IQ Tests- Any Geniuses here?

[greg]

So who here has the highest IQ score? I will make sure to kick your ass when you least expect it and claim my rightful place as prison.... GMG master. 

But seriously, seems that finally I'm getting a true estimation, which is 127-129. Anyone that has a score that is super high and doesn't mind sharing that info?

I'm curious because I have some questions to ask: the biggest one being how you feel about doing tasks or jobs that are mundane and way below your skill level? Do you have a quick temper or not? Do you see the downsides to just about everything? Trying to figure out some list of tendencies that may come along with this...

[springrite]

I had this Yahoo ID:

My_Binary_IQ_is_101

[greg]

Reminds me of the old joke, "There are 11 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't."   

[springrite]

Reminds me of the old joke, "There are 11 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't."   

I'd think that'd be 10 kinds of people...

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

I'd think that'd be 10 kinds of people...

So much for IQ 129!

[Elgarian Redux]

So much for IQ 129!

My vote for wittiest post of the week.

[71 dB]

IQ scores are such a mess. An IQ score tells how well you did in a certain IQ test compared to others. What kind of intelligence the test evaluates is one thing. The better tests try at least to be culturally neutral. Then there are the different scales using different deviations: 15, 16 and 24. So comparing different test using different deviations make little sense.

I did some IQ tests some 10-15 years ago and the results indicated that 2 % of people are more intelligent than me so I am just on Mensa level (not genius level thou which is something like the smartest 0.25 % of population I think). It was a relief to know that my difficulties in life (especially social problems) are not because of low intelligence, but something else. Later I discovered that this something else seems to be asperger.

I believe everyone has their own profile of intelligence and are good at some things and bad at some else. I have noticed that some logical problems come to me intantly as "self-evident" while some other make me really confused. Asperger, perhaps?

Intelligence doesn't protect from stupid opinions. A great example of this is James Wood, who is supposed to have an insane high IQ, but the man has quite moronic political views similar to some MAGA-people with one third of his IQ score. Stupidity comes from ignorance rather than intelligence, but intelligence can help being intellectually curious so that one becomes less ignorant of things.

Intelligence can be a curse too. The smartest person ever, James William Sidis struggled a lot in life for being so much smarter than others around. Imagine interacting with other people when even Albert Einstein appears dumb to you! 

[drogulus]

     I met a community college teacher who had an IQ of 86. A small press had published a book of her poetry. She seemed quite normal.

[Ken B]

     I met a community college teacher who had an IQ of 86. A small press had published a book of her poetry. She seemed quite normal.

IQ can be pretty variable between different tests for the same person. I had a student whose scores I saw. 106 on one test, 130 on another. That is 1.5 standard deviations, which is a lot.

IQ can be a useful measure in large aggregates where you have a lot of samples and the law of large numbers kicks in. But I am a skeptic when it comes to individual scores.

[drogulus]

IQ can be pretty variable between different tests for the same person. I had a student whose scores I saw. 106 on one test, 130 on another. That is 1.5 standard deviations, which is a lot.

IQ can be a useful measure in large aggregates where you have a lot of samples and the law of large numbers kicks in. But I am a skeptic when it comes to individual scores.

     That 106 is an anomaly, of what kind I don't know, but anyone capable of scoring in the 130 range should never score 106.

[Ken B]

     That 106 is an anomaly, of what kind I don't know, but anyone capable of scoring in the 130 range should never score 106.

Or vice versa 😉
Which is sorta my point.

[drogulus]

Or vice versa 😉
Which is sorta my point.

     I think it's asymmetrical. When the scores differ by that much the higher one is real. There are no real life Krell brain boosts that could allow a 106 scorer to occasionally score that much higher, even on different tests.

[71 dB]

     I met a community college teacher who had an IQ of 86. A small press had published a book of her poetry. She seemed quite normal.

Theoretically for everybody with an IQ of 114 there is someone with 86. Assuming the deviation of that IQ score is 16, about 20 % of population has a lower IQ score than that. So if your IQ score is 86 with a devitation of 16, every fifth person you meet in life would statistically do worse in that IQ test. Poetry maybe requires other kind  of intelligance (emotional?) than what the tests are about. My sister writes difficult intellectually demanding poetry for living, but I don't now how she would do in IQ tests.

[Ken B]

     I think it's asymmetrical. When the scores differ by that much the higher one is real. There are no real life Krell brain boosts that could allow a 106 scorer to occasionally score that much higher, even on different tests.

