What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

Don't get me started on lefty liberal constructs like "social", "interpersonal" or the newly fangled "emotional intelligence".

I don't buy it either. So-called emotional intelligence is mainly about low levels of tension, vanity and so forth and higher levels of sociableness. It doesn't relate to the sort of intelligence that IQ is concerned with. That is, of course, obvious, but all this stuff about emotional intelligence is like buying a very short person a pair of high heeled shoes.

For me intelligence is raw cognitive power. Things like interpersonal intelligence involve not being an a-hole and have nothing to do with intelligence IMHO.
I think I agree with this.

That is unfortunately a very common and very arbitrary take on a protean notion of intelligence. The supposed generality of human intelligence is not a law of the universe, but a convenient postulate of the talentless plethora. Most experts in fields like science in math are not trapped within the limited rules of that field
Do I agree? No, I think most are trapped by virtue of their excellence in limited fields.

(and not by chance that almost all practical contributions in science/math, come from experts within a field - not plumbers with a sense of rationalistic, intellectual grandiosity.
You'd expect that, because it's their field of work. Excellence in fly-tying probably is less often found among mathematicians.

High expertise in one (open) system, doesn't mean that one isn't free to create elementary associations with information outside of their field. If a field of study includes facts (elements) A, B, and C, there is nothing that prevents an expert from associating element B with element D (on the grounds of some subtle pattern or anomaly), from some other field. The brain does not compartmentalize information sets, it has very broad neuronal networks that constantly associate patterns. Of course, there are always those 'intellectual dicks' who are purely interested in aimless 'fact finding' within their respective fields - these are people confuse their ability to learn with intelligence, and are extremely narrow thinkers. It's very likely not just IQ, but limitations of the neural inter-complexity and computational speed (intuition) of individuals is what allows some to actually apply information they've learned in ways to solve problems and exhibit higher learning through forming higher n order abstractions.

Possibly, yes. I wonder is that's a learned skill? I think it is, suggesting that too much specialisation is intellectually limiting, which brings us back to the point about them being trapped by their excellence.

Individual performance can and should only be evaluated at any specific given moment and time and are the product of developmental factors. One can only abstract from a given system like 41, 25, 49, n , if they are given that system to analyze - effectively nullifying any supposed quality of 'intelligence'. You can't give someone half of an idea, and then give them credit for the whole. In the real world, we don't know what elements are in are set, or what, when or exactly where we have to think hard. And ideally, 'smart' people should be defined as those who come up with new ideas from their own experimental models (sets)....yeah we don't live an ideal world.

Is this last paragraph an example of the sort of "intellectual dickery" we're told to avoid?

Just a subtle note that there are no plumbers who have contributed to mathematics, but there have certainly been mathematicians (or, at least, those heavily trained in math) who have contributed to plumbing.

An expert can always stop, and be burdened by the same mundane issues as the laymen, but many of them have the good taste not to care so much about such things. A person of intellect (not simply an 'expert') has developed more bridges (unbeknownst to them) from theory to practice, and from practice to theory - so it's not so much they think 'harder' (cognitive load), as that they will inevitably ponder about the world in ways that common men are oblivious to. Put simply, a person of intellect has 'perspective'.

Finally, promoting the archaic concept of IQ, with little understanding of Western philosophy of mind, makes for a foolish enterprise. And unlike the fudged statistics suggest, and collusive g-men have urged, it is in fact, that IQ has failed to adequately predict job performance, educational quality, and income for over 100 years. Unfortunately, just because they found it impossible to make IQ correlate with the system, doesn't mean it's impossible to engineer the system to correlate with IQ.