IQ Limit: Is There a Ceiling to Human Intelligence?

[Hwarang]

Is there a limit to how high a persons IQ can be

without outside influences like nano technology and genetic engineering. Is there a limit to how smart humanity can get with eugenics?

 

[Paragon]

Our knowledge is as inadequate as the source whence it is coming from.

 

[Padford]

i've always, well, not always, but i have wonderened how high someones IQ can get, i think steven hawkin's is in the high 200's! (if the simpsons are correct...)

 

[Bartholomew]

I once read that stephen hawking's iq is around 180.

 

[Padford]

still pretty damn high

 

[selfAdjoint]

If I am not mistaken there is an upper limit on the IQ tests, not a hard one, but a range where they become ineffective and produce irregular or conflicting results. Various people have made and advertised "super" IQ tests to test higher ranges, but I am unsure how professional these new tests are and how throroughly they have been calibrated.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think there's an upper limit. For your information guys, a few well known universities (so well known i can't remember their names lol) did a study very very recently and declared Mozart had the highest IQ of any known human in history at aroudn 230 i believe. Does anyone remember it? IT was a collaboration of about 10 universities and they released the study a year ago at the earliest. It made it into the mainstream media too

 

[Barbie]

Are you talking Ivy League schools? Those are Harvard, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale, and Penn State (I believe).

I don't remember the study, but that's quite interesting. Mozart...

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think there's an upper limit. For your information guys, a few well known universities (so well known i can't remember their names lol) did a study very very recently and declared Mozart had the highest IQ of any known human in history at aroudn 230 i believe. Does anyone remember it? IT was a collaboration of about 10 universities and they released the study a year ago at the earliest. It made it into the mainstream media too

I don't take studies like this seriously. The question "What was the IQ of long dead famous people" is like a Rorshsch blot upon which scholars can project their predjudices.

 

[loseyourname]

without outside influences like nano technology and genetic engineering. Is there a limit to how smart humanity can get with eugenics?

I don't know about an upper limit on scores, but if the entire population became more intelligent, the mean for the test, and hence the scoring scale, would simply move up. The scores themselves, which are measured as deviations, would remain the same.

 

[Hwarang]

Wouldnt it be ridiculous though for humanity to possesses an IQ of 500? I mean if you could increase the average IQ of a generation by 20 points. Then in no time IQ will get ridiculous. People will be memorizing entire textbooks in one sitting. And toddlers would be venturing into quantum physics. I am betting there is a limit.

Perhaps there's a capacity to how large the human skull can get, perhaps the brain will just become to powerful that it might destroy itself/over heat/cause mental problems.

I don't think its possible for any human(excluding use of nanomachines) to have an IQ of 300. Imagine the whole world possessing an IQ that high.

It might be great for scientific progress, but that's a little to smart for the average person. The average joe will be capable of making chemical weapons that could wipe out millions. Some bloke with access to uranium might nuke a city. Or a bunch of angry college students could create some doomsday device that not even our most brilliant scientist today can.

Thankfully the human average IQ is dropping or not increasing by much in most countries.

 

[loseyourname]

Wouldnt it be ridiculous though for humanity to possesses an IQ of 500? I mean if you could increase the average IQ of a generation by 20 points.

That can't happen. Because of the way IQ tests are scored, the population mean will always be 100.

 

[Barbie]

That can't happen. Because of the way IQ tests are scored, the population mean will always be 100.

Thats true, but does that limit the actual potential? Of course not. IQ tests and scores are what we created to measure. With the proper adjustments of the scores, one can have an IQ of 100 on paper and be a genius in actuality. The question at hand deals with the actual potential, not whether we will use higher numbers to lable it.

 

[hitssquad]

Maximum theoretical IQs of eugenically-enhanced human races

Is there a limit to how smart humanity can get with eugenics?

