Someone on that list apparently has an IQ of 228. Assuming that IQ is in any way a measurable measure of intelligence, how far out on the right-hand-side of the curve would that make her? The most intelligent being in the list of all possible beings in the past and future universe?
She got the Monty Hall problem wrong, for a start.
No she didn’t—Cecil did. What’s his IQ?
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Anybody know what Copernicus’s career batting average was?
[/QUOTE]
He never played a single game of baseball in which he didn’t outbat Ty Cobb and Roger Hornsby on their best day.
Lol, did I get that arse over tit? Oh well, it was just from memory. Still, IQ of 228. Bet God doesn’t have an IQ of 228. I wonder if the plane takes off?
I don’t know their actual IQs, but if you’re ever on a game show that pairs celebs with non-celebs, the ones you want on your side are David Duchovny and Cheech Marin. The ones you do NOT want are Gillian Anderson and Tommy Chong…
They figured it out based on his SAT scores for the University of Krakow.
That list of I.Q. scores is completely worthless. Why do these sorts of claims come up every time (and it’s about two or three times a year) that we have a new thread on I.Q.? It’s impossible to have an I.Q. above about 195 even if you are the smartest person alive (among the 6.5 billion people alive at present). It’s impossible to have an I.Q. above about 200 even if you are the smartest person who ever lived (among 100 billion or so throughout the history of mankind). There are people like Marilyn Vos Savant who once tested 228 on an I.Q. test of the old kind (the ratio I.Q.), but that kind of score doesn’t even make sense on the modern kind of test (the standard deviation I.Q.).
It’s essentially impossible to assign anyone an I.Q. above 160 on any reliable I.Q. test. Even to get a reliable score that high, the test has to be calibrated by giving it to at least 100,000 people. Any claims of a higher I.Q. are usually done by looking at a person’s accomplishments and making a wild guess at the sort of I.Q. that they might score if (as never happens) hundreds of millions of people could all be given the same I.Q. test at the same time and the results ranked.
I’m more than a little dubious about the OP’s link. According to that site the President who figured out how to win the Cold War without firing a single shot (as the saying goes) had an IQ of 105 and the President who spent more than a decade trying to tax his way out of an economic depression had an IQ of 142.
:dubious:
I don’t believe Sinatra. He used to complete the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle back when it was hard. A crossword fiend, that guy.
Yes and no. I’d say it’s BS because it doesn’t say how they got the IQ scores of each person. However, the Catherine Cox Miles thing is explained:
So they only used her estimates for people who lived before the IQ test was developed. I doubt her estimates would tell us their real IQ scores if they were to take the tests now, but I don’t know anything about her book - it could well have been a critique or analysis of IQ tests based on studying the early achievements of past figures, not attempting to say that those people definitely had those scores.
Anyway, it’s at a site called ‘kids IQ tests,’ so it benefits it to have some people listed who are demonstrably successful despite - by whatever analysis - having low IQ scores.
What makes me really doubt the site’s validity when it comes to IQ scores is their naming of ‘Stephan Hawking’ (in the text - he’s correctly named in the photograph). They obviously don’t check their facts very well, which doesn’t bode well for their tests.
Yes, my statement was both serious (about the reliability) and somewhat poking fun (the wording of their statement can be interpretted to mean that they got all of their IQ scores from her work). Obviously, I assumed that they got more recent people’s scores from other sources, but they don’t indicate what those were. And there really aren’t any tests that are psychmotrically verified and calibrated to measure scores in the high end of the range that the list is claiming that people have landed in. Therefore, you have to conclude that the IQs listed are derived via some other method; a method which must be different than the method used for the historical figures, and not revelaed on the site. The whole thing reeks of “I think I heard once that someone said that so and so’s IQ is…”
But it’s funnier to assume that want us to think that they got Ellen Muth’s IQ out of a book that was published 60 years before she was born.