Like the AFQT, IQ is an imperfect measure at best, and the continuum is so large, that except for obvious, extreme cases, the concept of hard limits isn't really one with a lot of practical application.
This is more what I meant. I mean, not to say that there aren't differences in ability, but I do get nervous around the idea of "This Is Not For You." I know a lot of bright/not gifted kids and a lot of gifted kids, by IQ, and I don't feel like the sorting was extremely awesomely perfect. Do you all? I see outliers where it's clear the sorting mechanism was right, but I also see a lot of mushy middle where motivation, personality, grit, background, opportunity, teaching, parenting, LDs, whatever are obviously mattering a lot.
In addition, I also see gifted kids who have a lot of challenges, and may not be able to make the most of what they have intellectually due to those challenges. (Note: one of my children could be sorted into this category.) You could say their IQ is high, but their Other-Q (not necessarily EQ--many challenges in the world) is low. Some people might say--well, they have limits on what they can achieve, due to that low Other-Q. I don't think that opinion would be popular here.
All right, maybe Other-Q limitations are more malleable, but you see what I'm getting at, hopefully.