• [...] although the average running speed of thoroughbreds has increased, there has been no improvement in the fastest running speeds, which have remained the same for about a century. Records are not broken virtually every year, as they are in Olympic events. The fastest horse ever was Sovereign, who lived between the two World Wars. The reason the fastest running times have not improved is that all the genes (alleles) for the fastest running speeds must have been present in the 1791 thoroughbred population. These have been increased by selective breeding, while at the same time the alleles that reduce speed have been reduced. It is very unlikely that new mutant genes for faster speeds have appeared. Because running speeds are determined by a number of characteristics, each determined by a number of genes, the chances of a horse inheriting all the best genes for running speed are very low; and it is a matter of chance when these, together with optimum environmental factors, appear in a particular horse.
  
  The experience of the breeding of thoroughbreds over the past two centuries serves as a useful model for what could be anticipated if eugenic measures were introduced for humans. In the case of intelligence, there would not be any increase in the highest intelligence hitherto achieved. The highest IQs ever recorded are about 200, the intelligence level estimated for Blaise Pascal (Cox, 1926) and Francis Galton (Terman, 1917a). An IQ of 200 means that a child of a particular age is at the intellectual level of the average child of twice this age (e.g., a four-year-old is at the level of the average eight-yearold). We should not expect that a eugenic program would increase the highest achievable IQ to 300 or 400. This is because all the right genes and the most favorable environmental conditions have already appeared from time to time and produced people like Pascal and Galton. What a eugenic program would accomplish would be the reduction or elimination of the genes for low intelligence. The average intelligence level of the population would be improved, just as the average running speed of thoroughbreds has been improved; but there would be no increase of the highest IQs, just as there has been no improvement in the running speeds of the fastest thoroughbreds.

(Richard Lynn. . Chapter 11: The Genetic Principles of Selection. Section 2: The Breeding of Thoroughbreds. p153.)

• It can be anticipated that the impact on intelligence of the use of embryo selection by the whole licensed population would be to raise the average level of intelligence of the population by around 15 IQ points in one generation. The reason for this is that if couples produced a hundred embryos, there would be a range of some 30 IQ points in the embryos' potential IQs. A few of these would be expected to have IQs about 15 IQ points higher than the average of their parents. These would be selected for implantation, so the effect would be to increase the intelligence level of the child generation by around 15 IQ points. This gain would be repeated in each succeeding generation until all the alleles for low and average IQs had been eliminated. The intelligence level of the population would be expected to stabilize at its theoretical maximum of around 200 after six or seven generations.

(Richard Lynn. . Chapter 20: The Future of Eugenics in Authoritarian States. Section 7: Mandatory Embryo Selection. p300.)

 

[Hwarang]

Excellent point hitssquad, your right there is most certainly going to be a limit to human IQ.

No matter how much eugenics we under go I doubt we could make a human being as fast as a cheetah. The only way that’s possible is if the human population undergoes several positive mutations until humans evolve into something new. And that’s going to take millions of years and very selective breeding.

However one thing I noticed is that there are several dozen types of horses. There are also different types of dogs. These different “races” of dogs or horses can mate with other dogs or horses and create hybrids. This is similar to humans and the different races.

Now, one thing I noticed is that thoroughbreds are the fastest horses, compared to a show pony. Yet no matter how much eugenics you under go for the pony it will probably lose to a thoroughbred who also receives selective breeding. I know that ponies are selectively breeded for looks while thoroughbreds are for speed but I doubt that a pony will be able to outpace a thoroughbred no matter how much eugenics it undergoes despite the fact that both are still horses. Even then the different “races” of horses and dogs are all physically even intellectually different. In the same way a cuddly little poodle won't be able to fight as well as a german sheperd or wolf even when you give the maximum eugenic potential to both sides(and the fact that these dogs can mate with each other much like the different races of humanity). Humans have different races and they vary as well. West Africans run fast, east Africans can run very long. Africans seem to excel in music. Caucasians seem to be talented in art and literature and possesses a good balance of verbal and visuo spatial IQ. Jews possesses incredible verbal IQ although not so decent visuo spatial. East Asians are the reverse, possessing high visuo spatial IQ averages and not so good verbal IQ averages. Some African tribes also possesses giant tribes, like that tribe with 7 footers or in the opposite case, pygmies who average 4 feet 5 inches. Some dogs are more resistant to the cold than others. Some more resistant to diseases. Some have sharper teeth or different color fur. They are all dogs, and these dogs can also breed together to create hybrids. This is exactly like humans.

