what are some of the IQs of great minds? Any great mind would do or all! thank you ahead of time for the awnsers!
A quick Google search revealed a site claiming Einstein’s IQ was “just above 160”.
There has, however, been a long debate (here on the SDMB, as well as elsewhere) about the significance of IQ tests.
Most IQ tests I’ve done put me at between 145 and 165. Guess what, it doesn’t mean shit! I’m a geeky nerd, and nothing will ever make me what I’m not - I’d love to be creative and artistic etc… but it aint gonna happen. Similarly, IQ tests don’t do justice to the brilliance of the world’s artists… but that’s another rant 
Max
AFAIK, few if any of the “great minds” ever actually took an IQ test. Most of the “IQs” for said persons are guesstimates with about as much reliability as a shot in the dark.
I recall as a kid seeing a Time-Life book claim Goethe had an IQ of 210. Even if he had actually lived when he could have taken the IQ test, I doubt that the test could measure an IQ out that high.
Whenever one starts talking about I.Q.'s, you’ll find many offering theirs. You often see many coming in with these big numbers. You never see anyone coming in or around 100. Since only 2% of the population has I.Q.'s over 130,(that’s what it takes to get into Mensa) it’s amazing how many supposedly have I.Q.'s of 140 to 150 or more. I think many take the home I.Q. or internet tests, which tend to be easier than those administered by colleges or Mensa, and this is the number they often quote.
Something to think about: Martin Luther King had an I.Q. of 111. John F. Kennedy’s I.Q. was 119. Both were truly great minds, and it goes to show you that big numbers doesn’t always measure a hell of a whole lot.
John
I question that an IQ of 130 is really in the top 2%. In high school there were probably 30 of us in Humanities class (a precondition for the class is to score 130 or higher) out of a class of 400. Now either I live in an area with an unusually large segment of intelligent people or the 2% thing is flawed.
Btw, I never give my IQ unless asked.
144 
Different IQ tests use different scoring systems, so a simple score in number form without mention of the specific test used is not very helpful.
A score of 210, such as JCHeckler mentioned, would be possible on an old-fashioned “mental age” IQ test (a five year old with the same raw score as an average ten year old would have an IQ of 200), but not on a modern test that scores according to deviation from the norm. This is not to say that no one could possibly be that smart, but that to determine that someone was in fact that many standard deviations above the norm would require that the test be given to an impractically (and perhaps impossibly) large number of people.
Most IQ tests convert their raw scores so the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15, but this is not universal. Perhaps more importantly, different tests include different sorts of problems. So a 130 on one test is not exactly the same as a 130 on another test, even if they both use the standard conversion system.
Speaking of which, Jdeforrest may be interested to hear that a 130 does place you in the 98th percentile on a test scored in this way. There are several reasons why your school may have seemed to have an unusually large number of 98th percentile students. In fact, there are probably more than I can even think of, but I’ll list a few of the big ones.
First of all, there is a difference between what is average for the general population and what is average for the percentage of the population that you are likely to encounter in school. A person with an IQ two standard deviations above the norm would probably attend their neighborhood public school, but someone with an IQ two standard deviations below it would almost certainly be in some sort of special program.
Secondly, poor nutrition, lack of mental stimulation, and other environmental factors can have a negative effect on IQ scores. So a school in a middle or upper class area is likely to have more high IQ students than one in an impoverished area.
Third, the IQ scores of children often do not correctly predict the IQ scores those same children will have later in life. The younger a person is tested, the less accurate the score will be.
Finally, IQ tests are not especially accurate or even useful when it comes to measuring the intelligence of above average people. Their primary use, and the reason they were developed in the first place, is to identify children with disabilities.
So, keeping in mind that I.Q. scores are only one step above measuring the slope of someone’s forehead to measure one’s total psychic aptitude, James Gleick mentions in his biography of Richard Feynmann, Genius, that in his college days Feynmann scored a bright but not awe-inspiring 126-or-so.
Sorry, the book’s lent away so I can’t give the exact cite, but perhaps someone else can.
3waygeek found the site I was looking for.
Sidis’ estimated IQ of 250-300 is, of course, way beyond what an IQ test can measure.
Some good indications that IQ doesn’t always equal success or world altering breakthoughs. Shouldn’t Marilyn Vos Savant be doing more than writing a column in Parade? Shouldn’t Sidis have done more with his gifts? For that matter, Feynman was ssid to have only a slightly above average IQ in the 120-130 range.
In my opinion (and that’s all an answer to this question can ever be), Da Vinci should be at or near the top. A world altering genius in mechanics, science, and art. A pretty diverse set of talents not usually seen in one person.
