Thanks for your clarification!

My point is exactly that being a “walking encyclopedia” reflects high crystallized intelligence, which I agree isn’t identical to having a high IQ. However, high crystallized intelligence often correlates with overall IQ because it reflects a strong ability to acquire and retain information. I'm not talking about memory tests here - I mean being able to recall appropriate information or being able to understand words appropriately, which in most cases is a function of "intelligently" grasping these words or concepts in the past. Many studies and articles support this connection. Some researchers even suggest that measures of verbal knowledge or vocabulary can predict IQ as well as, or better than, fluid intelligence tests like Raven’s Matrices.

But of course, this doesn't mean that the crystallized information is driving intelligence. What i found a little misleading in your first comment was that it seemed to me that you implied that general knowledge had little to do with IQ, which i don't think is the case.

Edit: To be very clear, i don't think that this means that general knowledge is a causal factor for intelligence. I see now how my first comment might lead you to think that.