Does that mean when all races undergo eugenics the ultimate result will be

Blacks: God like athletes
Jews: Masters of Vocab skills and of course buisness
Asians: Masters of math science and especially technology
Whites: Jack of all trades with slightly better verbal than visuospatial

I mean using dogs for example, some dogs are just smarter than other dogs no matter how much eugenics you put those dogs through. Some dogs/horses will always be faster, bigger or whatever. The same might even be true for humans who also possesses different races that can mate interracially.

will all races under eugenics ultimatly possesses similar IQs or will blacks hit a limit that is under 200(no offense to blacks)? I mean genetics limits physical strength and speed which blacks seem to have the most potential. East Asians possesses the largest brain averages(according to some theories a high visuo spatial IQ requires larger brains, hence one reason why even when size is controlled men(higher visuo) still average larger brains than women(usually average higher verbal IQ than men)). Asian women also average the largest hip ratio because of large head babies.

Are there racial limits in humans just like the different "races" of dogs, cats and horses that can mate with each other? This is giving me more questions than answers.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It seems that one common idea about intelligence is the abilty/capacity to adapt to a new environment, to adapt one's thinking to new parameters and successfully comprehend how things work in this new situation. So, if we lived in an environment where we were continually presented with new and strange problems that had to be solved for our survival (including jobs where this is necessary), then humanity would evolve in that direction, no? Like in the movie "The Cube" or "Catch Me If You Can." Intelligence is more than just computing and verbal skills.

 

[Prometheus.]

Iq

If you look at crime rates / vs IQ, most destructive behavior is caused by people with IQ's under 90... at a IQ of 120+ there is very little crime, and hardly a desire to use intellect for world destruction. (why, because it's retarded to destroy the world)


IQ tests where originally a way to study mental retardation.


Once you understand mental retardation you'll understand all those IQ 60-80 countries killing everyone, attacking people, religious fundamentalism, ect.


That's why we worry so much about technology getting into the "wrong hands" i.e. angry retards who couldn't invent a pointed stick, but can press the -on button- on something designed by smart people who had to build it to standards that the military could operate it.


Most cronic welfare recipients are at a IQ less than 92 where as most people with a IQ of 120+ have and probably will never be on welfare.


Chimpanzees have a large brain mass compared to body size, however it is still nearly half the ratio for humans.


For instance how many calculations is a chicken able to make due to it's small brain size.


A elephant has a large brain, but it also has a large body.


Chimpanzees vs. human children tend to progress until a certain age, where the chimpanzees brain will reach it's limit, and the human childs brain will continue to develope because it has more grey matter to call on.


Both chimpanzees and humans have eyes, touch, motor-skills, smell, ect. as input for the brain, and for a while they develope the same, the cut off comes at around age 3-5...


There was even a test done where a child and a gorilla where raised side by side, the progressed along the same lines, at about age three years the experiment was called off because the gorilla stopped acting more and more human, and the child started acting more and more like a gorilla.


If we take that into consideration that we have found human skulls from tens of thousands of years ago that are sometimes more than twice our average in brain size vs body size.


Also there is left vs right brain IQ functions, processing speed, ect to take into consideration. I'd say 300 is achievable.


If we could clone and genetically arrange for increased IQ and brain size, I'd estimate we could hit much higher IQ's, it would require more time to develope the brain of the subjects, and advanced educational resources to operate the new brain capabilities.


