IQ Limit: Is There a Ceiling to Human Intelligence?

[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?

 

[Kinn Sein]

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.

Why? Do you think Japan is ahead of the United States in technology? I don't think so. Almost 75% or 80% of technological revolutions were born in the United States. But, Japanese are experts in applying technology efficiently and managing technology.

 

[rkkane]

75% to 80% of technical revolutions from a country a few hundred years old?
Obviosuly until that time the rest of the world was still puzzling over how to make fire.

i would like to see where you get your figures apart from your own warped imagination.

 

[arildno]

Since Kinn Sein evidently believes the production of a BigMac is a technological revolution, he is obviously correct in his assertion.

 

[SqrachMasda]

if somebody had an absurdly high IQ but had zero education available to them how would they know
is there a difference between memory and IQ?
basically is there a version of IQ test that could test a person's potential?

i think it's safe to say there are probably some very smart people but they never had any information presented to them
i've come across a lot of intelligent people
most of them are arrogant people who try and practice to be smart
but some are just really smart who don't feel the need to express it

i notice the majority are on here
you can see after somebody ask a question
if they start the reply with something that belittles the person (..okay this is so easy etc.)
they are probably fake smart people

i'm sure intelligent people come from all races
enviroment probably dictates if they will be known

i saw this in here
"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 also (ironically) used stereotypes in coming to the conclusion being racist is dumb
you should probably combine all the races
if asians are math geniuses maybe it's because there are so many and since they say incest gives you dumb offspring maybe it means close family blood ties and therefor they have the least chance because there are so many
where as midwestern americans who are seen as complete dumbasses live in small low populated towns so even if they think they are reproducing outside of the family, the chances their blood will have common aspects is much higher
so, reproduce with another race. it seems like the fool proof way to avoid low intelligent offspring
haha, i don't know but it seems quite logical
asian people also seem to have a complex language
that's why when i have children i'd like to hire at least 10 different language speaking people to just sit around and talk to my child all day from birth until they start speaking fluent everything

life time is in logarithms, that first year or 2 is forever
i wish i was taught advanced mathematics when i was 2

 

[JazzCrimes]

Hello everyone, I'm new to these forums, and I doubt I'm the same age as all of you (15) but I just thorght I would just raise my point of view...although you will proberly slander it...

I don't think IQ in possible to determine in this day and age, because so many factors contribute to the development of a persons "IQ" over a lifespan and it is mentally impossible for anyone to take into account all these factors.

There are so many different types and sub-genres of human conciousness, I.e. Social, Acidemical, Memory, physical perception, logic..the list goes on, all of which are unique to the user of that inteligence, for example, you have all been subjected to the same question "Is there a limit to IQ" and using logic, you have all come up with different and unique answers hence a discussion takes place...
These sub-genres of sociaty cannot simply be grouped into one huge group called "IQ".

 

[backdoorstudent]

I'm sure that reading this thread has lowered my IQ.

 

[SimplePie]

I'm sure that reading this thread has lowered my IQ.

Don't worry. It is negated by the increase in IQ you experienced by signing up to this forum :)

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Funny how one mentions the words 'IQ' or 'Genius' and instantly you get a wide readership and response. We love to attach ourselves to words that elevate ourselves with respect to others don't we?


Powerfull. Sexiest. Revelation. IQ. King. Genius. Wunderkind. Queen. Guru.

 

[SimplePie]

Funny how one mentions the words 'IQ' or 'Genius' and instantly you get a wide readership and response. We love to attach ourselves to words that elevate ourselves with respect to others don't we?

I think the "wide readership and response" also has to do with the controversial nature (or is it nurture) of the topic. Then again, some people just want an excuse to type. hjsdfg uiwetrn khsd :)

Powerfull. Sexiest. Revelation. IQ. King. Genius. Wunderkind. Queen. Guru.

Sounds like we just got great new descriptions to cast member votes on :)

 

[freethinker]

I hate to be a party pooper, but anyone who is generally interested in the concept of IQ and its usefulness should probably check out Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man. His treatment of intelligence testing and its social applications is (in my opinion) excellent. He does a very good job at debunking some myths and exposing a lot of (probably fallacious) assumptions that made about the nature of intelligence. One of the major assumptions that he calls into question is that intelligence is an innate, heritable quality that can be accurately ranked using a single number. He also talks about comparing the mean IQs of different groups and how it is improper to assume that just because IQ may be (weakly) heritable that differences in groups are due to genetic/biological factors (the differences in group means can easily be attributed to sociocultural factors). Check it out.

As far as the original question goes, Gould's answer would probably be that scores at that end of the spectrum are relatively meaningless anyway: the tests were developed to identify underperforming students in the French public school system who needed extra help, not to rank differing levels of genius.