The lack of correlation between success and IQ is interesting, but I suspect it's only true on the margin, and is largely the product of selection bias. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find that, among full professors of physics, there's negligible correlation between IQ and Nobel Prizes. Of course, that doesn't mean that a high IQ doesn't help you win a Nobel Prize in Physics—it simply means that all physics professors already have high IQs, and on the margin it's not an important factor in winning a Prize. Similarly, my guess is that virtually every entrepreneur in the OP's sample was already smart enough to succeed. In particular, I'd wager that IQ is still helpful in entrepreneurial success—I'd be very surprised if the average IQ of their sample wasn't substantially above average.
There is another selection bias: the companies that are declared successes are those that went through the FI 4 month boot camp and founded a company.
But they have a 60% drop out rate.
Why do people like myself (and several very intelligent people in my session) dropout of FI ? We all dropped out because we found the course wasn't well planned, the weekly assignments were often annoying and non-sensical and got in the way of doing important work on developing the company. They dump surprise assignments on us during Christmas while we are at our relatives. I wasn't getting important questions answered and found better info elsewhere.
So intelligent people are dropping out and then FI reads this as: intelligence is not correlated with success. So they reduce IQ from the entrance test. Correlation does not imply causation.
Above 130 (2 SDs in a 15 SD IQ test) an IQ test will lose its predictive power, with this over 99% of people are bellow, theoretically. This is a problem only if they are not close to the this theoretical limit, it would be easy to test something like that.
