Who Had the Highest IQ of All Time?

[Tigers2B1]

Also, while "success" is open to individual interpretation --- in that it could mean having a large family in a five million dollar home OR it could mean living alone as a self-reliant near a pond OR anything in between if graded by individual standards. When discussing certain types of "achievement" - IQ does have correlations with real life achievements and activities. As this paper from the American Psychological Association indicates, IQ has a correlation with school performance, job performance, years of education and a variety of other life achievements.

Note that a correlation of +1 (or 1.0) means that whenever you see one item you always see the other. (e.g. the sun and sunlight) A correlation of ‘0’ mean that if you see one there is a random chance you will see the other. A correlation of –1 means that if you see one you never see the other. You can get an approximate idea from that -

Tests as Predictors

School Performance. Intelligence tests were originally devised by Alfred Binet to measure children's ability to succeed in school. They do in fact predict school performance fairly well: the correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50…

Years of Education. Some children stay in school longer than others; many go on to college and perhaps beyond. Two variables that can be measured as early as elementary school correlate with the total amount of education individuals will obtain: test scores and social class background. Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55 …

Job Performance. Scores on intelligence tests predict various measures of job performance: supervisor ratings, work samples, etc. Such correlations, which typically lie between r=.30 and r=.50, are partly restricted by the limited reliability of those measures themselves. They become higher when statistically corrected for this unreliability: in one survey of relevant studies (Hunter, 1983), the mean of the corrected correlations was .54. This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intelligence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance….

Social Outcomes. Psychometric intelligence is negatively correlated with certain socially undesirable outcomes. For example, children with high test scores are less likely than lower-scoring children to engage in juvenile crime. In one study, Moffitt, Gabrielli, Mednick & Schulsinger (1981) found a correlation of -.19 between IQ scores and number of juvenile offenses in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to -. 17…

The link –

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/iku.html

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "As this paper from the American Psychological Association indicates, IQ has a correlation with school performance, job performance, years of education and a variety of other life achievements."

Gee, I would hope so.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So first you say IQ doesn't predict anything, and then when you are told about these correlations (which are old, old news), you imply it was obvious.

Would it hurt you to investigate, just as an interesting thought, that you were wrong?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You are trying to assign a cause/effect relationship to mere correlation. That is an obvious fallacy.

My point has been that IQ tests cannot separate learned knowledge from natural intelligence. Your correlation study would support my argument as equally as yours. Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here's a site that gives the honest skinny on online IQ tests (mostly sucker bait), and a couple of suggestions on how the find out your own IQ. Not an authority, just a resource.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L2-1UnderstandingIQ.html

 

[Tigers2B1]

You are trying to assign a cause/effect relationship to mere correlation. That is an obvious fallacy.

Who said there was a direct cause - effect relationship? As in "a 130 IQ = PHD degree." Not me nor has anyone else that I've noticed. In fact, I used the word "correlation" in my post a number of times, never used the term "cause - effect" or anything similar, and even went as far as to explain what "correlation" meant. Now ---- high positive correlations of the sort offered certainly create a strong implication that a relationship exists between the abilities displayed by IQ results and other achievement.

My point has been that IQ tests cannot separate learned knowledge from natural intelligence.

You've already posted that 'conclusion' without even the supporting reasons OR any source once. Since everybody can post anything about everything --- I’ll ask again --do you have an authoritative source for that? And if not an authoritative source --- do you have any rationale to support what are only, at this time, unsupported conclusions?

Your correlation study would support my argument as equally as yours.

Well its not "my correlation study" – it is a paper from the American Psychological Association. The American Psychological Association is the primary association of psychometricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists, who are involved in this sort of testing.

And finally, how does this study support "…my argument as equally as yours" as you stated in the above quote?

Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?

This paper dealt with IQ as a predictor. That is – take two large, random groups of 10 year olds from the same economic background. For the purposes of this example - everyone in Group 1 has an IQ score of 130 and everyone in Group 2 has an IQ score of 100. These groups are similar but for their IQ scores. Individual personality (motivation, values, et. al) is factored out due to the size of the groups. From those IQ scores you can make valid predictions about the later life 'achievements' generally found in each of those two big groups many years later.

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

Did you not see this prior post directly responding to the same request made by you? --- Here it is -

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like. However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions. Not actual standardized IQ questions used by professionals but, nevertheless descriptive of the types of questions I saw. Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that. Also ---- if these questions aren’t considered culture free why would that be?”