It takes a IQ of at least 120 to get a PHD, it takes a IQ of 70 to be mad at the world, not even know why, have a few million dollars of oil money because smart people pay you to pump it out of your sand farm to run their machinery, they'll even give you cars, and indoor plumbing for it.


That's what is dangerous, is technology in the hands of retards.


I say they should give the drivers licence, and an IQ test at the same time.


Same for immigration.


If this offends you please send all your hate mail to: Amaethon@gmail.com

 

[selfAdjoint]

I say they should give the drivers licence, and an IQ test at the same time.

Another of those old studies found that average IQ individuals made better long distance truck drivers than ones with elevated IQs. They were less apt to get distracted by their own thoughts.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Once you understand mental retardation you'll understand all those IQ 60-80 countries killing everyone, attacking people, religious fundamentalism, ect.


Most cronic welfare recipients are at a IQ less than 92 where as most people with a IQ of 120+ have and probably will never be on welfare.

Funny how constant warfare and social ills also run rampant in countries where Europeans, with their high IQ's, have previously or currently colonized/enslaved/abused. As for the welfare, is it not true that those who are perceived as less important in the US to the government (yes there are such classes of importance) have not been given the same opportunites as those better off? Just like to make a distinction btw the depraved and the deprived.

 

[BicycleTree]

Selective breeding for intelligence might be successful but might also run into some problems. Specifically, in Silicon Valley, where you have many very intelligent people effectively making a eugenics program by living in the same place, there is much higher incidence of autism and related syndromes in children. This may have a genetic aspect to it.

 

[Barbie]

Another of those old studies found that average IQ individuals made better long distance truck drivers than ones with elevated IQs. They were less apt to get distracted by their own thoughts.

Ahahahah that's great

I agree - The world would truelly be a better place if we all had 120 +. I hope and wish that I will get to see such progress. There is a lot to say for development based on stimulation though. Not to mention the 15-21 period in which the higher functions of the brain become sharpest under the right conditions.

Do you guys know or want to know your IQ? My high school psych teacher almost helped me get tested once, but I backed out. I am too scared that it will be average and my ego will be crushed. lol I guess I better get over that though, cause I keep thinking about the test...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Do you guys know or want to know your IQ? My high school psych teacher almost helped me get tested once, but I backed out. I am too scared that it will be average and my ego will be crushed. lol I guess I better get over that though, cause I keep thinking about the test...

If you finally decide to get it measured, go to a psychologist and pay for a real one. The tests hawked online are inaccurate and can mislead.

 

[Barbie]

If you finally decide to get it measured, go to a psychologist and pay for a real one. The tests hawked online are inaccurate and can mislead.

Oh of course. Thats what I had in mind. The online ones can't be trusted. It just wouldn't be serious.

Thanks

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Does anybody know the results that the study done by those 10 universities? and who where in the top ranking under mozart? and does anybody know how the universties studied the IQs of people from all ages? did they also include anciant greeks?

 

[hitssquad]

Catharine Cox's 1926 IQ estimations of 300 geniuses

Does anybody know the results that the study done by those 10 universities?

The recent historical-genius-IQ-assessment study Pengwuino referred to does not seem to exist. However, Catharine Morris Cox in 1926 her estimates of the IQs of 300 historic geniuses:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Cox300.html

As can be seen at that webpage, Goethe ranked first and Mozart ranked 155th.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The recent historical-genius-IQ-assessment study Pengwuino referred to does not seem to exist. However, Catharine Morris Cox in 1926 her estimates of the IQs of 300 historic geniuses:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Cox300.html

As can be seen at that webpage, Goethe ranked first and Mozart ranked 155th.

Do you take that 1926 list seriously hitssquad? It always seemed to me to identify high genius with infant accomplishments. And we all know how environmental factors can affect that! Parental mania, for example.

