Feb 2019
I don't know how IQ tests actually work and what criteria is used to measure intelligence. From what I noticed IQ doesn't necessarily equate to actual ability, as mentioned above James Woods is nominally smarter than Hawking but I don't know how that equates to real life ability. Some people could be good at certain things but horrible at others, I am absolutely atrocious at math but am fairly good at linguistics and history. Does that make me an idiot due to the math part or above average due to the history part? I personally don't understand how you can give a test to someone, throw out a random number based on a few questions and then declare the person to be dumb or smart. In the Woods-Einstein example: If you give Woods the task of tackling complex math problems and studying Einstein's theories he should nominally be able to solve it all and even give something more, but we don't know if he can actually do that.

I never took an IQ test so I don't know what my actual IQ is but I've met various people from various professions, many of which I consider to be more learned than me and many of which I consider to be more ignorant than me. However, does this equate to them being less or more intelligent? I knew a few people who came across as dumb and often didn't do much, but when they did something they were interested in or forced to learn or adapt to something new they did quickly and they did it well, so I think that carelessness or law knowledge of facts doesn't equate to intelligence.