Originally Posted by JonLaw
Originally Posted by Quantum2003
Glad to be of service. Definitions and standards make a difference. I don't equate high IQ and/or high achievement with math talent. In my experience, it is possible to be both without having math talent and perhaps more controversial, to be without neither (at least not super high) and yet have a certain math talent....Talent is not high IQ or high achievement on standardized tests.

This would seem to be a flaw in the concept of IQ.

By definition, if you have talent in math, you should have a "high IQ".

If you have actualized a talent in math, by definition, you had the potential to actualize the talent, which ostensibly an IQ test would be able to measure.

So, the problem lies with the IQ test, not with the empirical reality of high achievement in an intellectual domain.

Jonlaw, I have pondered this issue in the context of math talent for decades now and still don't have any definitive answers. You are correct that part of the problem may be the IQ test failing to completely capture "true intelligence," whatever that may be. Although my post wasn't clear on the point, I was also thinking about above-average IQ (in the 120's) rather than average IQ. The other issue is that "high achievement" in children is not the same as "high achievement" in a top level mathematician. Of course, high achievement in the latter would confirm talent but I would not automatically assume talent with "high achievement" in children. In my mind, a child's environment and resources make a big difference as well. I would be a heck of a lot more impressed if some disadvantaged kid with uneducated parents achieved the same numbers as DD.