but I would expect that people who measure low on IQ tests but are raised immersed in an technical or artistic environment have as much potential to become masters as people with higher IQ, or very nearly so.
I would strongly expect the opposite. But I agree it would be beneficial to figure out which of us is right.
According to the latest studies, IQ is largely determined by early exposure to abstract thought. This is the main reason IQ is still rising in first-world nations where malnutrition hasn't been an issue for generations. If you rob a grade school kid of playground time and learning to share toys, and instead force them to grind out math lessons and computer science problems, their adult IQ will be significantly higher.
They might end up tremendously unhappy, of course. It just goes to show how raw IQ is a silly measure to value, let alone optimize for.
Do you have any links to these latest studies that I can take a look at?
If you're just talking about the Flynn effect, then your conclusion is overreaching.
IQ is still very highly heritable and adjusted for the Flynn effect has very little to do with early exposure to abstract reasoning AFAIK (but would love to see those studies).
I would strongly expect the opposite. But I agree it would be beneficial to figure out which of us is right.