Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is there an IQ limit

  1. Mar 12, 2005 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2005 #2
    Our knowledge is as inadequate as the source whence it is coming from.
  4. Mar 12, 2005 #3
    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...)
  5. Mar 12, 2005 #4
    I once read that stephen hawking's iq is around 180.
  6. Mar 12, 2005 #5
    still pretty damn high
  7. Mar 12, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  8. Mar 12, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I dont think theres an upper limit. For your information guys, a few well known universities (so well known i cant 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
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2005
  9. Mar 12, 2005 #8
    Are you talking Ivy League schools? Those are Harvard, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale, and Penn State (I believe).

    I dont remember the study, but thats quite interesting. Mozart...
  10. Mar 13, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  11. Mar 13, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  12. Mar 13, 2005 #11
    Wouldnt it be ridiculous though for humanity to possess 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 text books in one sitting. And toddlers would be venturing into quantum physics. Im betting there is a limit.

    Perhaps theres 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 dont 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 thats 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.
  13. Mar 13, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    That can't happen. Because of the way IQ tests are scored, the population mean will always be 100.
  14. Mar 13, 2005 #13
    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.
  15. Mar 13, 2005 #14
    Maximum theoretical IQs of eugenically-enhanced human races

    • [...] 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. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958221. 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. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958221. Chapter 20: The Future of Eugenics in Authoritarian States. Section 7: Mandatory Embryo Selection. p300.)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Mar 13, 2005 #15
    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 recieves 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 wont 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 possess a good balance of verbal and visuo spatial IQ. Jews possess 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 possess 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 possess different races that can mate interracially.

    will all races under eugenics ultimatly possess 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 possess 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.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2005
  17. Mar 13, 2005 #16
    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.
  18. Mar 15, 2005 #17

    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
  19. Mar 15, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  20. Mar 15, 2005 #19

    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.
  21. Mar 16, 2005 #20
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook