuals are already two standard deviations above the norm. But if you were to compare two individuals, one who is one standard deviation below, and the other one above, you would observe a clear difference in 'intelligence' between the two. Even in this comparison, there will be outliers, but the outliers are not statistically significant.

[account2]

>Feynman is a notable exception to the trend. Using a single exceptional result as evidence for decrying a trend is foolish.

You missed my question. I am concerned with how many smart people with disabilities IQ exams misclassifies. I am not using Feynman to say he had a disability or anything, I was using him as an example of a case where his IQ score doesn't match his actual intelligence, and I am in no way claiming why that may be. I am merely stating IQ exams aren't perfect. If you are interested in replying, then reply to the question I posed. I think IQ test potentially misclassifies people with high functioning autism and other highly intelligent people with mental disabilities, showing they have lower intelligence than they actually have.

[pessimizer]

> IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at tasks society classifies as "smart people stuff"

Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests.

[cc-d]

>Or, more precisely, IQ is heavily correlated with the ability to succeed at taking IQ tests.

...and succeeding at taking IQ tests is also predictive of an individual's potential to succeed at, using the Feynman example, physics.

Lets say you were to gather two pools of individuals, one pool with IQ test results of 2 standard deviations below, the other with results of 2 standard deviations above, and provide them with the necessary materials and instruction to understand physics 101. Incentivize the participants by offering a $2000 cash reward for demonstrating the knowledge they were tasked with learning, lets say by answering X questions presented to them in whichever format would be optimal for their success.

How many from group -2 SDs do you think would receive the $2000, compared to group +2 SDs? -1 SDs compared to +1 SDs?

The choice of physics was arbitrary as well. You could assign almost any field of study, and you would still get almost identical results in performance.