Who Had the Highest IQ of All Time?

[Tigers2B1]

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test? I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen. As quoted below this reaction time is correlated with old fashion IQ results. I, however, had trouble finding information on the Net related to this.

I posted this link and quote already - on page two of this thread - but maybe you didn’t catch that.

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

…The idea was to provide a way of testing intelligence that would be free of "cultural bias," one that would not force anyone to deal with words or concepts that might be familiar to people from one culture but not to people from another. The IQ Cap recorded only brain waves; and a computer, not a potentially biased human test-giver, analyzed the results…

It was not a complicated process. You attached sixteen electrodes to the scalp of the person you wanted to test. … Then you had him stare at a marker on a blank wall. This particular researcher used a raspberry- red thumbtack. Then you pushed a toggle switch. In sixteen seconds the Cap's computer box gave you an accurate prediction (within one-half of a standard deviation) of what the subject would score on all eleven subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or, in the case of children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—

 

[hitssquad]

Reaction time, inspection time, and evoked potentials

Would the test described here qualify as a culture free test?

A fitting rule would seem to be that any mental abilities test that relies on voluntary responses has cultural loading above zero and that any mental abilities test that does not rely on voluntary responses has cultural loading at zero.

I had read of these sorts of tests – from Arthur Jenson for one, which measure reaction time to a dot that appears on a screen.

No. The test involving seeing something on a screen is an inspection time test. The task is to identify the fundamental figure through a precisely timed mask (the figure appears and a precise number of milliseconds later a masking figure appears - hence what is tested how large of a time gap you need - and the larger the time gap needed, the lower your IQ, generally.)

Reaction time tests involve a physical response (such as pushing a button) excecuted as quickly as possible to a stimulus (such as a light or a pattern of lights).


A culture free brain-electrode IQ test would probably involve evoked potentials (brain waves evoked by a fundamental stimulus such as auditory click).

Here’s the link - http://www.brainmachines.com/body_wolf.html

 

[The_Professional]

Don't they administrate their own version of an IQ test?

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html

Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test. There is a large number of intelligence tests that are "approved". More information on whether a test you have taken is approved, as well as information on the procedure for taking the Mensa test, can be obtained from the nearest Mensa office. There are no on-line tests that can be used for admission to Mensa. Feel free to contact Mensa for specific details about eligibility.

Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, they do

http://www.mensa.org/info.html


Mensa gatherings are a way for really intelligent people to get together and pat themselves in the back in a sort of 'We feel good, we're so smart' kind of way

Beats spending time with stupid people instead.

 

[shonagon53]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

No cites? Or you just mindlessly ranting? Since, outside of the tiny penis claim ---- if I thought you had any credible cite to back up your assertion – well, I’d ask. But I don’t so I don’t.

-- But to the question portion of your statement ---- concerning your assertion that people still use IQ results notwithstanding their proven invalidity. I don’t know –- maybe it's because there are still people who look for evidence and don’t march lock step with the PC crowd? No? Surprise me.

 

[BlackVision]

Why are there still people of my generation who believe all the nonsensical, superstitious crap surrounding the validity of IQ tests? IQ tests are what they are: a tool for frustrated paranoid psychologists with tiny penises.

Because the genetic correlation of IQ tests is .80. Meaning it is 80% genetic based. It measure your natural intelligence.

 

[shonagon53]

No cites?

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

 

[BlackVision]

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

This is really interesting. It says a lot about you, and your IQ, no doubt.

Well there certainly is plenty of researches and articles that hold the validity of IQ tests. Showing the correlation of one's IQ to one's ability to do multitude of different skills. Tigers2B1 was asking for any research to refute any of this but it seems like you do not have any.

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

 

[shonagon53]

Also the fact that you state that "It says a lot about you, and your IQ" shows that you put weight behind IQ.

Djee, on the scale of understanding Irony, you score a big ZERO.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Wow, since when do you have to be able to cite someone else to back up a thought?

Not a "thought" but an assertion and one you don't and can't support. But as suspected --- an assertion along the line of "mindlessly ranting." Carry on.

 

[BlackVision]

Djee, on the scale of understanding Irony, you score a big ZERO.

Hold on. On my entire comment, this is the part that you decided to answer? That is just sad bro. Let me try again.