 

[BicycleTree]

Gauss isn't even on the list.

 

[hitssquad]

Cox estimated (via obtainable childhood biographical data) minimum IQs for persons already known for eminent creativity, i.e., high genius. She didn't identify high genius via childhood accomplishment, unless you mean something other than eminent creative(-ness; -ty) by the word genius.

 

[BicycleTree]

The subjectivity in the process is too high for its results to be meaningful.

 

[Leonardo Sidis]

The people with the highest IQ's in the world, whether suspected of it or not, will never be able to have their IQ determined, theoretically, because nobody possesses a high enough IQ in order to test their limit.

Also, just to clarify, Mozart was probably not the person with the highest IQ in history. Has anyone here every heard of William James Sidis? I believe him and Leonardo Da Vinci to be the most profoundly gifted people in history. I suggest some of you read about Sidis if you are interested. There are several google sights about him, but he is surprisingly not very well known, despite his supernatural mental capabilities. His IQ, along with Da Vinci, was estimated to be around 250-300. Since he had the highest IQ in the world then though, it could not be accurately determined. I suppose it is possible for it to have been over 300, considering he was fluent in over 150 languages by age 8.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I've heard of Sidis, but I have not heard that Da Vinci was close to his IQ. I've heard that Goethe was, but I would be interested in seeing sources about Da Vinci's 200+ IQ.

Someone mentioned that each race would have a specific special ability after eugenics policies come into effect. That is unlikely considering that the abilities associated with the particular races have not been linked to genetic factors with any certainty. Most likely eugenics policies would make all people equal in all aspects of life. The black IQ difference is primarily if not entirely influenced by the environment. The Flynn Effect is causing it to rise while the white mean is remaining the same (given that IQ tests are eurocentric).

 

[ksinclair13]

My parents paid for me to have an actual IQ test by a psychologist when I was younger. Apparently, I'm as intelligent as Benjamin Franklin and Copernicus ;).

I've heard that Hawking's IQ is around 220-230, but it depends on where you look.

 

[DrDeath]

as for an upper limit of IQ this could depend on some important factors, for instance its believed that humans do not use the entire capacity of their brains (i think we only use somewhere in the region of about 10 or 20 percent), now as IQ is linked to problem solving, linguistic, etc skills then if we were to progress and start using more of our brain capacity then it would seem logical that our intelligence would increase, however intelligence is also linked to how use the knowledge you have. you may be very knowledgeable but mis-use that knowledge with dire consequences, that would not be intelligent!

as for the question of who knows their IQ scores, yes i know mine, (a proper IQ test) and yes its high. which probably explains why I am so open minded about most things.

 

[selfAdjoint]

humans do not use the entire capacity of their brains (i think we only use somewhere in the region of about 10 or 20 percent

This is a long-exploded urban myth. The whole concept of "using all of our brain" is meaningless in the modern view of how the brain works. Basically you have rapidly changing interacting, communicationg centers, and none of them require , or could use, 100% of the brain.

 

[DrDeath]

i stand corrected then,

 

[johnbergstromslc]

If this thread is about an IQ limit, then there certainly is one. Remember that in adults, IQ is simply a statisical comparison to the general population, on a normal distribution curve. A 140 IQ has a rarity of 1 in 100, a 150 is 1 in 1000 and as you go up the scale there exists an IQ that has a rarity of 1 in 6.6 billion. What is this IQ? 202, that's it. And if you wanted to determine the 'smartest person on earth', (IQ 202) you would literally have to test millions of people with a mind-boggling and grueling test. You'd have to make the test so hard that even the smartest people on the planet get lots of questions wrong.
If you are thinking more along the lines of the smartest person who ever lived and figure there have been 60-70 billion modern humans, then the maximum possible IQ becomes 209/210, in line with the estimated adult IQ of Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Maybe he was the smartest.
Any claim of an IQ above 210 in an adult is sheer fantasy. It's possible in children, using the old formula: M.A./C.A *100. I think Michael Kearney's mother claimed that he could do algebra at 4 years old, normally something a 13 year old would be capable of. So his IQ was 13/4 * 100 = 325. But now that he's grown up, no way. Probably more like 170-190 now, maybe even less.