That depends on the IQ test. It is, however, beyond the measure of any test scored according to the usual system of the mean set to 100 and the standard deviation to 15. Of course, if one is attempting to illustrate how much smarter a historic genius was than the rest of humanity rather than what score such a person would actually make on an IQ test than a high estimated score might be appropriate. I don’t think it makes any sense to go as high as 300, though. I haven’t done the math, but I think a 200 or so would be enough to indicate that the person was the smartest human being ever to live.
I know that vos Savant bashing is a popular sport around here, but this is a little unfair. The reason why you have never heard of Marilyn vos Savant doing anything more than writing a column and a few books is because “Marilyn vos Savant” is a pen name. IIRC, the real woman behind the name is involved in some sort of scientific work relating to heart transplants or artificial hearts.
Physicist John Gribben mentions in his book FEYNMAN: A LIFE IN SCIENCE that RF’s IQ was 123, and his sister Joan’s was 124. His sister was delighted to always be able to claim that of the two, she was the smarter…
Also, RF delighted in puncturing pomposity, and he regarded Mensa as being a club for the self-important. When he was approached by Mensa about becoming a member, he told them that his IQ was far too low for such an organization.
Here’s my own crackpot theory about genius. In my opinion, Feynman hit upon the formula behind genius: truth-telling, and a habitual avoidance of the well-trodden path. Most people fill their lives with a million small comforting self-lies, and Feynman’s father specifically taught his son how NOT to do this. In my opinion, vast creativity goes hand in hand with internal truth-telling, merely because our insights expose all our small self-lies, and in order to keep our comforting dishonesty intact, we must suppress all our insights/intuition/creativity. The same subconscious “voice” which tells us things we don’t wish to hear… is also the source of all creative leaps.
The other half of the “genius” formula is the desire to actually be different, to NOT tread the same path as others. This has bearing on “creative voice” as well: if we suddenly have a bright idea, but if we tell ourselves “this can’t possibly be right, it goes against all this vast well-tested traditional knowledge,” then we ignore that idea. As this happens again and again over the years, we learn how to shut off the stupid voice which keeps telling us “wrong” things. But we never realize that many of those insights are dead on correct, and if we followed them up, it’s the massivly incorrect traditional concepts which need suppressing, not the “light bulb” insights which contradict them. If we DO listen to our insights, we also make ourselves different than everyone else who are trying to ignore them, so all the other kids will reject us. If we want to follow the crowd, we have to stifle our creativity.
In other words, I suspect that most people are born as great geniuses, but as we all grow up, we find out about all the trouble this causes. Very early on we figure out how to put a stop to that kind of stuff, but without ever really knowing the negative consequences this has.
Quoth Lamia:
One of us is off in our math. Isn’t two standard deviations the 95th percentile?
It’s not rude to mention your I.Q., but in your case, it’s a gross.
buh-dum-dum.
I’ve seen several groups use this figure for US populations having I.Q.'s of 130 or more. Who administered the test? I don’t think the 2% figure is flawed. I’m surprised that a high school would make that a prerequisite to get into a humanities class. Even fifteen would have been somewhat high for 400, when on the average only eight should have scored that high. I think less than half of those 30 could pass the Mensa test even though they require the same number of 130. But it could be like you say, somewhat a fluke where a large amount of intelligent kids just happen to be in the same high school. Did the high school share the I.Q. numbers with everyone, whether they scored high or low?
John
My IQ is 178, for personal reasons I refused membership of the Mensa;
I am a teller clerk at a not very known bank. Thanks anyway.
Im as smart as copernicus! Where the hell is Newton in that list. Liebnitz made it. Mensa is a fricking joke. I love how a knowledge of geography and history is a measure of innate intelligence. Mensa is filled with relatively intelligent people with no edge and just dying for 10 more IQ points. No real geniuses like me and zweistein. 
BTW there is no one I would rather see top the list than old wuerther.
Lamia writes:
> The reason why you have never heard of Marilyn vos Savant
> doing anything more than writing a column and a few books is
> because “Marilyn vos Savant” is a pen name. IIRC, the real
> woman behind the name is involved in some sort of scientific
> work relating to heart transplants or artificial hearts.
No, you’re a little confused here. Marilyn vos Savant is her real name. She’s never done anything more important than write her column and her books, including one that was a contest using IQ-test-type questions. She’s married to Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart. (He’s her third husband, although they’ve been married since sometime in the '80’s.)
I grew up with a group (whose parents were Nobel Prize winners, some) many of whom were off the scale. (IQ tests of the 60s tended to become inaccurate above about 140, so they said.)
I never noticed a difference between the “very high” kids and the just “high” kids.
What particularly annoys me about IQ, as several people have alluded to, is that the concept that a person’s intelligence can be established by a single figure. This is just a hop and skip from astrology. The people who developed the test (as I remember) were utterly emphatic that it measured potential, not achievement. For those with IQs of 160, who’ve never contributed an original work of science, art or philosophy to the world at age 30: you’ve wasted your time, and the special gift that was given to you. That’s really something to brag about!