Have you taken the ASVAB? It's an IQ test, the AO sections in particular, which is pictures of shapes that you have to mentally imagine and rotate and such so they can test your spatial reasoning. Moreover, you're also making the mistake of thinking that whatever IQ test you've taken is the same as IQ tests since they were developed in the early 20th Century. They've changed, a lot. Early tests showed that most people were retarded, which was just patently stupid (ironically)
As for athletic ability, it COULD be 1%, but long, long experience tells us it's not. I'm guessing you're not a competitive athlete, and certainly not one that has competed at the higher levels. Boxing is called the "sweet science" for a reason, because while there are skills/training/practice involved, so much of it is impossible to impart and is intuitive (reading your opponent, knowing distance, when to strike and with what, etc.). There is a imperceptible quality about athletic genius that some people are born with that is not measured in tests but trophies and medals.
As for extremely high IQ individuals, history and experience tells us that these people tend to not amount to much more than the average person. As Thomas Edison said, it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. IQ is nothing but a proxy measurement for a thing we don't even fully understand, for example, what is a "thought"? It's more than a bio-chemical process in your brain, but we aren't very good at measuring people having better/quicker thoughts than other people when we can't quantify "thought" itself very well.
With all due respect, this has been very interesting, but it is taking up to much of my time, this is especially the case when I am very specific and you to push the goalposts or repeat the same thing said another way. I acknowledge the weakness of multiple intelligence theory, but it at least accounts for what we see in life, that is things like idiot savants, charismatic losers, genius in mom's basement, and most people being average.
I look forward to your reply, thanks.
Have you taken the ASVAB? It's an IQ test, the AO sections in particular, which is pictures of shapes that you have to mentally imagine and rotate and such so they can test your spatial reasoning. Moreover, you're also making the mistake of thinking that whatever IQ test you've taken is the same as IQ tests since they were developed in the early 20th Century. They've changed, a lot. Early tests showed that most people were retarded, which was just patently stupid (ironically)
As for athletic ability, it COULD be 1%, but long, long experience tells us it's not. I'm guessing you're not a competitive athlete, and certainly not one that has competed at the higher levels. Boxing is called the "sweet science" for a reason, because while there are skills/training/practice involved, so much of it is impossible to impart and is intuitive (reading your opponent, knowing distance, when to strike and with what, etc.). There is a imperceptible quality about athletic genius that some people are born with that is not measured in tests but trophies and medals.
As for extremely high IQ individuals, history and experience tells us that these people tend to not amount to much more than the average person. As Thomas Edison said, it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. IQ is nothing but a proxy measurement for a thing we don't even fully understand, for example, what is a "thought"? It's more than a bio-chemical process in your brain, but we aren't very good at measuring people having better/quicker thoughts than other people when we can't quantity "thought" itself very well.
With all due respect, this has been very interesting, but it is taking up to much of my time, this is especially the case when I am very specific and you to push the goalposts or repeat the same thing said another way. I acknowledge the weakness of multiple intelligence theory, but it at least accounts for what we see in life, that is things like idiot savants, charismatic losers, genius in mom's basement, and most people being average.
I look forward to your reply, thanks.