Right, I actually read that article before posting here, but a number of points still stand. Higher IQ in itself does not predicate higher achievement, nor the converse. The tests have their own flaws. And innate talent in one area (eg. math and physics) does not necessarily come with talent in other areas (eg. vocabulary, linguistics, handwriting.)
And yes, puffin, even if Feynman's results were well-correlated with our modern intelligence tests, a standard deviation or so above the mean is nothing to sneeze at. In fact, it's pretty much the sweet spot for being able to extract maximum value from accommodations that are easy to apply in run-of-the-mill schools. I think of this as the "quarterback" level of natural intellectual talent. Smart at a level that peers admire, not at a level that intimidates them. In fact, for me that's a highly relevant aspect of this conversation. Once you get past that sweet spot, you're possibly looking at a level of asynchronicity that creates its own challenge and even inhibits achievement.
I believe in both inherent ability and growth mindset. The brain is an amazingly pliable thing. My biggest challenge as a parent is not allowing my children to rest on their laurels once they realize they are the "smart" kids in class. And at the same time recognizing that their IQ probably does *not* put them at the very top of the heap -- nonetheless I must be confident that they have immense opportunity just with the talents they do have, given sufficient drive.
On the flip side, I've got personal experience to show that a person who's not identified gifted but has grit and drive, can drastically outperform a person who's identified highly gifted but is wishy-washy and challenge-averse. Motivation/passion/grit matters SO much.
