I bombed the SATs. I know I'm not stupid. I've published news articles and been a successful nonfiction author. SATs rely on LEARNED MATERIAL. So then these researchers will argue that if you truly have a high IQ, you will read a lot and gather the information on your own. What they are discounting (and this is why the SATs as  IQ tests are so flawed) is that especially creative people are more interested in other pursuits, especially in high school. In high school I spent all my time drawing and honing my craft. If you truly want to be at the top of your game in something, you need to dedicate all of your time to it (this is especially true for sports or heck, even stock trading). SATs don't include puzzles that a true IQ test includes (as far as I know). I know I'm good at visual puzzles. What I"m saying is, SATs are especially flawed as a measure of IQ but that's not what they're supposed to be used for anyway They are used to determine if you can hack it in college and at what level. I wish someone would really press these guys on this fact. Jordan Peterson has mentioned the same thing and I completely disagree.,(reply>), @Thinking-Ape I used the term "book smarts" colloquially. I think you know what I mean. Some children love studying while others don't. There are dozens of reasons why a child may not be interested in studying and stating that he or she flunks a bunch of tests does not mean he/she has a low IQ. Some very smart children are uninterested in school because they find it TOO EASY and are BORED. If they have crappy teachers who do not recognize their intelligence then they'll slip through the cracks and flunk the SATs. The bloody SAT score is LEARNED KNOWLEDGE only. They cannot possibly test for intelligence unless the student taking the exam already knows the vocabulary, etc. Furthermore, some students will do well on the SATs but be incapable of reasoning and problem solving on their own, without the aid of a school environment. I've seen it many times.,(reply>), @Meghan McCarthy There is no such thing as book smarts. You imply anyone can read a book no matter how complex and understand its contents, which simply isn't true. Intelligence is basically problem solving and there are tons of things, that whilst they do require talent, have nothing to do with problem solving. That is all it is. You are expanding the definition beyond to encompass all sorts of things that are unrelated to very g-loaded tasks and art is not a very g-loaded task.,(reply>), @Thinking-Ape BTW, researchers have done studies of artists who can draw at a high level. An article said, "These detailed scans revealed that the artist group had significantly more grey matter in an area of the brain called the precuneus in the parietal lobe." So I'm sticking with my opinion that SATs do NOT measure full intelligence. They measure kids who are "book smart.",(reply>), @Meghan McCarthy It is not just that. You implied that SATs, which predict academic performance, do not measure anything related to intelligence. Are you saying that being able to quickly solve a mathematics problem on a timer tells you nothing? Does understanding complex physics problems not require IQ? Sure, some people do other things but you completely missed his point; those are anecdotes as by and large these tests predict academic performance fairly well and that is why they are used.,(reply>), @Thinking-Ape I was specifically referring to SAT tests. If you haven't learned the vocabulary or you haven't learned the math theorems then you'll flunk. That's a fact. That does not mean you're stupid - we're talking about TEENAGERS who have other things going on. I don't need to dedicate my life to studying IQ to know that.