In my opinion, one should drop the concept of IQ as a measurement of a property somebody has. “Intelligence tests” are context dependent. The real requirement mostly is to have a prediction of somebody being successful in education or in a job. It is perfectly possible to design tests that highly correlate with these successes.
Maybe your IQ is statistically high, but still not high enough to understand math and mechanics.
Nope. It is entirely possible for exactly what he describes: someone who is very good at some skills and not so good at others. IQ as a general evaluation is rather useless when trying to find reasons behind success or the lack thereof in specific skills.
I would think ultimately it has something to do (obviously) with genetics, as expressed in lobe differentiation. The way the mind stores data, and relates that data into other forms of public speaking, working with hands, etc). Because a lot of society is based upon the ability to speak and write (as with my field), I have tended to excel there—which may be the reason I am there. Perhaps the key is simply to find, as the saying goes, what one is good at and working on it.
My experience tells me I could probably learn to play just about any instrument or learn any language (strong analogy skills), but I’d give anything to be able to draw more than a stick figure. People who draw in 3D (and it actually looks like something), simply see the world differently, which is beautiful. I look at a set of facts and testimony and see structure as well, and a way to express it, like a canvas.
All of my siblings seem to have the same kind of intelligence that I have. None of us can draw, or are mechanical, but all of us play multiple instruments and are bi, tri or quadralinqual. What’s odd is that neither of our parents appear to be of exceptionally high IQ, but I’d imagine my older siblings are nearly off the charts.
Maybe the mailman was a genius.