 

[summerbreeze]

The average Human Iq is based on the society it constucts upon. more comlex a society will result higher average IQ(meaning more genius).
This means a society of an average IQ of 200 will not be like the society we are living today. People from that society will behavior utterly abnormal to us.
Since the technology is advancing much faster than the nature evolutoin, I guess the limit of IQ will only be reached by computers in the foreseeable future, after we having the breakthrough in artificial intellegence(next 20 years my guess).
Once computer knows how to learn by itself, it will become super smart, I hope we will still have the control of them at that time.

 

[MeJennifer]

The average Human Iq is based on the society it constucts upon. more comlex a society will result higher average IQ(meaning more genius).
This means a society of an average IQ of 200 will not be like the society we are living today. People from that society will behavior utterly abnormal to us.
Since the technology is advancing much faster than the nature evolutoin, I guess the limit of IQ will only be reached by computers in the foreseeable future, after we having the breakthrough in artificial intellegence(next 20 years my guess).
Once computer knows how to learn by itself, it will become super smart, I hope we will still have the control of them at that time.

The average IQ is always 100!

But anyway, I question that the average intelligence mostly depends on the complexity of a society. Certainly a society where people have access to training and educational resources could benefit average intelligence, but so is a good medical standard and good nutrition.
However, I think there is a limit to human intelligence, despite a more complex society.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The average IQ is always 100!

But anyway, I question that the average intelligence mostly depends on the complexity of a society. Certainly a society where people have access to training and educational resources could benefit average intelligence, but so is a good medical standard and good nutrition.
However, I think there is a limit to human intelligence, despite a more complex society.

I could see the IQ/society complexity correlation with the causality running the other way, thus: A higher average IQ means there are more people at the high end of the curve, which in turn can produce complexity in the society as these oversmarts do their thing.

I kind of agree with you about an upper limit (but "soft", not some hard cap). But I don't think it's necessarily been probed with historic individuals. A guy just died in the Pacific Northwest; he was I think 110, and ate and drank a junk food diet all his life. Obviously he had a 1 in 100 million metabolism, and the corresponding thing in IQ (or actually "adult g") has not obviously been attained that I know of.

 

[johnbergstromslc]

As long as we define IQ in statistical terms, no adult on this planet will score over 210. I think the initial post in this thread was really asking if there was a limit on human intelligence, and I certainly think there is one - our brains are only so big, and can make only so many neuronal connections. That's not going to change anytime soon.

IQ is, at best, only a rough measure of intelligence. If we ever have the technology to more accurately quantify intelligence, we may be able to answer the question as to it's limits.

 

[franznietzsche]

If this thread is about an IQ limit, then there certainly is one. Remember that in adults, IQ is simply a statisical comparison to the general population, on a normal distribution curve. A 140 IQ has a rarity of 1 in 100, a 150 is 1 in 1000 and as you go up the scale there exists an IQ that has a rarity of 1 in 6.6 billion. What is this IQ? 202, that's it. And if you wanted to determine the 'smartest person on earth', (IQ 202) you would literally have to test millions of people with a mind-boggling and grueling test. You'd have to make the test so hard that even the smartest people on the planet get lots of questions wrong.
If you are thinking more along the lines of the smartest person who ever lived and figure there have been 60-70 billion modern humans, then the maximum possible IQ becomes 209/210, in line with the estimated adult IQ of Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Maybe he was the smartest.
Any claim of an IQ above 210 in an adult is sheer fantasy. It's possible in children, using the old formula: M.A./C.A *100. I think Michael Kearney's mother claimed that he could do algebra at 4 years old, normally something a 13 year old would be capable of. So his IQ was 13/4 * 100 = 325. But now that he's grown up, no way. Probably more like 170-190 now, maybe even less.

