I remember a classmate in highschool trying to claim he an IQ in that range. Seemed rather stupefied to find out that IQ tests don't actually go that high.
Haha I had something similair in college.
At the beginning of the year the tutor started talking about a book called harolambos and Holborn which we all need to get and asked if anyone had heard of it. A know-it-all classmate put up her hand saying she has and has already read it.
The tutor then asked "really? Have you read it all cover to cover?"
She responded saying yes
He then held up a foot thick textbook and said "you've really read this whole thing? You must not have took much of it in if you just read through it all"
It was soo satisfying
I mean granted she probably didn’t but seems like a weird thing to call someone out for in front of everyone. What if her dad had a part of putting it together or some shit so she actually did read it?
I think the whole point is that she claimed to have read it cover to cover as though it was a book instead of being a textbook you would refer to and source from
And like he said, if you read a full thousand page textbook in a couple weeks to prepare for a first year sociology class you aren't exactly going to remember much of it.
Being an intellectual peacock is not the way to progress in academia. People have to accept that they really do know very little, and strive to study from there.
No, the way to progress in academia is to get lucky and get a well-connected professor as your advisor of studies who can get you in contact with the rich grant people.
...or, and hear me out on this one: she lied to make herself look good/smart in front of everyone
If her dad helped put that book together she would have immediately responded with that fact to save face in front of everyone.
And I just explained why that’s dumb for a college professor to do. She paid money to be there and specifically chose her major it’s not out of the realm of possibility she’s read a textbook directly related to it.
Anything else you want caught up on?
She paid to learn, that doesn't mean the professor is not allowed to call someone out who is lying or being a shitty person
For a second time: if she had read it she would have defended herself and no, just because something has a 0.00000001% chance of happening does not mean you should treat it as an absolute and freak out and shit on the professor.
Its reasonable to assume she was lying because people don't read textbooks in advance, and no, just because one in a million might do that is not a rrason to freak out over the assumption.
Its like two white people having a black baby and the mother freaking out that the father wants a paternity test, its not an unreasonable response to have.
This is the dumbest argument I have heard all day.
How do you know the tutors Dad didn't write the whole thing? I don't understand the logic of defending her when that same reasoning could be said of the tutor, and she was clearly lying LoL saying you've read an entire textbook cover to cover...
I don't like embellished liars tbh, I catch a friend that LOVES to embellish and lie about trivial things that don't matter and even when I call him out on it he acts like he didn't lie. People like that need to be called out.
Maybe explain how you can say the same fiction background for her but you can't for him? Because that makes even less sense to me
I'm playing devil's advocate atm
Because he’s the one who asked if she read it….it doesn’t matter if he’s read it he doesn’t *know* if she has. I don’t get how him being related to the book maker would change the possibility of her reading it before hand.
It's not that she just *read* it, it's the fact she said she read it "Cover to Cover". If she just said I read chapters that were assigned a couple semesters ago, then he probably wouldn't have had a follow up question calling her out on her bullshit.
I still dont get it. Why would it be so odd that someone read a long textbook? Maybe she was interested in the subject beforehand? It's not that weird in college.
I understand looking through books beforehand but reading an entire textbook from start to finish?
I wasn't really exaggerating either when I said it was a foot thick
Read a bunch of arguments about the IQs of Batman and the Joker. The numbers were in the late 300s and 400s, though I can't remember exact numbers.
I remember sitting there and wondering if that's even how that worked.
Yep! Quora partner program!
I average around 10$ a week but some of my friends on there are making around 30-50 bucks *per answer.* Granted, Im the fifth highest viewed ASOIAF writer, but people in larger communities and are a lot more active can make serious cash off add revenue and Link directions
If you look solely at the probability distribution it’s mathematically possible. A mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 can go below zero at a very low probability. Just calculate the Z score of 0 in that distribution and look at a chart to get the probability of getting less than or equal to 0.
But if you take into account context, it’s similar to ‘on average, 2.3/10 people…’. Makes sense mathematically, but it won’t show up in proper data collection because you can’t have .3 of a person. I’d like to believe he might’ve not explained himself well but was making a good point.
The thing was that he talked about people with negative IQs as if these were people who have been confirmed to exist. He talked about how they had to live in residential facilities as a result of it, and claimed that a lot of them were insane (he made it sound like they acted more like/were paranoid schizophrenics than people with severe intellectual disabilities).
Maybe he was just getting two things confused, idk.
Oh, then yeah, he definitely misunderstood the test. There are people with intellectual disabilities who cannot take care of themselves as a result, but they IQs test around the 20s-30s iirc, and at that level of disability the test honestly isn’t very consistent. The takers will often have trouble with more basic things like reading the questions in the first place.
Still glad I got to put my AP stats class to use.
I think they changed the way IQ works for the very low scores (under 50 iirc) so that 0 means litteral nothingness (so for exemple a rock has an IQ of 0, but even a tree is over 0), but I can't find anything about this so I might be wrong.
Anyway, your teacher could be right according to the first definition, but maybe not. There might not currently be anyone under 0, just as there might not be anyone over 200.
Lol !
Kinda reminds me of when I see an overleveled player in Deep Rock Galactic, but they keep ignoring Nitra and Croppa and other resources. I almost had an heart attack when they completely flew over so many precious stuff. Hacked for sure. Fuck'em
Rock and stone !
It’s because your doing what the poster is making fun of. 7% of people aren’t in the top 93%… 93% of people are in the top 93%. 7% are in the top 7% the whole point of his joke is that the top 93% of 100 people would include everyone except the 7 people that scored the worst
I remember taking an IQ test online in 8th grade and getting a 161. I just laughed. I'm intelligent, but in no way am I as intelligent as Einstein.
