I need to point out that IQ isn’t a score. It’s a quotient. There are literally not enough people on earth for anyone to have an IQ of 210. There aren’t even enough for a single person to have an IQ of 202.
if it’s based on an approximated normal distribution, then it is entirely possible to have people well into the tail ends. Regardless of the current population of humanity.
Say you have a test with 100 questions and the mean score is 76, but the standard deviation is super low like 3, then getting a perfect score would put you at a z-score of 8, which would be roughly a 1 in 803.7 Trillion rarity.
You don’t need 803.7 Trillion people to take the test to reach this conclusion. In fact (if I’ve done my math correctly) you would only need a sample size of 65 people (including the outlier), to get this though that’s under perfect conditions assuming everyone else got exactly 76. (You’d need a lot more samples in different places to be confident in that result)
Anyway, that’s a super idealized example, but the principle of the Central Limit Theorem is sound and does allow for crazy seeming probabilities. It’s not comparing your score to everyone who has taken the test for quartiles, it’s telling you how you’d compare to everyone who could possibly ever take the test.
The statistical approach is sound; however the test and sampling is not. IQ score tests are just biased, inaccurate, not really scientific, not useful and typically only serve to give people ego boosts.
I never debate the ability of IQ tests to measure what they say they do. That’s a position of automatic loss.
However I will debate any claim of an IQ over 201.
You proposed a test with an absurdly low SD. Can you find one that is respected (maybe MENSA qualifying) that meets that criteria. We can create math problems to invent a hypothetical test that makes getting an IQ over 201 but the second step is to confirm that one not only exists but is credible within the sloppy credibility standards that exist within the industry.
This is describing a defective test. Any test that allows for an IQ above the population limit is a defective test.
Kim Ung-Yong (Korean: 김웅용; born March 8, 1962)[1] is a South Korean civil engineer and university professor. During his youth, he was recognized as a child prodigy with the highest recorded IQ on record, having scored above 210 on the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale.
Ah in that case … I’m not really good at maths but … why don’t you go on and correct the wikipedi article, and the one in the Guinnes book … so that people like me, i. e. not that good as maths, won’t be fooled anymore by those articles?
That’s not it. Your IQ isn’t the score on the test. It’s the score divided by the score of every in your age group multiplied by 100. It’s upper limit isn’t based on how well you did. It’s based on the population. That’s why it’s an IQ, Intelligence Quotient, not an IS, Intelligence Score.
It is mathematically impossible to get an IQ over 201 given the population of the planet. And that’s using the generous 16 point deviation most use the 15 point SD. That one allows for a maximum score of 195 with the current population.
To add to this, above a given level of intellectual ability, the tests are not capable of measuring. If we both get every question correct, we do not necessarily have the same intellectual ability even though the test will say we both deviated from the mean by the same amount.
That is not some redditor but one person, who impressed the Guinness book of world record staff. And before you go on, that they too don’t impress you … I neither bother if that person had such an IQ or not, nor do I bother by you being impressed or not.
I need to point out that IQ isn’t a score. It’s a quotient. There are literally not enough people on earth for anyone to have an IQ of 210. There aren’t even enough for a single person to have an IQ of 202.
if it’s based on an approximated normal distribution, then it is entirely possible to have people well into the tail ends. Regardless of the current population of humanity.
Say you have a test with 100 questions and the mean score is 76, but the standard deviation is super low like 3, then getting a perfect score would put you at a z-score of 8, which would be roughly a 1 in 803.7 Trillion rarity.
You don’t need 803.7 Trillion people to take the test to reach this conclusion. In fact (if I’ve done my math correctly) you would only need a sample size of 65 people (including the outlier), to get this though that’s under perfect conditions assuming everyone else got exactly 76. (You’d need a lot more samples in different places to be confident in that result)
Anyway, that’s a super idealized example, but the principle of the Central Limit Theorem is sound and does allow for crazy seeming probabilities. It’s not comparing your score to everyone who has taken the test for quartiles, it’s telling you how you’d compare to everyone who could possibly ever take the test.
The statistical approach is sound; however the test and sampling is not. IQ score tests are just biased, inaccurate, not really scientific, not useful and typically only serve to give people ego boosts.
I never debate the ability of IQ tests to measure what they say they do. That’s a position of automatic loss.
However I will debate any claim of an IQ over 201. You proposed a test with an absurdly low SD. Can you find one that is respected (maybe MENSA qualifying) that meets that criteria. We can create math problems to invent a hypothetical test that makes getting an IQ over 201 but the second step is to confirm that one not only exists but is credible within the sloppy credibility standards that exist within the industry.
This is describing a defective test. Any test that allows for an IQ above the population limit is a defective test.
Sure? 🙂
Yes I’m sure because that’s how math works.
Ah in that case … I’m not really good at maths but … why don’t you go on and correct the wikipedi article, and the one in the Guinnes book … so that people like me, i. e. not that good as maths, won’t be fooled anymore by those articles?
The alternative is that the test isn’t trustworthy in the upper and lower ranges (or at all), but that’s unpossible.
That’s not it. Your IQ isn’t the score on the test. It’s the score divided by the score of every in your age group multiplied by 100. It’s upper limit isn’t based on how well you did. It’s based on the population. That’s why it’s an IQ, Intelligence Quotient, not an IS, Intelligence Score.
It is mathematically impossible to get an IQ over 201 given the population of the planet. And that’s using the generous 16 point deviation most use the 15 point SD. That one allows for a maximum score of 195 with the current population.
To add to this, above a given level of intellectual ability, the tests are not capable of measuring. If we both get every question correct, we do not necessarily have the same intellectual ability even though the test will say we both deviated from the mean by the same amount.
You can find plenty of Redditors who tell you they’re over 300, I’m not impressed
That is not some redditor but one person, who impressed the Guinness book of world record staff. And before you go on, that they too don’t impress you … I neither bother if that person had such an IQ or not, nor do I bother by you being impressed or not.