"Well there certainly is plenty of researches and articles that hold the validity of IQ tests. Showing the correlation of one's IQ to one's ability to do multitude of different skills. Tigers2B1 was asking for any research to refute any of this but it seems like you do not have any."

So do you have reviewable researches in such that the validity of IQ have been dismissed or once again have you talked out of your ass?

 

[Tasthius]

I'm doing a project on IQ and for posters I'm doing some information on the person with the Highest IQ in the world. Unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult thing to determine.

Type this name into Google: Christopher Michael Langan. He is a 40-something year old bar bouncer who has only made $6K a year for most of his adult life. He was featured on 20/20 and was subsequently administered a supervised IQ test by a psychologist that was hired by 20/20. Afterward, the shrink reported that it was the "highest score he had ever seen in his professional career," and estimated Langan's IQ to be somewhere near 190 (S.D. 16) This would make Langan a little smarter than Marilyn Savant. One must remember that Savant's score of 228 was a ratio score, not a deviation score. Ratio scores are outdated and were typically used for children only (Marilyn was 12 when she received that famous score). Her adult IQ has been estimated around 180-185, as her Mega and http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html test results suggest.

Speaking of the Mega test, this test was designed by one Ronald K. Hoeflin in the early 80's in order to psychometrically identify the "severely gifted." The test was intended to be so difficult that people with superior IQ's (such as Mensa members) would only get an average score. Only those with stratospheric IQ's (160+) would be able to answer the majority of questions correctly. The test has 48 questions. Marilyn answered 46 correctly, and Langan got 47 (he solved 43 in a few hours by his own admission, a phenomenal feat if you ask me). The test was published in OMNI magazine and taken by thousands of people (most of whom were brainiac puzzle solvers) and to my knowledge no one ever got a perfect 48 raw score. The Mega test is no longer availible online, but its sister test, the Titan test is. The Titan test is almost identical in construct. Follow the link above to access it (complete with norms). Mensa members should, on average, be able to answer about 8 or 10 questions correctly out of 48. Solomon Golomb, the rather well known mathematician, got l43 or 44 correct, and John Sununu (yeah the old CNN crossfire guy) got 44 correct, making him a rare intellect (I guess not all Republicans are stupid).

Interestingly, another very high scorer is another bar bouncer. Rick Rosner made a perfect 48 score on the Titan test, and scored 46 on the Mega, putting his IQ around 180.

The main difference in Langan and Savant seems to be that Langan has dedicated himself to serious scholarly and scientific research and not "mentally masturbating" by solving asinine puzzles and writing tabloid articles. Although Savant has put forth her own solution for Fermat's last theorem and a few other mathematical brain teasers, she hasn't done much else with that purported Olympian IQ. Langan has actually concocted a rather strange theory which supposedly is a TOE, and unifies cosmology and philosophy and calls it the "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe," or CTMU for short.


But I digress..

Other than Savant, Rosner, and Langan and maybe a few child prodigies such as Gregory Smith (PhD candidate in math at age 14) and that Oriental-American kid who is a med student at 12, I can't think of any more publicized geniuses currently living. Of course, when I refer to "genius" here I refer to a purely psychometric use of the term, not the one usually associated with accomplishment (i.e. Da Vinci, Newton, Leibniz or Mozart who all would knock the ceiling out of the Mega test).

Bobby Fischer does come to mind as does Garry Kasparov, both of whom reportedly have IQs around 180. I don't doubt Fischer's IQ, especially on a visual-spatial test, but he does come across rather, shall we say, schizo. Definitely a disturbed individual. The most astonishing thing about Fischer, however, is his working memory. Incredible. But I digress.

Esquire magazine did an article on Langan, his gifted girlfriend, Dr. Hoeflin, and a couple of other members of the "Mega Society." Interesting and eccentric characters indeed.

A few other links of interest for you may be the various "High IQ societies." How many of you here know that Mensa is one of only about a dozen such clubs? How many know that Mensa has one of the lowest cut-offs of any such club?

Here is a link with a list of all currently active high IQ societies, some are as restrictive as 1 in a 1,000,000 (99.9999 percentile). I highly reccomend perusing the website of the "Prometheus Society" (IQ greater than 1 in 30,000) and the "Mega Society." (IQ greater than 1 in 1,000,000). Perhaps you will run across individuals there of interest. Chris Langan, Rick Rosner, and Dr. Hoeflin (who designed the Mega and Titan tests) are all members of these "super High IQ" clubs.

