A high IQ is a characteristic of readiness to solve problems of the corresponding test. If the test is significant, its value will affect your quotes / authority in the corresponding environment. But it cannot be correlated with intelligence. The latter is usually spoken of when characterizing the ability to heuristics. The latter is usually not tested.
Intelligence is, first of all, your ability to THINK. And this gives a lot - the ability to get out of difficult life circumstances, in the first place. Therefore, everyone needs to raise it, I think. By the way, intellectual games, all sorts of development, a healthy lifestyle and supplements help very well for this (I personally take turmeric every day for 3 g., I order theanine Evalarovsky in the Fitomarket online store, it's cheaper there + I also try to eat more fatty fish). All together and helps)) Thanks to all these funds, I have already won in a bunch of contests and olympiads, and this is something, yes it means)
Nowadays, tendencies in the West seem to be going aside that the ability to solve a problem is not as important as the ability to find alternative solutions.
High intelligence contributes not so much to solving a problem as to finding new solutions.
Immediately I remembered the scientists who made discoveries by looking at the donut and coming up with a new way.
Everyone can find one way, 2-3 not many, but 20-30 units.
Intelligence is a kind of general ability to solve problems, any tasks and, mainly, life. A high IQ makes it easier and faster to reach your goals, which are more difficult for people with a lower IQ. But this is all a perfect model. In practice, intelligence tests (for example, the Wechsler test) relatively easily identify mentally retarded and, simply, people with low intelligence, but many questions arise about a high IQ. The main one is what is considered an objective criterion of intelligence. Let's say we take the level of income as a starting point. But, after all, someone can graduate from a university and get a rather low-paying job, and someone, without graduating from anything, can go to cut wood on a rotational basis and receive, in the end, more. Moreover, scientists all over the world are making huge amounts of money. Success in education is also not suitable as a criterion - we, after all, cannot know the true motivation of students. If for a student the only goal is not to fly out of the university, then the most optimal option (requiring the least expenditure of energy) is to study with only three. At the same time, his intelligence may be, potentially, not lower than that of Einstein, but he spends it only on drinks and girls. The level of happiness is also not suitable: a homeless alcoholic may be happy, and a Nobel laureate may suffer from depression.
Besides, it is not a fact that one can, in general, talk about general intelligence. For example, our emigrated oligarchs (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, etc.) did not particularly show their economic genius outside their homeland. We can say that their abilities corresponded to a specific historical moment and could only manifest themselves under certain conditions. The conditions changed - and it was all over. This is a kind of "special intelligence". The best examples of special intelligence are musical success, artistic success, etc. For example, absolute ear for music allows you to accurately determine one or another sounding note (frequency of sound vibrations), of course, after getting acquainted with musical notation. People without a musical ear may try to develop their hearing, but, firstly, they will never achieve the same success, and, secondly, a short pause in training will force all training to start over. Probably the same with visual artists. In some part of the brain, there are more corresponding fields (and there are more neurons in them) and now a person sees or hears differently from the others. Those tasks that will be very easy for him will be beyond the power of many (for example, tuning a guitar).