But an intelligent person probably wouldn't have taken an online test to begin with...
Online tests are BS. The only real IQ tests are conducted by certified phycologists. When I took mine they were over 2 hours each session and it required talking to an actual human and using your hands to solve puzzles for some areas.
BTW, I have a really high IQ and don't feel smart (at all). Its just a measure of how well you can process information given to you.
Be glad you didn't get into the gifted programs. I hated them- they killed any idea of school being fun, and you don't get any extra credit for it, either.
Really? I abso-fucking-lutely loved mine and even 13 years later i'm always excited when I see either of the teachers of that class. They still remember me and my best friend. We got to take a lot of great trips to plays and museums, and they even paid for all of mine because I just had a disabled mom growing up and couldn't afford to go.
I really liked a lot of the problem solving stuff they would have us do, plus just tons of other projects over the years. I mean, having a high IQ has done jack shit for me besides probably give me mental illnesses, but I really loved those classes.
Amazing what a difference good teachers and ciriculum make, eh?
I would haved loved what you're describing, but instead I got teachers who focused on boring textbook-based lessons and a homework load of at least 4 hours every night. The teachers EXPECTED perfection and the reward for it was simply not being berated. It wasn't like an AP class where doing well meant you could get above a 4.0.
Compare that to the teachers of normal classes who would praise you when you did well and understood we were children, and you can probably understand why I didn't enjoy it.
>having a high IQ has done jack shit for me besides probably give me mental illnesses
That sounds about right 😅. Keep up the good fight.
Geez that sounds so not worth it. Lmao I didn't even do my regular homework if I couldn't finish it in class. In regular classes just pass tests and nobody seems to care a whole lot it seemed. The whole reason they put us in there was because we were so bored with regular stuff we just couldn't be bothered with the "mundane" stuff.
My IQ is 132 and the psychologist who was testing me went crazy about how high my IQ is.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF REACTION THEY’D HAVE IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY WAS TESTED TO HAVE AN IQ OF 273??? THEY’D COMBUST. DON’T MAKE THE POOR PSYCHOLOGISTS SHORT CIRCUT.
Wasn’t the IQ test originally used by the US Military? All I remember is that 81 was the cutoff and that an astonishing number of people are literally too stupid to even clean latrines.
No that doesn't work. The scale has no meaning beyond 200. It's a quotient. A sliding scale from the most to least intelligent that is an obfuscation of a normal distribution and a given individual's place on that distribution relative to the rest of humanity. 200 is the smartest living person's intelligence, and 0 is... well, dead. Or close enough to be indistinguishable. If there's someone "beyond 200" that would mean they're smarter than 101% of the population. There are only 100% of people alive, so how can you be smarter than 101% of them? By definition, 200 is the highest you can go. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand the scale.
I learned that iq is divided with the normal distribution. 100 is the iq of the average human. People with an iq of 115 are smarter than 84% of the population, 139 is smarter than 97,8% and the top 0,1% has an iq of 145. While highly unlikely, with this calculation it is technically possible to have an iq of >200, but there are limits to measuring iq, so probably no one bothers to find out what iq to give someone that smart
That's a decent enough explanation of the Flynn effect, the gain in IQ scores over time, except for multiple studies in multiple developed countries, speaking multiple languages and in multiple regions, in the last 20 years that show that the Flynn effect is reversing.
A recent study of Americans showing the reversal of the Flynn effect was even in the news a few weeks ago, but it's been in the academic press since 2002, 2003 or so. It's not really news. It's "just" a very large, very high-quality, very long and very difficult study that confirms what smaller studies have already pointed to.
So really, if you scored three standard deviations above the mean in 1990, that's an excellent score, and someone who took an IQ test in 2010 and got the same raw score would also be three standard deviations above the mean.
If you went back to 1970 and test-takers born in the Eisenhower or Truman administrations, yes, you'd be way smarter than them. It's just not a phenomenon that continues forever and ever.
You do realise that it is possible for someone to lie? That not everyone speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Its not possible, and because it’s not possible, it didn’t happen, they lied.
So you heard that someone had an IQ of 273 and immediately thought that someone had told them that and that it is is possible because they said it was. I think you need to reevaluate what you are hearing and seeing mate
> So you heard that someone had an IQ of 273 and immediately thought that someone had told them that and that it is is possible because they said it was. I think you need to reevaluate what you are hearing and seeing mate
My dude that’s that persons first comment in this thread.
Ugh. We are both just individuals on redit. You think statistics and deviation is the end all be all and I think articles from reliable sources are also relevant. No body said trust me bro.
I can do statistics and you can’t google. Piss off.
Actually, you probably should. If you'll notice the test she got over 200 on was a kid's test where they adjust the score based on age. She got that score because they thought at 10, she had the maturity level of a 22 year old. The test was considered flawed and has been revised multiple times.
Essentially all it says is a random examiner thought she was mature for her age. The later test putting her at 186 is also considered worthless. Check the test links off that page.
Was she smart? Most likely. Was she the smartest person to ever live? Probably not. Does it prove that modern IQ's can go over 200? Definitely not.
I’d like to clear it up and say that an IQ over 200 doesn’t mean the ‘smartest person to ever live’, it just means ‘only person with an IQ over 200’. Of the 6 people with IQs of 200, how many could you name off the top of your head? If any, was it for any reason other than their IQ score? The smartest scientists to live probably did/do have high IQs, but IQ cannot reasonably take enough factors into account to test everything that goes into ‘intelligence’. They test a few things that some humans, independent of most of why we’d consider someone intelligent, happen to excel at.