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

 

[hitssquad]

Culture-free vs culture-reduced vs unbiased

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like.

There are no culture-free instruments that rely on voluntary item performances by test subjects. Arthur Jensen explains this in his 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing. Raymond Cattell's Culture-Fair IQ Test is sometimes misremembered as his Culture-Free test.

There are, however, culture-reduced tests. Further however, these tests are not necessarily any less biased than tests that are highly-loaded on culture. As Arthur Jensen shows in Bias in Mental Testing, tests highly-loaded on culture can be virtually free of bias, given that the tested populations in question have been given equal exposure to the particular culture the tests are loaded on.

However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions.

http://nicologic.free.fr/ tests seem to me to be good examples of culture-reduced tests.

Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that.

IQ tests do not have questions per se; they have items.

• Test and Item. A test is any collection of items (tasks, problems, questions, etc.) that elicit abilities when persons are asked to respond to the items in a particular way. The items may be anything the test maker chooses, so long as each one elicits an ability.
  
  It is important not to confuse the three distinct meanings associated with the term "item." First, there is the physical item itself--a spoken or printed question, or problem, or task to be performed (but not including the person's performance). Second, there is the item response --the record or score of a person's adequacy of performance on the item. Third, there are the item statistics --the mean and variance of the scores on an item taken by a group of persons.

[Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p53.]

 

[Tigers2B1]

Thanks hitsquad for pointing out the correct terms and the clarification on bias and culture-reduced/fair tests. But thanks especially for your link to the online library --- I’ve now got that site linked in my favorites list :)

 

[hitssquad]

Questia and Seymour W. Itzkoff

thanks especially for your link to the online library

You're welcome. If The g Factor is of interest to you, the other books Questia has online that are written (or edited) by that book's editor, Seymour W. Itzkoff, may also be of interest to you. To find Itzkoff's other books, just perform an author search for the name Itzkoff.

One you may find yourself interested in in particular is The Decline of Intelligence in America: A Strategy for National Renewal.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Who said there was a direct cause - effect relationship? As in "a 130 IQ = PHD degree." Not me nor has anyone else that I've noticed."

You posted a correlation and implied that the sole determiner of the correlation was IQ. Go back and read your post. In no way did you allow for the possiblity that other factors may be present, such as aptitude.

RE: "In fact, I used the word "correlation" in my post a number of times, never used the term "cause - effect" or anything similar, and even went as far as to explain what "correlation" meant. Now ---- high positive correlations of the sort offered certainly create a strong implication that a relationship exists between the abilities displayed by IQ results and other achievement."

Not at all, especially since learned knowledge would produce the same result.

You have two possible factors, X and Y. Both predict Z. Finding Z implies in no way that X was present at all until you eliminate Y.


RE: "You've already posted that 'conclusion' without even the supporting reasons OR any source once."

That would be proving the negative. It is assumed that learned knowledge and high IQ are present in many individuals and that they would provide similar results. It is up to science to prove that they can separate one from the other. It is not up to skeptics to prove that they cannot be separated, since such a proof is impossible.

The burden of proof is on the IQ testers.


RE: " Since everybody can post anything about everything --- I’ll ask again --do you have an authoritative source for that?"

I don't argue from the viewpoint of appeals to authority. I have offered my rationale many times here -- learned knowledge can mask raw intelligence. There is little doubt about that.

Since you do not have any actual IQ questions for us to examine, do you have anything other than appeal to authority to support your notion that IQ can be isolated and tested in adults?


RE: "Well its not "my correlation study" – it is a paper from the American Psychological Association. The American Psychological Association is the primary association of psychometricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists, who are involved in this sort of testing."

In other words, you are resorting to an appeal of authority fallacy.


And finally, how does this study support "…my argument as equally as yours" as you stated in the above quote?

Easy. Those that have learned a great deal would exhibit the same characteristics -- better average salary, and so on -- when tested as those with high IQs. It was pointless to even bother posting the study for the sake of this argument.

RE: "Think about it: If IQ tests really only tested learned knowledge, doesn't it make sense that those measured with a high "IQ" would have better education, more money, and so on?"

RE: "This paper dealt with IQ as a predictor. That is – take two large, random groups of 10 year olds..."

This argument is the validity of IQ tests when given to ADULTS.

If you are so sure that the questions on an IQ test can be applied to adults and test purely intelligence, then post one of the questions for our review. If you don't even know the questions, then how can you be so sure? (Appeal to authority fallacy coming up, I bet.)

