I don't think you can correlate the two, but if you want some data...
My son's IQ is 137 measured and his rating is 167.
I have no doubt he is a genius and the things he puts together are insane, but if the computer wasn't correcting his illegal moves, he probably wouldn't be able to play at all.
137 puts your son in the top 1%, which is very intelligent but not genius-level. My iq was measured at 140 at school 45 years ago, and I was regarded as gifted rather than an outstanding student - generally near the top of my class but rarely at the pinnacle. I did a Philosophy PhD a few years ago in my early middle age, which I'm very proud of, but it wasn't easy. There were people in my cohort who were very obviously much cleverer than me.
Well done for two things at least. Firstly, being honest about the meaning of IQ. Many people are starting to think that 140+ is genius level and it should be obvious that is nonsense. Secondly, well done on your philosophy PhD. I got a B.A. in philosophy. To some extent, the dissertation I wrote was more masters level, without the more rigorous referencing and structure which that would require, and I continued long after with my ideas regarding epistemology. I hope you will tell me .... what was your specialisation in philosophy?
Nice to hear from you. My thesis was on modality, basically a response to David Lewis postulating a counterpart theory without possible worlds. I'm not really a born philosopher; I was really just scratching an itch, and quit the day of my award. Nowadays I write literary fiction and formal verse, 99.9% in iambic pentameter.
Sorry I was a while getting back to you. I'm keeping very busy. Lots to do. You'd have got on with my late younger brother. He was a musician, a linguist and he liked formal, poetic metres. He used to do things like learn Sanskrit so he could read ancient Indian texts.
Modal realism seems to me to be a licence to be deluded. I'm afraid it is very antithetical to my way of thinking, which is to be open to all possibilities and at the same time to work out what is real. There's no doubt, at least in my own mind, that some things can be real because we think they're real, but not all. For instance, I believe in the reality of what people may call magic. That attracts a bit of criticism from the logical positivists here. Logical positivists are very sure they're right, of course .... so much so that they expect the World to conform to their thoughts about the World and when it doesn't, they tend to be in denial. And yet magic is thinking about the World in such a way that the World is altered.
Since I am so violently opposed, on the face of it, to modal ideas in general, I thought I better explore what we have in common. As you will understand, all people somehow expect the World to conform to them.
I continued to explore my interest in epistemology. I came up with a sort of dualistic relativism. Maybe you could call it a dialectical relativism. I studied at Bolton Institute, a few miles from where I live, before it became a University. At that time, around 1992, it had an exceptionally strong philosophy department. Since it attained university status, I think it no longer has a philosophy department at all. It was an exceptionally good Higher Education Institute, probably because it was trying to become a university. Now it's just about the worst university in the country.
Thank you!