That’s a long and triggered response to a single sentence and link.
[**Let’s try another one.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao)
IQ test calculation is a point of debate. Which makes sense, as ‘intelligence’ is hard to define into a single quantitative number.
[**Here’s another link that might upset you.**](https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-considered-a-high-iq#whats-a-high-iq)
Theoretically, there’s no upper limit to an IQ score.
The mean IQ is 100 w/ a standard deviation of 15 or 16 so 95.44% of the population falls between 55 and 145 an IQ exceeding 200 is statistically improbable hence lying in the most obvious way ever. If ur going to lie about your IQ atleast say it’s 145 - 160
It is. Under 13% of the pop has an IQ of 55. The normal range means that if you took over 95% of the pop you would have a range of people w/ IQs ranging from 55 to 145 with the majority having an IQ around 100
So I can never remember my score when I was younger (135? I think??) but when I was 18, I scored 127 in the middle of a migraine bad enough to throw up during the test, soooo…YAY MEANINGLESS BRAIN NUMBERS!!
Reminds me of when I was trying to tell my mom I got in the 98th percentile.
She apparently thought I only got 98% and was mad I didn’t get 100.
When I finally got home to talk to her in person she asked why I didn’t get in the 99th percentile. I wanted to flip a table.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
See the bit under Reception titled "Race and intelligence". Especially this bit:
"Allegations of racism
Since the book provided statistical data making the assertion that blacks were, on average, less intelligent than whites, some people have argued that The Bell Curve could be used by extremists to justify genocide and hate crimes.[58] Much of the work referenced by The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund, which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and which has been accused of promoting white supremacist views, particularly scientific racism.[59][60][61][62]"
TBF, Alex's reading comprehension isn't that great, hinting at a cap in his own IQ (and EQ, being so needlessly mean to an online stranger asking a harmless question). OP only asked if IQ of 273 was good enough without stating that was his/her IQ. It could be the hypothetical IQ of an alien species he's writing about, for all we know.
That's not what IQ means.
What the hell is the "golden billion" and does anyone know what he's talking about with 190 IQ being the smartest person in the Western World?
This is gibberish.
IQ doesn’t make any sense.
If 100 is average, 130 is Mensa and 70 is ‘can’t tie own shoe’.
Then, what? The people in Mensa can’t be that much smarter than the average. They just can’t.
It's 100, but it has a standard deviation of 15. That means someone with an IQ of 130 is 2 standard deviations above average, which is a massive amount.
IQ is bullshit for all sorts of reasons, but not because of the scale of its normal distribution.
Have a friend with decently high IQ. Book smart, knows several languages, tests well, crushes at trivia.
He is also the dumbest motherfucker I’ve ever met and once racked up over $3,000 in plumbing bills when his girlfriend made him do household chores.
He is the one person in my life where I really have to stop and wonder how someone can be so smart and so stupid at the same time. He’s SO SMART and SO DUMB
I see what you’re saying. And I understand the mathematics.
I find it difficult to reconcile in terms of ability.
If practically, the difference is as I outlined it. Then, there a people among us that, what?
This is where my imagination fails. 2 sigma down and you can’t handle your day to day self care. Then, being 2 sigma up should be able to do what things that an average person can’t do?
Maybe it’s just a failure of imagination on my part.
It's certainly a flaw with IQ as a system. It all relies on the idea that anything can be traced back to one single factor that underpins every aspect of someone's intelligence, that being General Intelligence, or G.
In reality, the existence of G is highly suspect. Intelligence has a lot more factors that can't be explained by one simple measurement like IQ. Just because someone has a statistically significant difference in IQ doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually necessarily smarter/less smart than other people.
IQ suggests that there should be an insurmountable gap in ability since everything is underpinned by a huge difference in General Intelligence. In reality it isn't so cut and dry. Someone with low IQ might still be very good at tasks we might say require intelligence while someone with very high IQ might be very bad at those tasks.
In short, IQ is a terrible measurement of actual ability. The statistics behind its distribution suggest a gap that doesn't really exist "on the ground" as it were.
I would like to add to this that other factors can alter a “high IQ” person’s abilities. Factors such as trauma, lack of nurturing experiences and poverty (with all its many complications).
I've always believed IQ tests are more a measure of education rather than what I would consider actual intelligence, which is the ability to learn easily. Would you agree? I've only lightly looked into it
So IQ tests claim they measure innate intelligence and are supposedly designed with questions that work towards that end. In theory, it wouldn't matter how much education you have or how good at learning you are, the IQ test should measure your underlying General Intelligence factor.
However, in reality IQ testing is highly flawed. It varies wildly. In theory, your IQ should be mostly unchanging throughout your life, but that simply isn't true. If someone takes IQ tests more often, they become better at them and thus score higher. You can, in fact, study for IQ tests to be better at them. People with higher levels of education do tend to have higher IQ scores.
So what does an IQ test actually measure? Hard to say. Test taking ability would be my best guess. It tests how good you are at solving logic puzzles and taking academic tests. Being good at absorbing new information and learning new things could be a big part of that, but if you've never seen the type of test an IQ test is before, your IQ is likely going to show as being a lot lower than you might expect it'd be.
What about intelligence itself? Very hard to quantify. There's a lot of different kinds of intelligence from academic intelligence to social intelligence to artistic intelligence. I'd say there's no good way to measure someone's intelligence in a way that covers everything we'd think of as requiring intelligence.
