I understand that you’re saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.
However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you’d expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200 to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.
If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don’t go out this far. It’s essentially 0% (0/100) but how many is it out of 8 billion?
IQ as a measure of intelligence doesn’t work that way. The number can’t just get higher and higher because a person is really smart. A supreme, godlike intelligence doesn’t have an IQ of say, a million.
IQ has a statistical definition and although intelligence may not follow a perfect normal distribution, IQ Score does.
If there are about 8 billion humans, then 1 of them is “the smartest” in some way. 1/8,000,000,000 is 1.2x10^-10, this has a z score of 6.33.
The current smartest person will have an IQ of (6.33x15)+100=195. No one has an IQ of 200. This isn’t because a person can’t be any smarter, it’s because this is how IQ is defined. If a pure, perfect, godlike intelligence exists in our current human population, their IQ is 195.
I think the confusion is that IQ is not an objective measurement. It’s subjective.
Its not like say, height, where you can have a normal distribution and then a statistical outlier.
The IQ point isnt a constant, tangeable unit of measure, like an inch. Intelligence isn’t something you can put a ruler up to and say, oh that’s weird, this person has an IQ of 300 and is a statistical outlier.
IQ is defined statistically. You use some method of claiming that each person has a certain ranking of intelligence. Then you use a defined mean and SD to determine what IQ value that corresponds to, in the context of everyone else in the population.
any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit. IQ has specific testing criteria and imo the most important part of it is its basis in general distribution - if we don’t know the IQ of the average peasant, we can’t know the IQ of Shakespeare
besides, IQ is a borderline pseudo science to begin with. i was made to take an official IQ tests and the second i stepped out of the test room i started wondering how is this going to accuratly portray my “innate” intelligence when the vast majority of the things on the test can be learnt or otherwise trained to be better at
i have indeed noticed there are people alive on that list. But are you going to trust a source that states someone’s IQ to be literally outside of the possible scale when it also just makes shit up a few people down?
i don’t think they’re trying to prove IQ’s legitimacy, just explain the way it’s calculated
It’s not. I assure you there are far more outliers on the low end.
I endeavour to be as stupid as possible so more people can be above average.
America thanks you for your service.
But I’m sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.
I understand that you’re saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.
However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you’d expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200 to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.
If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don’t go out this far. It’s essentially 0% (0/100) but how many is it out of 8 billion?
It’s not. Here’s a list containing a number of people above 200.
However, no-one has a negative IQ.
I have to disagree.
IQ as a measure of intelligence doesn’t work that way. The number can’t just get higher and higher because a person is really smart. A supreme, godlike intelligence doesn’t have an IQ of say, a million.
IQ has a statistical definition and although intelligence may not follow a perfect normal distribution, IQ Score does.
If there are about 8 billion humans, then 1 of them is “the smartest” in some way. 1/8,000,000,000 is 1.2x10^-10, this has a z score of 6.33.
The current smartest person will have an IQ of (6.33x15)+100=195. No one has an IQ of 200. This isn’t because a person can’t be any smarter, it’s because this is how IQ is defined. If a pure, perfect, godlike intelligence exists in our current human population, their IQ is 195.
I linked to a list of many examples
Only if normal distributions are assumed. Clearly this assumption is incorrect.
But we do agree that a negative IQ is impossible?
You provided a link to reader’s digest. It’s not the most credible reference.
A negative IQ score and an IQ score above 200 would be possible with larger populations.
A 200+ IQ is possible with a small population. Normal distributions are not a physical law.
I’m struggling to see how a negative IQ can be practically assessed.
I think the confusion is that IQ is not an objective measurement. It’s subjective.
Its not like say, height, where you can have a normal distribution and then a statistical outlier.
The IQ point isnt a constant, tangeable unit of measure, like an inch. Intelligence isn’t something you can put a ruler up to and say, oh that’s weird, this person has an IQ of 300 and is a statistical outlier.
IQ is defined statistically. You use some method of claiming that each person has a certain ranking of intelligence. Then you use a defined mean and SD to determine what IQ value that corresponds to, in the context of everyone else in the population.
any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit. IQ has specific testing criteria and imo the most important part of it is its basis in general distribution - if we don’t know the IQ of the average peasant, we can’t know the IQ of Shakespeare
besides, IQ is a borderline pseudo science to begin with. i was made to take an official IQ tests and the second i stepped out of the test room i started wondering how is this going to accuratly portray my “innate” intelligence when the vast majority of the things on the test can be learnt or otherwise trained to be better at
There are people alive on that list.
The person above is trying to prove IQ legitimacy with normal distributions and confidence levels. I’m arguing against it.
i have indeed noticed there are people alive on that list. But are you going to trust a source that states someone’s IQ to be literally outside of the possible scale when it also just makes shit up a few people down?
i don’t think they’re trying to prove IQ’s legitimacy, just explain the way it’s calculated
Let’s focus on one individual then with an officially calculated IQ.
https://medium.com/@gigasociety/younghoon-kim-the-current-highest-iq-276-record-holder-in-2024-65d73e5a88c5
IQ is not normally distributed. It can be higher than 200. It can’t be negative.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-even-possible-for-a-human-to-have-an-IQ-of-200?top_ans=179514973
read the second answer to that particular quora question, i believe it outlays what the other guy and i mean pretty clearly