“Standardized IQ tests are not published so I don’t know what a standardized culture free test looks like."

In other words, you can't be sure. Is that correct?

Read the next paragraph -- hardly sounds like a definitive example of anything to base a theory on.

"However, I may have seen a 'culture free test' at one time even though it wasn’t described to me that way. I suspect this online "IQ test," which takes about a minute to load, is composed of what might be thought of as 'culture free' type questions. Not actual standardized IQ questions used by professionals but, nevertheless descriptive of the types of questions I saw. Does anyone know what professionally administered culture free questions look like and if so, do they look anything like what is shown at this site? ----- That is, they don’t assume much or anything in the way of “knowledge,” -- if these questions even do that. Also ---- if these questions aren’t considered culture free why would that be?”

RE: "So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)"

Never did load.

And you still haven't answered my question: How do you know whether or not an IQ is test is accurate?

 

[selfAdjoint]

RE: "So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)"

Never did load.

Loads just fine for me.

 

[BobG]

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

I think this test just points out the impossibility of filtering all past experiences. A person who had dealt with AND gates and NOR gates would be a little quicker and more likely to recognize a couple of the patterns than the average person.

None the less, this is at least a culture reduced test, where you'd at least expect a very small amount of deviation due to past experience and learning, even for adults. For younger age groups, I think you could be pretty confident in believing this was testing at least one aspect of cognitive ability rather than past learning.

 

[hitssquad]

Loads just fine for me.

It's .5 MB in size. If one doesn't have a broadband connection, it may "never" load.

 

[hitssquad]

The limited power of face validity

So --- go to this site ----> http://home.hetnet.nl/~rijk42/progressivUS.swf take a look at THESE QUESTIONS and let me know what your objections are – (i.e. Why these questions test ‘knowledge’ - rather than cognitive ability.)

I think this test just points out the impossibility of filtering all past experiences.

There do not seem to be statistics supporting that conclusion.

 

[BobG]

I admit, that's an extreme general statement made in response to the test in question.

The statement is obviously true (even if it may be quibbling). You can get close to 100% correlation, but you're never going to quite reach it, especially if you test adults with a diverse background. With a good test, good testing technique, and a good method of measurement, you can still reduce the 'noise' level enough to gain valuable information - at least a ball park figure for a person's intelligence.

The test in the link has a standard deviation of about 16 points, but it's only a free online test that only tests ability to recognize visual patterns. In this case, such a large deviation might be due more to the limited scope and the shortness of the test than question quality. The questions don't eliminate the possibility of results being 'corrupted' by using past experiences to reason out the answer, but a long enough test could also measure the rate that performance improves over the course of the test to compensate for that.

A culture free verbal test is a lot more challenging to develop. The closest I've seen to a culture-free verbal test is the military's DLAB tests, which test an individual's ability to learn new languages. The test invents new languages over the course of the day that the testee could not possibly have been exposed to and measures how quickly and accurately they learn the vocabulary and structure of new languages. Portions of the lessons/tests are even read to the testee via recording. Yet, since the languages they invent use structures similar to existing languages (even if modifying the specifics), a multi-lingual person will still be more likely to recognize the patterns and structures than a person who knows only English. A small matter for the military, since the tests' primary aim is to find people who can be literate in a foreign language in a short amount of time - not to figure why people can learn new languages.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test? I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen. As quoted below this reaction time is correlated with old fashion IQ results. I, however, had trouble finding information on the Net related to this.

I posted this link and quote already - on page two of this thread - but maybe you didn’t catch that.

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

…The idea was to provide a way of testing intelligence that would be free of "cultural bias," one that would not force anyone to deal with words or concepts that might be familiar to people from one culture but not to people from another. The IQ Cap recorded only brain waves; and a computer, not a potentially biased human test-giver, analyzed the results…

It was not a complicated process. You attached sixteen electrodes to the scalp of the person you wanted to test. … Then you had him stare at a marker on a blank wall. This particular researcher used a raspberry- red thumbtack. Then you pushed a toggle switch. In sixteen seconds the Cap's computer box gave you an accurate prediction (within one-half of a standard deviation) of what the subject would score on all eleven subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or, in the case of children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—

 

[hitssquad]

Reaction time, inspection time, and evoked potentials

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test?

A fitting rule would seem to be that any mental abilities test that relies on voluntary responses has cultural loading above zero and that any mental abilities test that does not rely on voluntary responses has cultural loading at zero.