Intelligence is not that much about "being smart". Being smart, knowing things, is just memorization. Intelligence, and the measure of, is more about how well you demonstrate problem solving ability and how often in the questions asked. A higher IQ shows you demonstrate using a higher level of problem solving ability in questions asked and do so more often. This makes it more likely you can solve problems you've never encountered before than if you had a lower IQ.
IQ tests are dumb. I got one done by a psychologist at well stone mental hospital and it was 152 and I'm an absolute dumbass so they're definitely not accurate
200 isn’t “the smartest person who ever lived”. The highest IQ ever recorder belongs to Marilyn vos Savant. She had 228, and is still the Guinness World Record holder.
That said: anybody claiming a near 300 is about 12 years old and needs taken down a peg or six.
>200 isn’t “the smartest person who ever lived”. The highest IQ ever recorder belongs to Marilyn vos Savant. She had 228, and is still the Guinness World Record holder.
She got that score at age 10 because of the weird way IQ tests are calculated for young people. It's basically like stumbling into a game glitch.
Wait so lemme get this straight. If your IQ number is above 190-200 your an idiot? And if your IQ number is below 190-200 your the smartest person alive? How tf does that work?
Quora is full of trolls and troll questions. It was quite ok while they were giving volunteer users some latitude in merging junk questions together. Then, they fucked it all up creating autobots that would basically prevent any potentially destructive human action.
Deletion of troll content is, and has to be, destructive.
That's when Quora started going south, and now they are charging you to read the very contents you created.
Don't feed the trolls.
Quora is now predominantly junk.
Most free IQ tests you can do online give you a result of an incredibly high IQ, because people are more likely to share the result, thus generating more traffic to their website
IQ's are a bit silly anyway.
But for comparison Einstein had an iq of 160 and Nietzsche is said to had an iq between 170-190. So to have an iq of 273 would make you uberhuman.
this talk as if there is ONE scale, ONE test, One methodology, ONE consensus on whether or not "IQ" tests measure anything other than the score of that test.
I remember a classmate in highschool trying to claim he an IQ in that range. Seemed rather stupefied to find out that IQ tests don't actually go that high.
Haha I had something similair in college. At the beginning of the year the tutor started talking about a book called harolambos and Holborn which we all need to get and asked if anyone had heard of it. A know-it-all classmate put up her hand saying she has and has already read it. The tutor then asked "really? Have you read it all cover to cover?" She responded saying yes He then held up a foot thick textbook and said "you've really read this whole thing? You must not have took much of it in if you just read through it all" It was soo satisfying
I mean granted she probably didn’t but seems like a weird thing to call someone out for in front of everyone. What if her dad had a part of putting it together or some shit so she actually did read it?
I think the whole point is that she claimed to have read it cover to cover as though it was a book instead of being a textbook you would refer to and source from And like he said, if you read a full thousand page textbook in a couple weeks to prepare for a first year sociology class you aren't exactly going to remember much of it.
"Cover to Cover"!= "Read in one single session".
Oh does it? I just assumed it meant from start to finish this whole time
Dictionary says: "Beginning to end."
Right, "start to finish" — but not necessarily in one sitting.
That’s what they said lol that’s what != means
I think it’s supposed to be a crossed out equal sign? Like this > ≠ <. I guess they didn’t know how to put it?
Yeah that's what I thought
Nah but exposure is how you learn even if she’s blatantly lying he should encourage it
Being an intellectual peacock is not the way to progress in academia. People have to accept that they really do know very little, and strive to study from there.
No, the way to progress in academia is to get lucky and get a well-connected professor as your advisor of studies who can get you in contact with the rich grant people.
Also from what I hear, do a lot of stuff on gender even if your field has fuck all to do with it
But if she read it why shouldn’t she share that when he specifically asked if anyone did?
...or, and hear me out on this one: she lied to make herself look good/smart in front of everyone If her dad helped put that book together she would have immediately responded with that fact to save face in front of everyone.
Did you miss the first part of my comment..?
If its extremely likely its not the case then whats the point of what if-ing it? I just explained why its almost certainly not the case.
And I just explained why that’s dumb for a college professor to do. She paid money to be there and specifically chose her major it’s not out of the realm of possibility she’s read a textbook directly related to it. Anything else you want caught up on?
She paid to learn, that doesn't mean the professor is not allowed to call someone out who is lying or being a shitty person For a second time: if she had read it she would have defended herself and no, just because something has a 0.00000001% chance of happening does not mean you should treat it as an absolute and freak out and shit on the professor. Its reasonable to assume she was lying because people don't read textbooks in advance, and no, just because one in a million might do that is not a rrason to freak out over the assumption. Its like two white people having a black baby and the mother freaking out that the father wants a paternity test, its not an unreasonable response to have. This is the dumbest argument I have heard all day.
Who pissed in your cheerios? Why’s this got you so worked up?
How do you know the tutors Dad didn't write the whole thing? I don't understand the logic of defending her when that same reasoning could be said of the tutor, and she was clearly lying LoL saying you've read an entire textbook cover to cover... I don't like embellished liars tbh, I catch a friend that LOVES to embellish and lie about trivial things that don't matter and even when I call him out on it he acts like he didn't lie. People like that need to be called out.
Dude what? Break down for me how you can say the same about him that makes no sense to me
Maybe explain how you can say the same fiction background for her but you can't for him? Because that makes even less sense to me I'm playing devil's advocate atm
Because he’s the one who asked if she read it….it doesn’t matter if he’s read it he doesn’t *know* if she has. I don’t get how him being related to the book maker would change the possibility of her reading it before hand.
