People with fantastic working memories and mediocre IQs....

[Payman Saghafi]

In doing some anecdotal research, I have found that there are quite a few people with professionally tested IQs in the 130-140 range (SD 15) with poor visual and/or verbal working memory.
They seem to compensate by having phenomenal long-term memories and/or other strengths (such as executive function).

I doubt that there are very many people with profoundly high IQsthat have average working memories.  Past a certain IQ threshold a powerful working memory might be requisite.

I am wondering if there are some people with fantastic working memories that have performed in the average or worse range on professional IQ tests or substitutes.

Examples:

1)  High WAIS working memory scores with relatively poor overall IQ.
2)  Average IQ with excellent reading comprehension skills on tests like the SAT, ACT or GRE.
3)  A high score on the LSAT with relatively poor IQ test results.  
4)  High LSAT scores with poor Miller Analogies, Vocabulary or General knowledge test scores.
5)  Dual N Back scores at N-Back 8 or higher with relatively IQ test scores, vocabulary.
6)  Vast differences between math and verbal skills for Native English Speakers.
6)  Any interesting stories you'd like to tell.

 Please tell me your stories!  It will mean a lot to me.  Please keep your stories honest.  I am trusting that you won't troll this post for your own amusement.

Thank you!

Regards,

Pay

[Payman Saghafi]

By the way, I will give you my stats just to make this fair:

GRE Score:   1540/1600.     740 Verbal and 800 quant.   Took it in 2007.  Studied for a couple months.
LSAT score:  Took it at home.  Very difficult for me without practice.  After some practice got much easier.  I think cold I would have scored 150.  With practice I'd score far higher.  I don't like dense reading.  I obsess a bit when I read. Still need to take a complete test to see how high I can score.
WAIS:  I took it at home.  A friend had a kit.  I scored over 130ish.
Dual N Back:  Top score is dual-N-Back 9 at 92%.  I use the name "pacman" on that site if you want to review my history.
ACT in high school:  Got a pathetic score as I suffered from ADD, OCD and anxiety.  Couldn't pay attention to anything.

Pay

[jttoto2]

[jttoto2]

Well, this isn't exactly what you are looking for but I'll give my profile.  I've taken the WAIS years ago and scored high on the WM memory portion or some equivalent to that. (prior to n-backing I believe) I haven't gotten my general executive functioning tested but I suspect certain weaknesses in several key areas, especially planning and long-term visual memory (strangely, my spatial WM is high).  I'll use the Cambridge Brain Sciences as a proxy since I've never had a full evaluation.  I scored above the 90th percentile on nearly all the memory sections, but the planning section was not up to par. My uneven cognitive profile could be attributed to my family history of bipolar, and I certainly have one that runs the risk (poor planning skills despite normal or above-average intelligence is common), while some key areas that may act as a buffer against it (such as strong WM).  

My RAPM is also high.  

I think of the LSAT as mainly a test of WM, especially considering the dense reading required even for the logical reasoning section.   

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:14:35 PM UTC-4, Payman Saghafi wrote:

[Mercel]

"I am wondering if there are some people with fantastic working
memories
that have performed in the average or worse range on professional IQ
tests
or substitutes."

Didn't you read the publication on prodigies posted just recently?

[jttoto2]

Yes, I was going to point that out as well but then I realized that they were all kids.  It is possible that their cognition will become more "symmetrical" as they get older.  I believe someone made a comment about WM being their potential intelligence and without the requisite knowledge, being so young, many of their IQs were underestimated.  Intelligence can change a lot until adulthood.  It would be interesting to see stuff with adults, or at least adults with a similar profile that Pay is looking for.  

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:14:35 PM UTC-4, Payman Saghafi wrote:

[jttoto2]

Edit:  Nevermind, no one made that comment on that thread, but it was my takeaway from that study at least.  At that age, I'd expect a lot of variance between crystallized skills (vocab, reading, and math in IQ testing)and WM, for example.  Given enough time, I'd expect those skills to be closer to their WM score.  

*please merge*

[Mercel]

Quote from the study: "The child prodigies ranged from seven to thirty-
two years of age at the time of testing."

P2 was 32 years when tested, and: "He scored a 118 on fluid reasoning
and a 152 on working memory, which places him at the 88 percentile for
fluid reasoning and the 99.9 percentile for working memory."

[Mercel]

The correlation between working memory and fluid intelligence have
fluxed greatly from study to study, but I think the mean number
deriven from meta-analysis showed that somewhere around .70 of the
variances in IQ could be explained by working memory capacity.

[jttoto2]

My mistake.  I read abstract and assumed the child prodigies were still children.  I have to wonder now if WM might be more important than fluid reasoning.

[Payman Saghafi]

Good point.  I am more interested in adults.  A profoundly gifted child is too unpredictable.

Pay

[Payman Saghafi]

That is exactly where my thoughts are at.  In fact, this is often the case.  Many profoundly gifted children show imbalances when they are young because of a deep interest in a particular subject.  These imbalances level off when they grow up.  I once read about an 8 year old mathematical prodigy that scored 300ish on the verbal section of the old SAT as a child and 800 in math.  Obviously once fully grown such a child is destined to get an 800 or something close to it in verbal ability also.

Pay

[Payman Saghafi]

You are right!  My mistake.  I should have read more carefully.  Thank you for reminding me not to "assume."

[Payman Saghafi]

You are absolutely right!