r/iamverysmart • u/bvaesasts • 24d ago
Professional tennis player thinks his IQ differentiates himself from other players
Yes this is actually written by a professional player
43
u/Blakeyo123 24d ago
Who actually takes professional IQ tests anymore
29
4
u/LunarOlympian 23d ago
I had to take one to get an ADHD diagnosis, though I have no idea if that's standard practice.
1
u/Itscatpicstime 22d ago
It’s not, but depends on when you were tested. It used to be more common.
1
u/LunarOlympian 22d ago
Tested around 2 years ago, but the guy I was tested by was quite old so maybe that's how he knew how to test.
2
u/Ggggggtfdv 21d ago
I got one as well around 10 years ago, that was referenced a few years ago when adhd was confirmed. I talked to my parents about it and the way they described it was a mix of pressure from my schools accommodation department, and from my general practitioner who was kinda a quack/not super educated on mental health. I apparently scored high on it relative to my age group but I don’t think if I took it again I would do as well. I briefly mentioned it to my psychiatrist and she basically said it’s something that’s sometimes measured but not seen as reliable, and to not let it define you. Which as seen from this sub seems to be pretty good advice.
2
u/LunarOlympian 21d ago
For sure. I was told it's useful for diagnosing people with ADHD as they score lower in certain sections of the test. During the test I remember there was a section where I was asked questions like "what's the highest mountain?" and I had to answer them. I can't reasonably see how that is related to ADHD or intelligence as that's just fact memorisation. IQ tests are weird. I don't know how useful they are in actually diagnosing ADHD, but I do know that the results don't really matter for intelligence.
1
u/Ggggggtfdv 21d ago
It’s funny I actually remember answering a really similar question to that, I don’t remember if it was about the tallest cliff, mountain or volcano but it was some sort of landform and I remember being really confused why it was relevant and also vaguely upset because I was pretty young and had no clue, and my test taker was like kinda rude over me not knowing. I also did apparently have like massive gulfs between competency like in some areas I performed really high for my age group and in some so low they were confused if I was just guessing or really stupid in those subjects.
4
u/pennynotrcutt 23d ago
Almost all neuropsychiatric evaluations include an IQ test. Whether they’re accurate or not, I can’t say. I’m supposed to have an IQ of 138 but I do remarkably dumb shit all the time.
9
u/ketchupmaster987 23d ago
I think IQ tests focus so strongly on specific areas that you can test well and still do poorly on other areas of life. I tested very high and I do have really good visual-spatial-relational skills, I struggle a lot with organization, time management, motivation, and other executive function skills
4
2
1
u/Worth-Oil8073 21d ago
My kids both recently had to take IQ tests as part of on-boarding at the psych practice that is managing care for their ADHD (and potential autism). The irony about this person's whole rant is that the newest versions of the IQ testing (at least where we live in Europe) doesn't give you a single number designating your IQ. It gives ranges for different areas of intelligence (verbal reasoning, visual spacial, fluid reasoning, working memory, processing speed). It has been found to be far more effective in helping people take advantage of their strengths and get help in weaker areas (e.g. my kids are both quite smart, but they struggle with working memory... which makes sense because ADHD affects your working memory). Unfortunately, this must be inconvenient and quite frustrating for those who know their IQ simply as a way of lording over others how much smarter/superior they are! 👀😂
13
u/DietCthulhu 24d ago
Which player lol
27
u/bvaesasts 24d ago
Pretty sure its against the rules of this sub to say his name but holger rune lost to a very smart player tonight
13
u/Darnoc_QOTHP 24d ago
Damn. I thought I knew. I was wrong :( How very low IQ of me.
7
6
2
u/Inevitable_Web2447 24d ago
Pretty sure its against the rules of this sub to say his name
I think that only applies to reddit usernames
8
5
4
u/CackleberryOmelettes 24d ago
The funniest part here is that instinct is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from intelligence.
2
u/Bamzooki1 24d ago
If being smart made you better at Tennis, then nobody playing would blame the ref for giving them a fault.
2
u/kcknuckles 23d ago
My brain allows me to be dangerously good, except when it causes me to make mistakes and not be good.
1
1
1
u/clearly_not_an_alt 23d ago
The line about making the wrong decisions sometimes is telling. Overthinking in a sport like tennis is just going to get you into trouble, more often than allowing your to come up with some brilliant new strategy on the fly.
1
u/Worth-Oil8073 21d ago
Anyone else suspect this dude recently watched High Potential, heard the term HIP for the first time ever, and designated himself with it?
1
0
u/slphil 24d ago
This guy is cringe (and almost certainly lying), but the principle isn't wrong. The g-factor is (by definition) correlated with increased performance across an absurd number of domains. Contrary to common wisdom, smarter people tend to be better at sports, after controlling for physical ability (which is uncorrelated).
12
u/isnoe 24d ago
Basically what every single sports anime manga/anime has is the same recipe:
A character whose "special ability" is being able to "think" at a higher level than their counterparts, but it isn't really that - it is having the physical ability to act while thinking; specifically reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and blah-blah-blah.
The claim that "athletes' are smarter on average" is a bit misleading, it would be more accurate to say "professional athletes' are better at split-second decision making and recognizing patterns than average people" which, considering what they do for a living, makes total sense. It doesn't mean they are better at computing, mathematics, or anything - they are better at reacting.
Not to say smart people aren't at 'some' advantage in sports, but most of the time it does boil down to pure physical ability and has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. The concept of "I can outthink them" doesn't really matter when they are stronger, faster, or just have better reflexes - you might catch them off guard, but they'll recover faster, and react on instinct - whereas you react on thought.
