Comment on brains!

• blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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.

  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.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    No one has an IQ of 200

    I linked to a list of many examples

    this has a z score of 6.33.

    Only if normal distributions are assumed. Clearly this assumption is incorrect.

    But we do agree that a negative IQ is impossible?

    source

    • blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I’m struggling to see how a negative IQ can be practically assessed.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit.

    There are people alive on that list.

    IQ is a borderline pseudo science

    Dude, you are the one trying to prove it’s legitimacy with normal distributions and confidence levels.

    source

    • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Let’s focus on one individual then with an officially calculated IQ.

        medium.com/…/younghoon-kim-the-current-highest-iq…

        IQ is not normally distributed. It can be higher than 200. It can’t be negative.

        source

        • -> View More Comments