Mega Society
Prometheus

All other active societies

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html

Hope this helps.

P.S., the next time you go to your favorite local bar, just remember that the bouncer in the corner may just be manipulating equations for M-theory in his head.

 

[Tasthius]

William James Sidis was not the first nor last child wounded by parents trying to create a trophy. Others have lamented the creative productivity we lost when Sidis dropped out of society. What I grieve is all the joy that his well-honed mind should've given him -- all the joy that Sidis was never able to access."

__________________

True. There is a kid who was in the news a few years ago. I believe his name was Justin Chapman. He was supposed to be one of the smartest kids alive, with an IQ approaching 200. His mother would go on talk shows giving all of these anecdotal tales of miraculous intellectual feats. She sat in with him as a shrink tested his IQ via the WAIS, and he hit the ceiling (meaning he was too smart to be measured). Well guess what? it turns out that the whole story is a fraud. Many people now suspect that his mother made up the whole tale and that there is nothing at all extraordinary about her son. It is believed that she managed to obtain a copy of the IQ test beforehand and memorize the questions and answers and instructed her son on what to say during the test.

 

[Tasthius]

In response to Mensa testing:

Someone here mentioned the Mensa test, and asked if it was a standardized test from another author or if it was created by Mensa. The answer is both. Mensa indeed does have a test created and normed by Mensa psychologists, as well as another standardized test that they routinely proctor for anyone interested in joining. When you take the "Mensa test", you are actually taking two separate tests, one designed by Mensa and the otherone is called the Wonderlic (or something to that effect if I remember correctly). A score of the 98th%ile or better on either test qualifies you.

More info is availible on Mensa's website.

 

[Tasthius]

JohnDubya said:

To a more important point, there is no way of establishing the IQs of people once they reach adulthood. It is all just shoddy guesswork, and usually colored by political/sociological convictions.

I don't know what hokum you have been reading, but this simply isn't true. It is true, as I stated in a previous post, that IQ testing was first established in the early 1900's as a way of assessing French school children and discovering potential learning disabilities, but IQ testing has come a long way since. The ratio scale has been dropped in favor of the much more accurate and mathematically sound deviation scale (folliwing the Gaussian curve). The deviation scale can be used accurately on either adults or children.

Do some google searches for Arthur Jensen and Raymond B Cattell and "The Bell Curve" which was written by Herrnstein and Murray.

 

[Tasthius]

"Knowledge effects IQ tests in an amount that people don't want to let on. "

--Sigh--- Seeing that this is a physics forum, I shouldn't be too surprised if most here don't have a clue about psychometrics (no offense intended).

Have you ever thought that perhaps the test designers took this into account? They realize that some questions on IQ tests will be knowledge specific, but they also realize that more intelligent people tend to retain more information more easily than do average people. Someone on another thread posted an excerpt from Arthur Jensen (an expert and innovator on IQ testing) that suggests that research shows that higher IQed people are able to amass a larger vocabulary not by reading voraciously, but because they retain the nuances of definitions much more easily under the same conditions as less intelligent people. In other words, a smarter person will by default under the same conditions as a less intelligent person retain more information pertinent for problem solving, pointing to an innate mental superiority -- not to a priviledged upbringing or educational process.

One of the smartest people in America psychometrically was a farmer and a firefighter and is currently a bar bouncer. This person knocks the ceiling off of IQ tests, but has hardly step foot into a university. He checks for fake IDs at the door and breaks up fights instead of teaching physics at MIT, yet can outwit, out debate, and out think most eminent scientists in the world.

 

[shonagon53]

Hi, I have a score of 142 on the international Mensa IQ test. I feel completely stupid now, and offended, since Mensa is big bogus.

