Learning from experience (hopefully not always your own), working well with others, and being able to persevere when things are tough, demotivational or boring, trumps raw intelligence easily, IMO.
Why one would continue to know or talk about the number is a pretty strong indicator of the previous statement.
What actual fact are you trying to state, here?
Because of perceived illegal biases, these evaluations are no longer used in most cases, so we tend to use undergraduate education as a proxy. Places that are exempt from these considerations continue to make successful use of it.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
You're right but the things you could do with it if you applied yourself are totally out of reach for me; for example it's quite possible for you to become an A.I researcher in one of the leading companies and make millions. I just don't have that kind of intellectual capacity. You could make it into med school and also make millions. I'm not saying all this matters that much, with all due respect to financial success, but I don't think we can pretend our society doesn't reward high IQs.
That high IQ needs to be paired with hard work.
If you run anything sufficiently complex through a principal component analysis you'll get several orthogonal factors, decreasing in importance. The question then is whether the first factor dominates or not.
My understanding is that it does, with "g" explaining some 50% of the variance, and the various smaller "s" factors maybe 5% to 20% at most.
After all you just might seem like an insufferable smartass to someone you probably want to be liked by. Why hurt interpersonal relationships for little gain?
If your colleague is really that bright, I wouldn't be surprised if they're simply careful about how much and when they show it to us common folk.
I don't think they are faking it.