I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen.

No. The test involving seeing something on a screen is an inspection time test. The task is to identify the fundamental figure through a precisely timed mask (the figure appears and a precise number of milliseconds later a masking figure appears - hence what is tested how large of a time gap you need - and the larger the time gap needed, the lower your IQ, generally.)

Reaction time tests involve a physical response (such as pushing a button) excecuted as quickly as possible to a stimulus (such as a light or a pattern of lights).


A culture free brain-electrode IQ test would probably involve evoked potentials (brain waves evoked by a fundamental stimulus such as auditory click).

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

 

[The_Professional]

Don't they administrate their own version of an IQ test?

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html

Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test. There is a large number of intelligence tests that are "approved". More information on whether a test you have taken is approved, as well as information on the procedure for taking the Mensa test, can be obtained from the nearest Mensa office. There are no on-line tests that can be used for admission to Mensa. Feel free to contact Mensa for specific details about eligibility.

Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html


Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

Beats spending time with stupid people instead.

 

[shonagon53]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

No cites? Or you just mindlessly ranting? Since, outside of the tiny penis claim ---- if I thought you had any credible cite to back up your assertion – well, I’d ask. But I don’t so I don’t.

-- But to the question portion of your statement ---- concerning your assertion that people still use IQ results notwithstanding their proven invalidity. I don’t know –- maybe it's because there are still people who look for evidence and don’t march lock step with the PC crowd? No? Surprise me.

 

[BlackVision]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

Because the genetic correlation of IQ tests is .80. Meaning it is 80% genetic based. It measure your natural intelligence.

 

[shonagon53]

No cites?

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

 

[BlackVision]

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

Well there certainly is plenty of researches and articles that hold the validity of IQ tests. Showing the correlation of one's IQ to one's ability to do multitude of different skills. Tigers2B1 was asking for any research to refute any of this but it seems like you do not have any.

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

 

[shonagon53]

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

Djee, on the scale of understanding Irony, you score a big ZERO.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

Not a "thought" but an assertion and one you don't and can't support. But as suspected --- an assertion along the line of "mindlessly ranting." Carry on.

 

[BlackVision]

Djee, on the scale of understanding Irony, you score a big ZERO.

Hold on. On my entire comment, this is the part that you decided to answer? That is just sad bro. Let me try again.

"Well there certainly is plenty of researches and articles that hold the validity of IQ tests. Showing the correlation of one's IQ to one's ability to do multitude of different skills. Tigers2B1 was asking for any research to refute any of this but it seems like you do not have any."

So do you have reviewable researches in such that the validity of IQ have been dismissed or once again have you talked out of your ass?

 

[Tasthius]

I'm doing a project on IQ and for posters I'm doing some information on the person with the Highest IQ in the world. Unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult thing to determine.

Type this name into Google: Christopher Michael Langan. He is a 40-something year old bar bouncer who has only made $6K a year for most of his adult life. He was featured on 20/20 and was subsequently administered a supervised IQ test by a psychologist that was hired by 20/20. Afterward, the shrink reported that it was the "highest score he had ever seen in his professional career," and estimated Langan's IQ to be somewhere near 190 (S.D. 16) This would make Langan a little smarter than Marilyn Savant. One must remember that Savant's score of 228 was a ratio score, not a deviation score. Ratio scores are outdated and were typically used for children only (Marilyn was 12 when she received that famous score). Her adult IQ has been estimated around 180-185, as her Mega and http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html test results suggest.

Speaking of the Mega test, this test was designed by one Ronald K. Hoeflin in the early 80's in order to psychometrically identify the "severely gifted." The test was intended to be so difficult that people with superior IQ's (such as Mensa members) would only get an average score. Only those with stratospheric IQ's (160+) would be able to answer the majority of questions correctly. The test has 48 questions. Marilyn answered 46 correctly, and Langan got 47 (he solved 43 in a few hours by his own admission, a phenomenal feat if you ask me). The test was published in OMNI magazine and taken by thousands of people (most of whom were brainiac puzzle solvers) and to my knowledge no one ever got a perfect 48 raw score. The Mega test is no longer availible online, but its sister test, the Titan test is. The Titan test is almost identical in construct. Follow the link above to access it (complete with norms). Mensa members should, on average, be able to answer about 8 or 10 questions correctly out of 48. Solomon Golomb, the rather well known mathematician, got l43 or 44 correct, and John Sununu (yeah the old CNN crossfire guy) got 44 correct, making him a rare intellect (I guess not all Republicans are stupid).

