That is an interesting assertion. I found a professor on here who seemd to have to be relatively intelligent and have decent spatial reasoning skills to teach philosophy. On the other hand that is subject in and of itself.He wasn't rated so well, around 1000 and had been at it for a while.
For an interesting spin on the discussion, I don't give much creedence to IQ testing. They are subjective. Of course some right answers are obvious, but others are a matter of interpretation and therefore subject to someone's opinion. Aside from that, how are you supposed to truly isolate raw intelligence, versus what we have learned, that is required to express it in the first place?
Hence a 50 year old man would always generally appear to have more raw intelligence than a 5 year old, though it may not be true. I have taken multiple IQ tests, one of which said I was 186. If so it would stand to reason I would be a better chess player, however, I think patience, interest level and memorization ability go along way to actually determining how good you are at chess. You can be really intelligent, but if you have deficiencies in those area, you can really hinder you, not just in chess.
: )
Part of chess is art, where IQ doesn't look at art. I'm also a high IQ person - but the creative side of chess is my down-fall. Perhaps it's not so much about having a high IQ as a ballanced science/art brain - and heaps of training.
Thats like saying chaos and order can both be viewed as art, but only order can be part of a controlled system to achieve a goal(outside of creating chaos) and you have only mastered one facet.