You do realize that in a sample of 6 billion, you could well have a person with whose IQ comes in at a probability of 1 in 12 billion, or lower, right?

 

[johnbergstromslc]

You do realize that in a sample of 6 billion, you could well have a person with whose IQ comes in at a probability of 1 in 12 billion, or lower, right?

I was being generous with 202 in the first place. On a normal distribution curve, mean of 100, s.d of 15 (typical IQ distrubution), an IQ of 202 actually has a rarity of 1 in 10.88 billion. A score of 203 is 1 in 16.38 billion.

The phrase '200 IQ' is tossed around a lot, but in reality, A 200 IQ occurs in only 1 in 4.85 billion people, so only 1 or 2 dudes on Earth can claim that.

But take it with a grain of salt, it's all just statistics. And IQ becomes 'unmeasurable' long before approaching 200...

 

[franznietzsche]

I was being generous with 202 in the first place. On a normal distribution curve, mean of 100, s.d of 15 (typical IQ distrubution), an IQ of 202 actually has a rarity of 1 in 10.88 billion. A score of 203 is 1 in 16.38 billion.

The phrase '200 IQ' is tossed around a lot, but in reality, A 200 IQ occurs in only 1 in 4.85 billion people, so only 1 or 2 dudes on Earth can claim that.

But take it with a grain of salt, it's all just statistics. And IQ becomes 'unmeasurable' long before approaching 200...

Yes, and you're making statistical statements as if they were fact. It is not fact that 'only' 1 or 2 could claim a 200 IQ. It is highly improbable that any more than 1 or 2 would be that intelligent. You should take more care when making statistical statements and arguments. Otherwise you risk sounding like the guys who claim that any day LA is going to have a 8.0+ quake, just because its been a long time since the last one.

 

[johnbergstromslc]

Yes, and you're making statistical statements as if they were fact. It is not fact that 'only' 1 or 2 could claim a 200 IQ. It is highly improbable that any more than 1 or 2 would be that intelligent. You should take more care when making statistical statements and arguments. Otherwise you risk sounding like the guys who claim that any day LA is going to have a 8.0+ quake, just because its been a long time since the last one.

Well, IQ is a statistical measurement, not just some number you slap on somebody. There may be an abnormal cluster of super-intelligent people with IQs over 200, but you couldn't measure them. If you have a notion that there are people walking around with 300 IQs, think again. Humans just aint that smart. Probably never will be.

As I've said, IQ is a poor indicator of intelligence, a generality at best. And trying to fit everybody under a bell curve is not accurate. Also, as I've said, this thread is really about limits on intelligence, not IQ.

Don't take the matter so seriously.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, IQ is a statistical measurement, not just some number you slap on somebody. There may be an abnormal cluster of super-intelligent people with IQs over 200, but you couldn't measure them. If you have a notion that there are people walking around with 300 IQs, think again. Humans just aint that smart. Probably never will be.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you should not state a statistical probability as an authoritative fact. Thats all. I'm speaking in general.

As I've said, IQ is a poor indicator of intelligence, a generality at best. And trying to fit everybody under a bell curve is not accurate. Also, as I've said, this thread is really about limits on intelligence, not IQ.

Don't take the matter so seriously.

You are entirely missing my point. I'm not even talking about IQs.

 

[tehno]

I have heard from my girlfriend (psyhologist) that there are no reliable profesionally developed IQ tests for persons with IQ160(sd16) or higher.
Therefore ,I conclude that what one can see/find on the web advertised as "Genius Society tests" that measure IQ180 or higher is pretty much nonsense I guess.
And you don't have to be psyhologist to establish that fact.
Just do a bit math of elementar statistics to see how large must be a test takers sample for norming the test with ceiling IQ180.
Extrapolations from IQs of a decent number of people performing high on professionally developed test with ceilling IQ160 is a poor measure.
Not even mentioning what kind of problems and type of intelligence such test is supposed to measure,and that they are completely different.