Interestingly, another very high scorer is another bar bouncer. Rick Rosner made a perfect 48 score on the Titan test, and scored 46 on the Mega, putting his IQ around 180.

The main difference in Langan and Savant seems to be that Langan has dedicated himself to serious scholarly and scientific research and not "mentally masturbating" by solving asinine puzzles and writing tabloid articles. Although Savant has put forth her own solution for Fermat's last theorem and a few other mathematical brain teasers, she hasn't done much else with that purported Olympian IQ. Langan has actually concocted a rather strange theory which supposedly is a TOE, and unifies cosmology and philosophy and calls it the "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe," or CTMU for short.


But I digress..

Other than Savant, Rosner, and Langan and maybe a few child prodigies such as Gregory Smith (PhD candidate in math at age 14) and that Oriental-American kid who is a med student at 12, I can't think of any more publicized geniuses currently living. Of course, when I refer to "genius" here I refer to a purely psychometric use of the term, not the one usually associated with accomplishment (i.e. Da Vinci, Newton, Leibniz or Mozart who all would knock the ceiling out of the Mega test).

Bobby Fischer does come to mind as does Garry Kasparov, both of whom reportedly have IQs around 180. I don't doubt Fischer's IQ, especially on a visual-spatial test, but he does come across rather, shall we say, schizo. Definitely a disturbed individual. The most astonishing thing about Fischer, however, is his working memory. Incredible. But I digress.

Esquire magazine did an article on Langan, his gifted girlfriend, Dr. Hoeflin, and a couple of other members of the "Mega Society." Interesting and eccentric characters indeed.

A few other links of interest for you may be the various "High IQ societies." How many of you here know that Mensa is one of only about a dozen such clubs? How many know that Mensa has one of the lowest cut-offs of any such club?

Here is a link with a list of all currently active high IQ societies, some are as restrictive as 1 in a 1,000,000 (99.9999 percentile). I highly reccomend perusing the website of the "Prometheus Society" (IQ greater than 1 in 30,000) and the "Mega Society." (IQ greater than 1 in 1,000,000). Perhaps you will run across individuals there of interest. Chris Langan, Rick Rosner, and Dr. Hoeflin (who designed the Mega and Titan tests) are all members of these "super High IQ" clubs.

Mega Society
Prometheus

All other active societies

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html

Hope this helps.

P.S., the next time you go to your favorite local bar, just remember that the bouncer in the corner may just be manipulating equations for M-theory in his head.

 

[Tasthius]

William James Sidis was not the first nor last child wounded by parents trying to create a trophy. Others have lamented the creative productivity we lost when Sidis dropped out of society. What I grieve is all the joy that his well-honed mind should've given him -- all the joy that Sidis was never able to access."

__________________

True. There is a kid who was in the news a few years ago. I believe his name was Justin Chapman. He was supposed to be one of the smartest kids alive, with an IQ approaching 200. His mother would go on talk shows giving all of these anecdotal tales of miraculous intellectual feats. She sat in with him as a shrink tested his IQ via the WAIS, and he hit the ceiling (meaning he was too smart to be measured). Well guess what? it turns out that the whole story is a fraud. Many people now suspect that his mother made up the whole tale and that there is nothing at all extraordinary about her son. It is believed that she managed to obtain a copy of the IQ test beforehand and memorize the questions and answers and instructed her son on what to say during the test.

 

[Tasthius]

In response to Mensa testing:

Someone here mentioned the Mensa test, and asked if it was a standardized test from another author or if it was created by Mensa. The answer is both. Mensa indeed does have a test created and normed by Mensa psychologists, as well as another standardized test that they routinely proctor for anyone interested in joining. When you take the "Mensa test", you are actually taking two separate tests, one designed by Mensa and the otherone is called the Wonderlic (or something to that effect if I remember correctly). A score of the 98th%ile or better on either test qualifies you.

More info is availible on Mensa's website.

 

[Tasthius]

JohnDubya said:

To a more important point, there is no way of establishing the IQs of people once they reach adulthood. It is all just shoddy guesswork, and usually colored by political/sociological convictions.

