I think this debate belongs to the other thread but here are a few remarks. In any domain, reaching a certain skill level depends on
Natural abilities (your “hardware”)
Using your abilities in the right direction (a teacher may help)
Time
Effort
Age (obviously, improving in any domain at 80 years old is harder than at 20).
The OP wanted to test whether factor #1 was correlated with IQ. This may or may not be the case, his survey got so few responses that it’s impossible to know. I agree that the main reason why you want to start an activity is that you enjoy it, not because you are talented. However if we had an indicator telling us beforehand how fast we can expect to improve, then why not use it? Having an extra information is better than not having it, you can always ignore it if you don’t like it.
Not having much talent shouldn’t discourage you from playing go but may help set realistic expectations. Personally I don’t think that IQ is an adequate measurement of go talent because
go skill seems to have more to do with visual memory than IQ. I’ve regularly seen mid- or high-dan players replay a game several days after they played it, replay a game they just observed casually, reproduce a tsumego from memory, remember many joseki variations months after studying them, read variations of 10+ moves very fast, understand immediately a 10+ move variation shown on a book diagram… I’m completely unable to do any of these things.
I know people who have a high-level education (Master’s degree or PhD), so are probably intelligent, and yet are still DDK or low SDK after several years of practice.
So if we know that we lack natural talent, we can set realistic expectations (like reach ~5k after a few years of study, or ~1d after 10 years of hard work) instead of complaining that we are unable to reach 1d in one year contrary to some other guy who doesn’t look so smart.
Of course, talent is far from enough to achieve anything. There are many exemples of people with high IQ who failed at school for instance. Hard work matters much more, unless we aim for very high level.
Concerning the other question
I don’t really know. I’ve taken a couple of non-serious tests in the past. I don’t remember exactly the score, I think it was somewhere between 130 and 140 so if there is a difference it’s not big. On the other hand I don’t take these quick tests very seriously. I think a reliable IQ test should take 3 hours to complete, and should test a variety of skills.
IQ most likely correlates with max speed of improvement and with max rank that you able to ever reach.
But, everyone spends different time on Go, so max speed of improvement impossible to measure in most cases. And, to measure max rank you need to learn like a pro for years - so, again, impossible to measure in most cases.
And, IQ test that gives 130+ to everyone is certainly incorrect. Real IQ test would give close to 100 in most cases.
Most people would just lie on that though or answer “on principle” …
If were to put their test replies “to the test”, the results would have been veeeery different.
Most of those skills are trainable though. If people train for the tests they can “raise their IQ” without actually ever becoming smarter or anything. At the end of the day it is hard to even evaluate what is an IQ test actually measuring.
Reaching 1d is a result of successful competition among your peers. Barring any cheating, this is an objective process which cannot be faked. Reaching 1d is not a matter of “claiming” but “doing”.
Taking the test “for the first time” without any other preparation is on a “trust me bro” basis. At the end of the day the people that think that it is useful and want to utilise the results of an IQ test will find a way to prepare for it in order to score better (nothing wrong with preparing for a test, btw). And if there is a culture of “hey, I did it on my own without any prep” then that is what they are going to claim.
Reading comprehension and following instructions is evidently not part of the intelligence tested by this IQ test, because OP asked that this thread be just people posting their IQ and go rank and not devolve into the usual OGS forum chit chat, yet despite all the high scores it has done exactly that.
Yeah, but it can be argued that going above and beyond following instructions and considering what you are being told to do is the essense of “IQ” (whatever that measures).
Remember: There is only one job/place where you are instructed to do exactly what you are told and not ever think about it or question it and that is the army. In that place, as a local army commander said, “the dumber you are, the better you can achieve that feat”. Can’t think of a way to put that in a standardised test though