 

[Tigers2B1]

I'll add this since people generally don't seem to be aware of the possibility that people who wear 'out of style' clothes might be smart. What am I talking about? That race of myoptic nerds, the breed that laughs through their pinched noses and they push up their taped glasses, just might be smarter than the average bear after all. There seems to be a correlation of myopia (nearsightedness) with IQ and brain and eye size. See this -

With respect to the high correlation between intelligence and myopia both within and between populations, Miller asserts that an obvious explanation is that high intelligence leads to more reading, and this leads to greater myopia. Yet, with respect to why myopia is so frequent among very intelligent people, he proposes 'a pleitropic genetic effect by which one gene promotes the growth of both the brain and the eyeball, with the eyeball growth leading to myopia, or a [greater] predisposition to myopia.' However, in the study Miller cites, where Myopia was twice as common among the extremely precocious students than among their siblings (whose IQs averaged 115), the non-gifted sib tended to spend about the same amount of time reading (Benbow 1986)...

The link --

http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000144/

And evidence that myopia is inherited

A new study strongly indicates that the primary cause of nearsightedness is heredity. The study also suggests that the amount of time a child spends studying or reading plays a minor role in the development of myopia, or nearsightedness…

Source link -

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/myokid.htm

 

[plus]

Marilyn Vos Savant's 228 IQ is as a child. Child IQs are less accurate and has a higher standard deviation than an adult IQ test. Marilyn Vos Savant's Adult IQ has been ranked at 186.


Goethe and Leonardo da Vinci could not have the highest IQ since they died before IQ tests were ever invented. So how could they have ever taken an IQ test? Although if they did take one I'm sure they would do well but it's impossible to estimate exactly what score they will get.

The person with the highest IQ alive today is suppose to be Kim Ung-Yong from South Korea. Who's IQ was ranked at 210.

"Testers have only been able to estimate the IQ of Kim Ung-Yong, who was born in Seoul, Korea, on March 7, 1963. His IQ has been placed at exceeding 200. He was fluent in Japanese, Korean, German, and English by his fourth birthday. At four years, eight months he solved complicated calculus problems on Japanese TV. He is considered to be the most brilliant person alive. One factor may be that his parents, both university professors, were born at precisely the same moment: 11:00 a.m., May 23, 1934."

Source: http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/winfield.rose/wub.htm

The way to estimate the adult IQ is to put the population into a gaussian bell curve distribution by method of percentile of the population. Then a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (usually value 16) is assigned. Using this, the person with the highest IQ in the world will not have an IQ of above 200. An IQ of 210 would require a much much much larger sample group than the number of people in the world. You can easily calculate this from the normal distribution curve.

For this method an IQ of 210 is impossible. A number of people are claiming to have an IQ at the level of 1 in a billion though.

 

[BlackVision]

The way to estimate the adult IQ is to put the population into a gaussian bell curve distribution by method of percentile of the population. Then a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (usually value 16) is assigned. Using this, the person with the highest IQ in the world will not have an IQ of above 200. An IQ of 210 would require a much much much larger sample group than the number of people in the world. You can easily calculate this from the normal distribution curve.

This is extraordinarily faulty. Even if the statistic probability of a 210 IQ is 1 in 10 billion, higher than the population of the Earth which is little over 6 billion, that does not mean it is impossible for one to have a 210 IQ. Much like it is possible to win the lottery with just 100 tickets even if the statistic probability is 1 in 40 million.

 

[selfAdjoint]

BTW, it is sort of accepted in the psychometric professional community that the IQ curve is not pure gaussian, but has fat tails.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Curves and fat tails? ---------------------- Nope -- just too too easy :)

 

[The_Professional]

Esquire magazine did an article on Langan, his gifted girlfriend, Dr. Hoeflin, and a couple of other members of the "Mega Society." Interesting and eccentric characters indeed.

Charlize Theron was on the front cover. A very beautiful woman. From what I recall, Dr. Hoeflin likes to eat at Wendy's and usually orders salad and grilled chicken sandwich.

P.S., the next time you go to your favorite local bar, just remember that the bouncer in the corner may just be manipulating equations for M-theory in his head.

True. Reminds me of the old adage: Do not judge a book by its cover.

 

[plus]

This is extraordinarily faulty. Even if the statistic probability of a 210 IQ is 1 in 10 billion, higher than the population of the Earth which is little over 6 billion, that does not mean it is impossible for one to have a 210 IQ. Much like it is possible to win the lottery with just 100 tickets even if the statistic probability is 1 in 40 million.

