Correlation value over IQ at 100 seems to be already well under the variance so not really meaningful, and if you look at what the researchers call Originality, the correlation is actually negative over IQ 110.
Just as a correction to your comment, I am not stating this as an adamant fact, but as an “indication” not a “demonstration”, I said: “indicated by recent research”
I understand the reference I pointed out has a limited scope (Chinese children, age 11-13), as any research of this kind, but beyond the rigorous scientific demonstration of this concept, I am expressing the fact that IQ tests are very incomplete, which is not novel.
Correlation value over IQ at 100 seems to be already well under the variance so not really meaningful, and if you look at what the researchers call Originality, the correlation is actually negative over IQ 110.
Just as a correction to your comment, I am not stating this as an adamant fact, but as an “indication” not a “demonstration”, I said: “indicated by recent research”
I understand the reference I pointed out has a limited scope (Chinese children, age 11-13), as any research of this kind, but beyond the rigorous scientific demonstration of this concept, I am expressing the fact that IQ tests are very incomplete, which is not novel.
Thank you for your response.