Originally Posted by TheSquealer

absolutely nothing you are saying is true. further, there is little to no agreement on what an IQ test measures or what IQ even is. modern neuroscientists argue that all an IQ tests measures is your ability to take an IQ test.

clearly, people have a very poor understanding of how a skill is learned in the brain.

IQ, as it's currently measured, has ZERO correlation to success later in life. IQ has no correlation to success in chess, in winning a Nobel Prize, publishing scientific papers or anything else (relative to peers). IQ doesn't automatically grant you skill in anything. Skill is learned. All skills are learned. There is no such thing as a "prodigy" in anything. There is only our perception that it "came out of nowhere" because we don't stop to consider the 1000s of hours of practice someone put in before they were noticed as being a "prodigy".

Like anything we do, playing chess is a skill that only comes after countless hours of learning and practicing chess. Chess grandmasters, on the whole, (as repeated studies have proven time and time again) tend to be average or below average intelligence. playing a musical instrument at a world class level is a skill that only comes after 1000s hours of learning and practicing. painting at a world class level is a skill that only comes after countless 1000s of hours of learning and practicing... etc etc. that someone can do several of those things only means they've spent 1000s of hours practicing those things, nothing more.