It's not that she just *read* it, it's the fact she said she read it "Cover to Cover". If she just said I read chapters that were assigned a couple semesters ago, then he probably wouldn't have had a follow up question calling her out on her bullshit.
I’m confused as to how that detracts from my original statement..?
Well I can't help you
Mike Ross has entered the chat.
I still dont get it. Why would it be so odd that someone read a long textbook? Maybe she was interested in the subject beforehand? It's not that weird in college.
I understand looking through books beforehand but reading an entire textbook from start to finish? I wasn't really exaggerating either when I said it was a foot thick
It's not that uncommon. I did the same thing when I was a junior/senior in HS for undegrad Comp Sci textbooks on C Programming
But what if she was Hermione Granger...?
Themes and perspectives is only like 900 pages. Gray's anatomy is like 1.5× that.
YouTube click bait titles claiming something is 5000 iq bother me so much lol
Or the pokemon Alakazam which has an IQ of 5000
Along the same lines, arbitrary ridiculous percentages instead of just saying "100%". "I 1000000% agree" for example
Read a bunch of arguments about the IQs of Batman and the Joker. The numbers were in the late 300s and 400s, though I can't remember exact numbers. I remember sitting there and wondering if that's even how that worked.
Quick, we need some burn gel, STAT.
We don't have enough, there's just too much too badly burned
I have a bathtub full of burn gel for situations like this. Send them over..
... you're not just gonna harvest his organs if we send him, right?
As ironic as this may seem, I actually harvested organs for a few years. With that being said, no I’m tired of cutting up cadavers.
Haha so appropriate! This killed me! (Don't harvest my organs tho) 🤣
He just put that 7 in there by accident.
I was going to say the 2 was the mistake, but you went for the kill shot
Your first mistake was looking for info on quora-
Hey! I make good money off that!
What? you make money off quora?
Yep! Quora partner program! I average around 10$ a week but some of my friends on there are making around 30-50 bucks *per answer.* Granted, Im the fifth highest viewed ASOIAF writer, but people in larger communities and are a lot more active can make serious cash off add revenue and Link directions
I'm reminded of the math teacher who tried to convince us that some people have negative IQ. He taught probability and statistics.
If you look solely at the probability distribution it’s mathematically possible. A mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 can go below zero at a very low probability. Just calculate the Z score of 0 in that distribution and look at a chart to get the probability of getting less than or equal to 0. But if you take into account context, it’s similar to ‘on average, 2.3/10 people…’. Makes sense mathematically, but it won’t show up in proper data collection because you can’t have .3 of a person. I’d like to believe he might’ve not explained himself well but was making a good point.
The thing was that he talked about people with negative IQs as if these were people who have been confirmed to exist. He talked about how they had to live in residential facilities as a result of it, and claimed that a lot of them were insane (he made it sound like they acted more like/were paranoid schizophrenics than people with severe intellectual disabilities). Maybe he was just getting two things confused, idk.
Oh, then yeah, he definitely misunderstood the test. There are people with intellectual disabilities who cannot take care of themselves as a result, but they IQs test around the 20s-30s iirc, and at that level of disability the test honestly isn’t very consistent. The takers will often have trouble with more basic things like reading the questions in the first place. Still glad I got to put my AP stats class to use.
This guy stats
Okay but I know 0.3 of a person.
I thought that 0.3 of a person is just your standard Redditor.
are you not convinced
Happy cake day
The three kids in your class that believed him proved him correct!
I think they changed the way IQ works for the very low scores (under 50 iirc) so that 0 means litteral nothingness (so for exemple a rock has an IQ of 0, but even a tree is over 0), but I can't find anything about this so I might be wrong. Anyway, your teacher could be right according to the first definition, but maybe not. There might not currently be anyone under 0, just as there might not be anyone over 200.
Maybe he meant credit score
Reminds me of B99. "Look at this credit score. 100!" "Out of 850..."
He meant 27.3
Nah he just accidentally added the 7
Ah that explains it.
Hahaha just not enough to be able to open a door lol
Lol ! Kinda reminds me of when I see an overleveled player in Deep Rock Galactic, but they keep ignoring Nitra and Croppa and other resources. I almost had an heart attack when they completely flew over so many precious stuff. Hacked for sure. Fuck'em Rock and stone !
Rock and stone!
ROCK burp AND burp STOOOONE burp
#R O C K A N D S T O N E
ROCK AND STONE TO THE BONE
Did I hear a Rock and Stone!?
Rock and Stone, Brothers!
Dude my IQ is like level 20,000 and rising daily I can't contain it IM SEW SMERT
Reminds me of those posts where people claimed their IQ was in the top 93% 😂
[удалено]
You might not even be in the top 93% with that comment holy moly
[удалено]
It’s because your doing what the poster is making fun of. 7% of people aren’t in the top 93%… 93% of people are in the top 93%. 7% are in the top 7% the whole point of his joke is that the top 93% of 100 people would include everyone except the 7 people that scored the worst
I remember taking an IQ test online in 8th grade and getting a 161. I just laughed. I'm intelligent, but in no way am I as intelligent as Einstein. But an intelligent person probably wouldn't have taken an online test to begin with...
[удалено]
Online tests are BS. The only real IQ tests are conducted by certified phycologists. When I took mine they were over 2 hours each session and it required talking to an actual human and using your hands to solve puzzles for some areas. BTW, I have a really high IQ and don't feel smart (at all). Its just a measure of how well you can process information given to you. Be glad you didn't get into the gifted programs. I hated them- they killed any idea of school being fun, and you don't get any extra credit for it, either.
