I come away from the article with a feeling that the writer has almost as lousy a perception of IQ as Terman had -- something inbuilt and fixed, probably by genes, and that can be measured with high precision.
When Terman started, by the way, the psychologists thought pretty much the same thing about racism, homophobia, sexism, religious opinions, and so on -- "inbuilt and fixed, probably by genes," and amenable to precise measurement. That was one of the things that encouraged them to seek ever more precise measurement on their scales and items.
When population studies were renewed after WW II, it very quickly became obvious that there had been enormous changes in conventional attitudes... which they had not imagined being possible. So, personality studies underwent large revision. But IQ largely remained "reified" at that time.
Further studies have shown that, for instance, IQs of 130 or 135 are needed for a fiew fields like physics; but points higher than that are not much correlated with success at anything. - I suspect everyone who is good at answering questions on the internet of having high IQs, but (a) I have little evidence about the IQs, and (b) none of these people are especially famous.
And - an ordinary child taken into a highly enriched environment for a period of years can gain 30 points in measured IQ. That wasn't supposed to happen.
And - There is a "social" (or something) component underlying IQ, as shown in the Flynn effect, which has resulted in an overall elevation of 15 points or so since WW II in all advanced societies. That wasn't supposed to happen, either. (Implicitly, that sort of 'bias' may - I think - explain the measurable race-differences.)
When you aren't talking about brain damage, a whole lot of IQ is measuring behavior and attitudes that are learned.
> >So we see see two sets of rare cases (Nobel prize winners and very high IQ individuals) but no intersection of these two sets. Does this observation suggest that very high IQ is likely to mean that a person is less likely to win a Nobel prize? >
A curious thing about Nobel prizes is that connections often exist between science winners. A taught B who mentored C who worked in the same lab with D. And so on. Is Great Thinking contagious, or are the connections just a reflection of the small number of important labs and centers?