There is random error in every test or measure. It is usually Gaussian or nearly so.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

     I think it's asymmetrical. When the scores differ by that much the higher one is real. There are no real life Krell brain boosts that could allow a 106 scorer to occasionally score that much higher, even on different tests.

The issue may be that different tests place more or less emphasis on different types of puzzles. It also seems to me that people exhibit different levels of real-world intelligence on different time scales. There are people who will look at a problem and get a lot of insight in a short time but don't tend to go deeper, and others who don't get the point at first but who will develop deeper insights upon reflection.

[amw]

IQ is almost entirely meaningless. As far as I know the primary reason it was created was to measure "grade level" in school age children, so that ie a child in third grade whose IQ was two standard deviations above mean has a "fifth grade level" of ability and should be placed in advanced classes, or two standard deviations below mean a "first grade level" and therefore needs extra support, etc. There's not much in the way of research substantiating it as a measure of anything & indeed a good deal of research that has found it to be not a good predictor of basically anything.

That said I like Isaac Asimov's (apocryphal) response: he once took an IQ test and got a result of 135, but since he had completed the test in half the allotted time, he concluded that his actual IQ was 270, because that number flattered his ego much more.

[71 dB]

     That 106 is an anomaly, of what kind I don't know, but anyone capable of scoring in the 130 range should never score 106.

I agree. The results I got from various different tests where very consistent. The online test of Danish Mensa had 40 graphic problems which started with the easiest ones and got gradually more difficult. The first 10 problems where in my opionion extremely easy, but you need these to tell apart people of very low intelligence. I started to have difficulties at problem #34 and the last few problems where simply too challenging for me to solve within reasonable amount of time. Those problems are for the smartest people.

[drogulus]

There is random error in every test or measure. It is usually Gaussian or nearly so.

     I would choose to reverse engineer the problem from the consistency of results for individuals. If results are consistent enough so that you don't need to reapply for Mensa membership every year, and that any of a number of tests can qualify you, which is the case, than the bell is tall and narrow, which means that a wide difference of results is abnormal and has to be traced to a cause of the low result. Having once scored high, by Mensa rules you're a high scorer, as they are aware that no one accidentally or anomalously scores way above their capacity. You can score below your capacity. It's rare but it can happen. That is not the case for very high scores.

     I will bet any amount of worthless fiat currency that a third test, or 300 tests, would show that the high score is the score within the usual range of variation.

[71 dB]

IQ is almost entirely meaningless.

Taking an IQ test may help in knowing yourself better just like doing Cooper's test tell's you in how good condition you are physically. I had a phase in life in early 2000's when I feld I am an idiot for being so clumsy socially and learning some things slower than others, but IQ tests told me the reason is elsewhere (and later it turned out to be asperger). I know myself better, my strenghts and weaknesses. I don't feel bad anymore in social situations, because I know WHY I am clumsy and why I learn some things slowly*. Just as someone doesn't have a math head, I have asperger. I understand why "normal" people without asperger are bad/good at different things than I am.

* I really struggled with English language in school. I was almost hopeless, but then in university English suddenly opened to me in my 20's. Also, music theory has always been almost imcomprehensible for me, but now finally this year I suddenly understood a lot of it thanks to Jake Lizzio of Signal Music Studio Youtube channel. Finally I understand what chord progressions are about! Nobody was ever been able to make me understand these things, but Jake Lizzio did it.  The new understanding of music theory opened so many doors in my music making. It took decades, but I did it. That's slow learning for you. A lot of people seem to struggle with music theory and it seems people make bad questions and get even worse answers. When only major and minor scales are talked about a lot of things may remain confusing, but when you talk about all the modes from Ionian to Locrian things become clearer, at least for me. Jake Lizzio does just that.

[Ken B]

     I would choose to reverse engineer the problem from the consistency of results for individuals. If results are consistent enough so that you don't need to reapply for Mensa membership every year, and that any of a number of tests can qualify you, which is the case, than the bell is tall and narrow, which means that a wide difference of results is abnormal and has to be traced to a cause of the low result. Having once scored high, by Mensa rules you're a high scorer, as they are aware that no one accidentally or anomalously scores way above their capacity. You can score below your capacity. It's rare but it can happen. That is not the case for very high scores.

     I will bet any amount of worthless fiat currency that a third test, or 300 tests, would show that the high score is the score within the usual range of variation.

FWIW I thought John, the student in question, one of the brightest in the class. Of course, these were Americans, so faint praise disclaimers ...