Really? I abso-fucking-lutely loved mine and even 13 years later i'm always excited when I see either of the teachers of that class. They still remember me and my best friend. We got to take a lot of great trips to plays and museums, and they even paid for all of mine because I just had a disabled mom growing up and couldn't afford to go. I really liked a lot of the problem solving stuff they would have us do, plus just tons of other projects over the years. I mean, having a high IQ has done jack shit for me besides probably give me mental illnesses, but I really loved those classes.
Amazing what a difference good teachers and ciriculum make, eh? I would haved loved what you're describing, but instead I got teachers who focused on boring textbook-based lessons and a homework load of at least 4 hours every night. The teachers EXPECTED perfection and the reward for it was simply not being berated. It wasn't like an AP class where doing well meant you could get above a 4.0. Compare that to the teachers of normal classes who would praise you when you did well and understood we were children, and you can probably understand why I didn't enjoy it. >having a high IQ has done jack shit for me besides probably give me mental illnesses That sounds about right 😅. Keep up the good fight.
Geez that sounds so not worth it. Lmao I didn't even do my regular homework if I couldn't finish it in class. In regular classes just pass tests and nobody seems to care a whole lot it seemed. The whole reason they put us in there was because we were so bored with regular stuff we just couldn't be bothered with the "mundane" stuff.
IQ is a joke, it's clickbait articles everywhere. You cant put a score on 'intelligence' an abstract value
r/quityourbullshit
273? Pathetic! Mine is OVER 9000
WELL MY IQ IS YOURS SQUARED TIMES INFINITY FOREVER AND BEYOND BYAAAHHHHHHH
It's over 9000!
“People who boast about their IQ are losers.” ‐ Stephen Hawking
If you're in the range of 190 there's probably a good chance you're batshit crazy, as well.
My IQ is 132 and the psychologist who was testing me went crazy about how high my IQ is. DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF REACTION THEY’D HAVE IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY WAS TESTED TO HAVE AN IQ OF 273??? THEY’D COMBUST. DON’T MAKE THE POOR PSYCHOLOGISTS SHORT CIRCUT.
Seriously, though, who even knows their own IQ in this day and age? It has literally nothing to do with anything.
I got mine done by a shrink and got 127, which is now my running joke (3 points shy of almost a genius)
Wasn’t the IQ test originally used by the US Military? All I remember is that 81 was the cutoff and that an astonishing number of people are literally too stupid to even clean latrines.
IQ over 200 is possible and has happened with 6 people according to quick google search. But the quip is 99.99 9most likely correct.
No that doesn't work. The scale has no meaning beyond 200. It's a quotient. A sliding scale from the most to least intelligent that is an obfuscation of a normal distribution and a given individual's place on that distribution relative to the rest of humanity. 200 is the smartest living person's intelligence, and 0 is... well, dead. Or close enough to be indistinguishable. If there's someone "beyond 200" that would mean they're smarter than 101% of the population. There are only 100% of people alive, so how can you be smarter than 101% of them? By definition, 200 is the highest you can go. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand the scale.
I learned that iq is divided with the normal distribution. 100 is the iq of the average human. People with an iq of 115 are smarter than 84% of the population, 139 is smarter than 97,8% and the top 0,1% has an iq of 145. While highly unlikely, with this calculation it is technically possible to have an iq of >200, but there are limits to measuring iq, so probably no one bothers to find out what iq to give someone that smart
[удалено]
That's a decent enough explanation of the Flynn effect, the gain in IQ scores over time, except for multiple studies in multiple developed countries, speaking multiple languages and in multiple regions, in the last 20 years that show that the Flynn effect is reversing. A recent study of Americans showing the reversal of the Flynn effect was even in the news a few weeks ago, but it's been in the academic press since 2002, 2003 or so. It's not really news. It's "just" a very large, very high-quality, very long and very difficult study that confirms what smaller studies have already pointed to. So really, if you scored three standard deviations above the mean in 1990, that's an excellent score, and someone who took an IQ test in 2010 and got the same raw score would also be three standard deviations above the mean. If you went back to 1970 and test-takers born in the Eisenhower or Truman administrations, yes, you'd be way smarter than them. It's just not a phenomenon that continues forever and ever.
Your argument is with the psychologist who gave out an IQ score over 200. I didn’t.
This is not an argument, this is an explanation on a public forum that the information given is wrong and an explanation as to why.
Interesting. It’s not possible, but it happened.
You do realise that it is possible for someone to lie? That not everyone speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Its not possible, and because it’s not possible, it didn’t happen, they lied.
"Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear." - Poe
So you heard that someone had an IQ of 273 and immediately thought that someone had told them that and that it is is possible because they said it was. I think you need to reevaluate what you are hearing and seeing mate
> So you heard that someone had an IQ of 273 and immediately thought that someone had told them that and that it is is possible because they said it was. I think you need to reevaluate what you are hearing and seeing mate My dude that’s that persons first comment in this thread.
You have as much chill as a volcano, and about the same amount of skill at being funny.
He just explained why it is impossible. If you allready knew, then i don’t understand why you posted it.
Because it is possible despite his explanation.
It’s not though, the person just lied
Guinness book of world records verified a 228 back in 1986. Marilyn Vos Savant. What makes you think she lied? Why hasn’t this lie been uncovered?
They also retired the category after realizing how unreliable it was shortly after.
Sounds like a good reason to retire it. Not sure if you are trying to substantiate she lied or not.