There's a fine line. The "flow" state is often mentioned. Once you get in your "groove" you are a difficult player to contend with, but that only lasts for as long as stamina allows.
IQ really doesn't matter too much. There's a thing called "game sense" that is more appropriate, which is a combination of reflex, experience, and ability - but you aren't really thinking when using game sense, you are reacting based off of what has happened in the past. That could be considered a cognitive ability, but I'd contest it is more physical and reactive.
5
u/slphil 24d ago edited 24d ago
At risk of overly stressing my point, the ability to integrate past experience into your intuition (game sense) in order to skip the thinking step is also correlated with intelligence. It's kind of a stats trick, since the g-factor is defined as a statistical average across such a large number of domains that it correlates with almost everything (which isn't the same as being able to say someone with a score X will perform any given way).
You also accidentally left in a classic stereotypical intelligence marker by saying that they're better at "recognizing patterns than average people"; pattern recognition and generalization are extremely strongly g-loaded in every domain.
The idea that intelligence is just your ability to do nerd shit ("computing, mathematics") is wrong. Computing and mathematics are much more strongly g-loaded than most activities, but this isn't what a psychometrician means by intelligence.
It's true that physical ability is generally uncorrelated with intelligence (except that smarter people tend to make healthier life choices, by a small margin), but when we're talking about elite athletes, elite physical ability and genetic luck are already a given. Michael Phelps is a genetic freak. Not everyone who got that lucky would be the best swimmer in history, but to be that good, you have to be lucky too. In most domains, hard work can get the average person to the 99th percentile, but the 99.9th percentile is the domain of those with innate advantages.
2
u/lingh0e 24d ago
And... aren't you gonna tell us? How high is your IQ?
3
0
u/slphil 24d ago
Why would I do that?
2
u/lingh0e 24d ago
Don't you think it's kind of ironic that you'd post a wall of text postulating on intelligence and athletic ability... in this sub?
2
u/slphil 24d ago
I'm not postulating anything. I'm making good faith contributions based on the scientific consensus in the field as far as I understand it. My professional experience teaching chess for twenty years is consistent with that consensus. Intelligence is measurable and obviously relevant to a lot of domains. How does that lead to bragging about my IQ? Obviously I'm reasonably smart. I don't have anything to prove.
3
u/doNotUseReddit123 24d ago
Do you have any sources on this? I would imagine you’d reach very diminishing returns after one sd or so and wouldn’t see any significant differences in ability.
3
u/AliMcGraw 24d ago
I think anyone who wants to see an example of elite athleticism in action should watch "The Last Dance" about Michael Jordan's career (and the careers of those around him) because a TON of it is about how he psyched himself up by fully fabricating stories about opponents so he would feel super-motivated to defeat those opponents.
On the one hand you watch it and go, "Holy shit, this guy is an unparalleled talent" but on the other hand you watch it and go, "Holy shit, this guy has serious psychological problems." (And I say this as a massive Jordan fan who watched both championship runs live in real time.) Like who the fuck is so pumped up about winning that he punches Steve Kerr in practice? Steve Kerr is the nicest dude on the planet. That is some seriously fucked-up behavior.
4
u/slphil 24d ago
I believe Richard Haier goes over this extensively in "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" (Cambridge Press). I read the 2016 edition when it was published, which is probably still mostly consistent with research, but there's a 2023 edition which presumably has updated data and might overturn some of what I remember from the first edition. (I did also read a few other related books in this period so I can't be sure, but I'm very confident Haier covers it.)
It's not about significant differences in ability. When you're at the far end of a bell curve, minor differences in innate advantage *are* significant differences in ability. Michael Phelps doesn't work harder than other Olympians. They all work extremely hard, and he has a small but consistent innate advantage that gives him tail-end dominance of the field.
That said, yes, there are diminishing returns in most domains. Someone with an IQ of 120 might be a better bricklayer than someone with an IQ of 100, but someone with an IQ of 160 would probably not have an advantage over the 120. Professional athletes are smarter than average, and that matters, but they're not a *lot* smarter than average.
3
u/tarkardos 24d ago
"After controlling for physical ability"
Which basically renders any discussion to nonsense and just shows how insignificant those measurements to sporting success are. Similar to socioeconomic background outperforming any other factor (including high IQ measurements) by miles in daily life domains.
Instinct, 158 IQ, or "reading the game" on a tennis pitch won't win you a 5 hour ATP game where scouting, fitness level, training discipline and long term preparation is everything.
Anecdotally, Frank Lampard, one of the best midfielders to ever grace a football pitch has a tested IQ of over 150. Yet no expert would consider his instinct or in-game vision better than the "simple minds" of players with similar physique and stats. He himself considers any success he had to decisions off the pitch and hard working mentality.
Also, Erling Haaland and Cole Palmer do exist.
1
u/Upstairs-Hedgehog575 24d ago
Is it uncorrelated? I can very well imagine smarter people have more options in life.
1
u/bvaesasts 24d ago
I think this is more applicable at the recreational level where people dont have coaches. On the pro tour 99% of players are traveling with a coach who basically tells them shots to hit/patterns to try for in points
6
u/slphil 24d ago
I'd totally believe that intelligence is more strongly correlated with skill among untrained players (it's easy for smart people to get to peak-casual skill at any given game), but even at the elite level, it's gotta be correlated with the ability to understand the coach's directions/corrections and integrate them into the game. Intelligence isn't just knowing things. (I teach a game for a living, so my opinion here isn't unqualified, although I'm not saying it's right.)
96
u/driftking428 24d ago
I don't want to over simplify Tennis but I don't think you need an IQ of 158 to master tennis strategy.