 

[Kinn Sein]

Excellent point hitssquad, your right there is most certainly going to be a limit to human IQ.

No matter how much eugenics we under go I doubt we could make a human being as fast as a cheetah. The only way that’s possible is if the human population undergoes several positive mutations until humans evolve into something new. And that’s going to take millions of years and very selective breeding.

However one thing I noticed is that there are several dozen types of horses. There are also different types of dogs. These different “races” of dogs or horses can mate with other dogs or horses and create hybrids. This is similar to humans and the different races.

Now, one thing I noticed is that thoroughbreds are the fastest horses, compared to a show pony. Yet no matter how much eugenics you under go for the pony it will probably lose to a thoroughbred who also receives selective breeding. I know that ponies are selectively breeded for looks while thoroughbreds are for speed but I doubt that a pony will be able to outpace a thoroughbred no matter how much eugenics it undergoes despite the fact that both are still horses. Even then the different “races” of horses and dogs are all physically even intellectually different. In the same way a cuddly little poodle won't be able to fight as well as a german sheperd or wolf even when you give the maximum eugenic potential to both sides(and the fact that these dogs can mate with each other much like the different races of humanity). Humans have different races and they vary as well. West Africans run fast, east Africans can run very long. Africans seem to excel in music. Caucasians seem to be talented in art and literature and possesses a good balance of verbal and visuo spatial IQ. Jews possesses incredible verbal IQ although not so decent visuo spatial. East Asians are the reverse, possessing high visuo spatial IQ averages and not so good verbal IQ averages. Some African tribes also possesses giant tribes, like that tribe with 7 footers or in the opposite case, pygmies who average 4 feet 5 inches. Some dogs are more resistant to the cold than others. Some more resistant to diseases. Some have sharper teeth or different color fur. They are all dogs, and these dogs can also breed together to create hybrids. This is exactly like humans.

Does that mean when all races undergo eugenics the ultimate result will be

Blacks: God like athletes
Jews: Masters of Vocab skills and of course buisness
Asians: Masters of math science and especially technology
Whites: Jack of all trades with slightly better verbal than visuospatial

I mean using dogs for example, some dogs are just smarter than other dogs no matter how much eugenics you put those dogs through. Some dogs/horses will always be faster, bigger or whatever. The same might even be true for humans who also possesses different races that can mate interracially.

will all races under eugenics ultimatly possesses similar IQs or will blacks hit a limit that is under 200(no offense to blacks)? I mean genetics limits physical strength and speed which blacks seem to have the most potential. East Asians possesses the largest brain averages(according to some theories a high visuo spatial IQ requires larger brains, hence one reason why even when size is controlled men(higher visuo) still average larger brains than women(usually average higher verbal IQ than men)). Asian women also average the largest hip ratio because of large head babies.

Are there racial limits in humans just like the different "races" of dogs, cats and horses that can mate with each other? This is giving me more questions than answers.

If Asians were masters of math and science especially technology, their technology would be much better than the western countries. Why are they still lag behind in technology than the west?

 

[arildno]

Eeh, do they really?
1. Japan is at the forefront of technological development, and has been so for decades.
2. Many other Asian countries have been plagued by a type of Communism that has been obstructive of industrialization and technology development.
3. There is going on a huge brain drain to the West, in that top-notch Asian scientists are being offered far better working conditions in the West than their native countries are able/willing to afford.

 

[moose]

I know this really doesn't have as much to do with IQ, but check this out

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6097787318198018019&q=rainman

Our limits are quite high up there.

 

[rkkane]

Isn't the brain like a muscle? use it often and your IQ will increase, sit around watching paint dry and it will decrease?

Are Mensa IQ tests reliable?