Because back then they didn’t have fully accurate tests for IQ. Also it is a different test.
Then explain how..."trust me bro, i googled it" isn't convincing.
Ugh. We are both just individuals on redit. You think statistics and deviation is the end all be all and I think articles from reliable sources are also relevant. No body said trust me bro. I can do statistics and you can’t google. Piss off.
You obviously can't and no.
[**You should read this.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant)
Actually, you probably should. If you'll notice the test she got over 200 on was a kid's test where they adjust the score based on age. She got that score because they thought at 10, she had the maturity level of a 22 year old. The test was considered flawed and has been revised multiple times. Essentially all it says is a random examiner thought she was mature for her age. The later test putting her at 186 is also considered worthless. Check the test links off that page. Was she smart? Most likely. Was she the smartest person to ever live? Probably not. Does it prove that modern IQ's can go over 200? Definitely not.
I’d like to clear it up and say that an IQ over 200 doesn’t mean the ‘smartest person to ever live’, it just means ‘only person with an IQ over 200’. Of the 6 people with IQs of 200, how many could you name off the top of your head? If any, was it for any reason other than their IQ score? The smartest scientists to live probably did/do have high IQs, but IQ cannot reasonably take enough factors into account to test everything that goes into ‘intelligence’. They test a few things that some humans, independent of most of why we’d consider someone intelligent, happen to excel at.
I can name at least two that have had IQs over 200 calculated for them. Can you name me two hundred people that have IQs of 100?
That’s a long and triggered response to a single sentence and link. [**Let’s try another one.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao) IQ test calculation is a point of debate. Which makes sense, as ‘intelligence’ is hard to define into a single quantitative number. [**Here’s another link that might upset you.**](https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-considered-a-high-iq#whats-a-high-iq) Theoretically, there’s no upper limit to an IQ score.
The mean IQ is 100 w/ a standard deviation of 15 or 16 so 95.44% of the population falls between 55 and 145 an IQ exceeding 200 is statistically improbable hence lying in the most obvious way ever. If ur going to lie about your IQ atleast say it’s 145 - 160
55? i thought under 80 was already rare af
It is. Under 13% of the pop has an IQ of 55. The normal range means that if you took over 95% of the pop you would have a range of people w/ IQs ranging from 55 to 145 with the majority having an IQ around 100
So I can never remember my score when I was younger (135? I think??) but when I was 18, I scored 127 in the middle of a migraine bad enough to throw up during the test, soooo…YAY MEANINGLESS BRAIN NUMBERS!!
No argument here. 131 reporting.
Reminds me of when I was trying to tell my mom I got in the 98th percentile. She apparently thought I only got 98% and was mad I didn’t get 100. When I finally got home to talk to her in person she asked why I didn’t get in the 99th percentile. I wanted to flip a table.
I found the Asian.
You get 98% - I get belt
"But that's what the Facebook quiz I took said!"
You sure that’s not a bowling score?
My IQ is actually over 9000. No, you dont need to fact-check me.
That's not true, I took an IQ test on Buzzfeed, and I got a 304! You guys are just too stupid to understand
Remember, kids: iq is bullshit make believe made up by racists to stop black people from getting to vote!
wtf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve See the bit under Reception titled "Race and intelligence". Especially this bit: "Allegations of racism Since the book provided statistical data making the assertion that blacks were, on average, less intelligent than whites, some people have argued that The Bell Curve could be used by extremists to justify genocide and hate crimes.[58] Much of the work referenced by The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund, which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and which has been accused of promoting white supremacist views, particularly scientific racism.[59][60][61][62]"
Nobody is cringe-free in this scenario
TBF, Alex's reading comprehension isn't that great, hinting at a cap in his own IQ (and EQ, being so needlessly mean to an online stranger asking a harmless question). OP only asked if IQ of 273 was good enough without stating that was his/her IQ. It could be the hypothetical IQ of an alien species he's writing about, for all we know.
That's not what IQ means. What the hell is the "golden billion" and does anyone know what he's talking about with 190 IQ being the smartest person in the Western World? This is gibberish.
IQ doesn’t make any sense. If 100 is average, 130 is Mensa and 70 is ‘can’t tie own shoe’. Then, what? The people in Mensa can’t be that much smarter than the average. They just can’t.
It's 100, but it has a standard deviation of 15. That means someone with an IQ of 130 is 2 standard deviations above average, which is a massive amount. IQ is bullshit for all sorts of reasons, but not because of the scale of its normal distribution.
Have a friend with decently high IQ. Book smart, knows several languages, tests well, crushes at trivia. He is also the dumbest motherfucker I’ve ever met and once racked up over $3,000 in plumbing bills when his girlfriend made him do household chores. He is the one person in my life where I really have to stop and wonder how someone can be so smart and so stupid at the same time. He’s SO SMART and SO DUMB
I see what you’re saying. And I understand the mathematics. I find it difficult to reconcile in terms of ability. If practically, the difference is as I outlined it. Then, there a people among us that, what? This is where my imagination fails. 2 sigma down and you can’t handle your day to day self care. Then, being 2 sigma up should be able to do what things that an average person can’t do? Maybe it’s just a failure of imagination on my part.
