Comment on brains!
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoany 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
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
There are people alive on that list.
Dude, you are the one trying to prove it’s legitimacy with normal distributions and confidence levels.
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
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.
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
quora.com/Is-it-even-possible-for-a-human-to-have…
read the second answer to that particular quora question, i believe it outlays what the other guy and i mean pretty clearly