I don't know what hokum you have been reading, but this simply isn't true. It is true, as I stated in a previous post, that IQ testing was first established in the early 1900's as a way of assessing French school children and discovering potential learning disabilities, but IQ testing has come a long way since. The ratio scale has been dropped in favor of the much more accurate and mathematically sound deviation scale (folliwing the Gaussian curve). The deviation scale can be used accurately on either adults or children.

Do some google searches for Arthur Jensen and Raymond B Cattell and "The Bell Curve" which was written by Herrnstein and Murray.

 

[Tasthius]

"Knowledge effects IQ tests in an amount that people don't want to let on. "

--Sigh--- Seeing that this is a physics forum, I shouldn't be too surprised if most here don't have a clue about psychometrics (no offense intended).

Have you ever thought that perhaps the test designers took this into account? They realize that some questions on IQ tests will be knowledge specific, but they also realize that more intelligent people tend to retain more information more easily than do average people. Someone on another thread posted an excerpt from Arthur Jensen (an expert and innovator on IQ testing) that suggests that research shows that higher IQed people are able to amass a larger vocabulary not by reading voraciously, but because they retain the nuances of definitions much more easily under the same conditions as less intelligent people. In other words, a smarter person will by default under the same conditions as a less intelligent person retain more information pertinent for problem solving, pointing to an innate mental superiority -- not to a priviledged upbringing or educational process.

One of the smartest people in America psychometrically was a farmer and a firefighter and is currently a bar bouncer. This person knocks the ceiling off of IQ tests, but has hardly step foot into a university. He checks for fake IDs at the door and breaks up fights instead of teaching physics at MIT, yet can outwit, out debate, and out think most eminent scientists in the world.

 

[shonagon53]

Hi, I have a score of 142 on the international Mensa IQ test. I feel completely stupid now, and offended, since Mensa is big bogus.

 

[Tigers2B1]

I'll add this since people generally don't seem to be aware of the possibility that people who wear 'out of style' clothes might be smart. What am I talking about? That race of myoptic nerds, the breed that laughs through their pinched noses and they push up their taped glasses, just might be smarter than the average bear after all. There seems to be a correlation of myopia (nearsightedness) with IQ and brain and eye size. See this -

With respect to the high correlation between intelligence and myopia both within and between populations, Miller asserts that an obvious explanation is that high intelligence leads to more reading, and this leads to greater myopia. Yet, with respect to why myopia is so frequent among very intelligent people, he proposes 'a pleitropic genetic effect by which one gene promotes the growth of both the brain and the eyeball, with the eyeball growth leading to myopia, or a [greater] predisposition to myopia.' However, in the study Miller cites, where Myopia was twice as common among the extremely precocious students than among their siblings (whose IQs averaged 115), the non-gifted sib tended to spend about the same amount of time reading (Benbow 1986)...

The link --

http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000144/

And evidence that myopia is inherited

A new study strongly indicates that the primary cause of nearsightedness is heredity. The study also suggests that the amount of time a child spends studying or reading plays a minor role in the development of myopia, or nearsightedness…

Source link -

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/myokid.htm

 

[plus]

Marilyn Vos Savant's 228 IQ is as a child. Child IQs are less accurate and has a higher standard deviation than an adult IQ test. Marilyn Vos Savant's Adult IQ has been ranked at 186.


Goethe and Leonardo da Vinci could not have the highest IQ since they died before IQ tests were ever invented. So how could they have ever taken an IQ test? Although if they did take one I'm sure they would do well but it's impossible to estimate exactly what score they will get.

The person with the highest IQ alive today is suppose to be Kim Ung-Yong from South Korea. Who's IQ was ranked at 210.

"Testers have only been able to estimate the IQ of Kim Ung-Yong, who was born in Seoul, Korea, on March 7, 1963. His IQ has been placed at exceeding 200. He was fluent in Japanese, Korean, German, and English by his fourth birthday. At four years, eight months he solved complicated calculus problems on Japanese TV. He is considered to be the most brilliant person alive. One factor may be that his parents, both university professors, were born at precisely the same moment: 11:00 a.m., May 23, 1934."

Source: http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/winfield.rose/wub.htm

The way to estimate the adult IQ is to put the population into a gaussian bell curve distribution by method of percentile of the population. Then a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (usually value 16) is assigned. Using this, the person with the highest IQ in the world will not have an IQ of above 200. An IQ of 210 would require a much much much larger sample group than the number of people in the world. You can easily calculate this from the normal distribution curve.

For this method an IQ of 210 is impossible. A number of people are claiming to have an IQ at the level of 1 in a billion though.