[walshemj]

the problem is that for higher IQ's you at the end of the distribution so the effect of errors is much higher maybe the two Nobels just had a cold or a bad day when they took the test.

And how do you factor conditions like dyslexia in I have seen suggestions that dyslexics score 15 or 20 points off so by that mark I am a genius :-)

[disgruntledphd2]

That's a very good point, especially given that the standard deviation of IQ scores is 15, which suggests that scores of between 125 and 140 are possible (indeed, somewhat likely) for the same individual - a finding which I have found in my own experience of taking them.

Additionally, IQ tests were developed to assess someone's ability to benefit from formal education, and to the extent that these skills are uncorrelated with successful outcomes, IQ will be a poor predictor of it.

[stared]

When it comes to IQ - think as is you wanted to assign one number to describe individual's sport ability. It will serve[x] some purpose for average (from bed-ridden ill to a healthy athletic person), but most likely - it will be almost useless for sports(wo)men, where more specialistic predispositions are required (sometimes contradictory; e.g. a great heavy weight boxer won't be even an amateur marathon runner).

[x] Actually, it's used in military, to rate conscripts - if they should be enrolled.