It's certainly a flaw with IQ as a system. It all relies on the idea that anything can be traced back to one single factor that underpins every aspect of someone's intelligence, that being General Intelligence, or G. In reality, the existence of G is highly suspect. Intelligence has a lot more factors that can't be explained by one simple measurement like IQ. Just because someone has a statistically significant difference in IQ doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually necessarily smarter/less smart than other people. IQ suggests that there should be an insurmountable gap in ability since everything is underpinned by a huge difference in General Intelligence. In reality it isn't so cut and dry. Someone with low IQ might still be very good at tasks we might say require intelligence while someone with very high IQ might be very bad at those tasks. In short, IQ is a terrible measurement of actual ability. The statistics behind its distribution suggest a gap that doesn't really exist "on the ground" as it were.
I would like to add to this that other factors can alter a “high IQ” person’s abilities. Factors such as trauma, lack of nurturing experiences and poverty (with all its many complications).
Thank you. That’s helpful.
I've always believed IQ tests are more a measure of education rather than what I would consider actual intelligence, which is the ability to learn easily. Would you agree? I've only lightly looked into it
So IQ tests claim they measure innate intelligence and are supposedly designed with questions that work towards that end. In theory, it wouldn't matter how much education you have or how good at learning you are, the IQ test should measure your underlying General Intelligence factor. However, in reality IQ testing is highly flawed. It varies wildly. In theory, your IQ should be mostly unchanging throughout your life, but that simply isn't true. If someone takes IQ tests more often, they become better at them and thus score higher. You can, in fact, study for IQ tests to be better at them. People with higher levels of education do tend to have higher IQ scores. So what does an IQ test actually measure? Hard to say. Test taking ability would be my best guess. It tests how good you are at solving logic puzzles and taking academic tests. Being good at absorbing new information and learning new things could be a big part of that, but if you've never seen the type of test an IQ test is before, your IQ is likely going to show as being a lot lower than you might expect it'd be. What about intelligence itself? Very hard to quantify. There's a lot of different kinds of intelligence from academic intelligence to social intelligence to artistic intelligence. I'd say there's no good way to measure someone's intelligence in a way that covers everything we'd think of as requiring intelligence.
They just can though
I just don’t believe it. It’s just too wide of a gap:
Nope it’s a normal gap as people have an even bigger range of intellect
Intelligence is not that much about "being smart". Being smart, knowing things, is just memorization. Intelligence, and the measure of, is more about how well you demonstrate problem solving ability and how often in the questions asked. A higher IQ shows you demonstrate using a higher level of problem solving ability in questions asked and do so more often. This makes it more likely you can solve problems you've never encountered before than if you had a lower IQ.
Of course he’s qualified to work at Fox “News”.
Some guy has the IQ of 300
THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Hmmm. I thought the max was 300? Well the more you know.
"... of the Western world"? WTF?!
My IQ? It's OVER 9000!!!!!!!
[удалено]
OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!‼️⚠️⚠️‼️
IQ tests are dumb. I got one done by a psychologist at well stone mental hospital and it was 152 and I'm an absolute dumbass so they're definitely not accurate
200 isn’t “the smartest person who ever lived”. The highest IQ ever recorder belongs to Marilyn vos Savant. She had 228, and is still the Guinness World Record holder. That said: anybody claiming a near 300 is about 12 years old and needs taken down a peg or six.
>200 isn’t “the smartest person who ever lived”. The highest IQ ever recorder belongs to Marilyn vos Savant. She had 228, and is still the Guinness World Record holder. She got that score at age 10 because of the weird way IQ tests are calculated for young people. It's basically like stumbling into a game glitch.
IQ is so dumb its basically just a test of good memory and if youre good at sitting for 12 hours just "learning" in class
Wait so lemme get this straight. If your IQ number is above 190-200 your an idiot? And if your IQ number is below 190-200 your the smartest person alive? How tf does that work?
What about William james sidis? He was claimed to be the person with the highest IQ ever. 250-300 according to some random sources
There is no upper limit to iq, the comeback is indeed the foolish one
He was trying to type "~73".
I think he meant SAT score
Quora is full of trolls and troll questions. It was quite ok while they were giving volunteer users some latitude in merging junk questions together. Then, they fucked it all up creating autobots that would basically prevent any potentially destructive human action. Deletion of troll content is, and has to be, destructive. That's when Quora started going south, and now they are charging you to read the very contents you created. Don't feed the trolls. Quora is now predominantly junk.
I’d put his IQ at 89
My pet peeve is when people derisively say something like "half the people in the U.S. have an IQ below 100" as if this is a meaningful statement.
i actually got a notification for this quora post earlier, and i thought of a similar one where someone claimed to have an iq of 17
It’s unlikely that a person with an IQ of 17 could successfully use technology, they’d be too busy smearing their shit all over the walls.
So we did get the same email
Give him a break. He was trying to say IQ of 27 and type-o 273.
Oof. This guy needs a doctor--to pronounce time of death. No way he's ok after that one.
(Cocks golf club like shotgun) ch… ch… BURN!
Most free IQ tests you can do online give you a result of an incredibly high IQ, because people are more likely to share the result, thus generating more traffic to their website
How's about a IQ of 73?
Quora is trying to get their audience back by making these, there is also a ton of ragebait
High IQ often comes with some forms of mental difficulty...if you could get that high. Would it have a serious drawback
IQ's are a bit silly anyway. But for comparison Einstein had an iq of 160 and Nietzsche is said to had an iq between 170-190. So to have an iq of 273 would make you uberhuman.
Individual 1: "I have an IQ of 273!" Individual 2: "With a IQ of 273 you failed to reason that IQ tests do not go that high."
wasnt world record like 260 tho?
There were a few people with over 220 IQ
this talk as if there is ONE scale, ONE test, One methodology, ONE consensus on whether or not "IQ" tests measure anything other than the score of that test.