But from the definition of the IQ curve, an adult IQ is only based upon the sample group. Thus it would be as ludicrous to state that someone has an IQ of 300 as it would to state 210 as there are not enough people in the world to value this claim. People could believe that in the next x generations there will not be anyone with an IQ this high, and hence the reason for the guess of 210, but to state it is nonesense.

http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/gliaweb/grail/

The website above estimates that the highest IQ ever out of the 50 billion people who have ever existed is 205.

 

[plus]

BTW, it is sort of accepted in the psychometric professional community that the IQ curve is not pure gaussian, but has fat tails.

What do you mean that it is 'sort of accepted'. Has the definition of adult IQ been changed?

 

[BlackVision]

But from the definition of the IQ curve, an adult IQ is only based upon the sample group. Thus it would be as ludicrous to state that someone has an IQ of 300 as it would to state 210 as there are not enough people in the world to value this claim. People could believe that in the next x generations there will not be anyone with an IQ this high, and hence the reason for the guess of 210, but to state it is nonesense.

The definition of IQ curve comes from the average IQ of the general population and the standard deviation. That is it. Even with the odds of 1 in 10 billion, it would be possible for one to have such an IQ level.

The website above estimates that the highest IQ ever out of the 50 billion people who have ever existed is 205.

This site is using a standard deviation of 15. The most common standard deviation is 16.

 

[hitssquad]

Which is the more common SD value, 15 or 16

This site is using a standard deviation of 15. The most common standard deviation is 16.

The most popular family of IQ tests is the Wechsler. Wechsler test scores all have standard deviations of 15. The Raven's Matrices tests also have standard deviations of 15. Here is more evidence for the popularity of SD 15:

• There are plausible reasons, however, for assuming that individual differences in g have an approximately normal, or Gaussian ("bellshaped"), distribution, at least within the range of ±2σ from the mean. That range is equivalent to IQs from 70 to 130 on the typical IQ scale (i.e., μ = 100, σ = 15).

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p88.)

• IQ is conventionally scaled to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15.

(Ibid. p89.)

• As this subject sample had a restricted range of IQ (the group's standard deviation was only 9.2/15 = .61 as large as the SD in the general population), one can correct the obtained correlation for range restriction

(Ibid. p155.)

• (The IQ scale, with mean = 100 and SD = 15, is simply 100 + 15 z .)

(Ibid. p311.)

• Mean and Standard Deviation. When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 in the white population, large representative samples of the black population of the whole United States (rather than a local subgroup) show a mean close to 85. For most samples and tests, the range is 80 to 90. The black SD of IQ is approximately 12, ranging in most samples from 11 to 14. There is some slight, nonsystematic variation for different IQ tests and normative samples. For example, the normative sample on one of the most widely used individual IQ tests for school-age children (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, or WISC-R), using the same scale (i.e., white mean = 100, SD = 15), the black mean is 84.0, with SD of 13.6.

(Ibid. p353.)

• This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

(Ibid. p403.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

In words, better than one black in five is smarter than the average white.

 

[BlackVision]

The most popular family of IQ tests is the Wechsler. Wechsler test scores all have standard deviations of 15. The Raven's Matrices tests also have standard deviations of 15. Here is more evidence for the popularity of SD 15:

• There are plausible reasons, however, for assuming that individual differences in g have an approximately normal, or Gaussian ("bellshaped"), distribution, at least within the range of ±2σ from the mean. That range is equivalent to IQs from 70 to 130 on the typical IQ scale (i.e., μ = 100, σ = 15).

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p88.)

• IQ is conventionally scaled to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15.

(Ibid. p89.)

• As this subject sample had a restricted range of IQ (the group's standard deviation was only 9.2/15 = .61 as large as the SD in the general population), one can correct the obtained correlation for range restriction

(Ibid. p155.)

• (The IQ scale, with mean = 100 and SD = 15, is simply 100 + 15 z .)

(Ibid. p311.)

• Mean and Standard Deviation. When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 in the white population, large representative samples of the black population of the whole United States (rather than a local subgroup) show a mean close to 85. For most samples and tests, the range is 80 to 90. The black SD of IQ is approximately 12, ranging in most samples from 11 to 14. There is some slight, nonsystematic variation for different IQ tests and normative samples. For example, the normative sample on one of the most widely used individual IQ tests for school-age children (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, or WISC-R), using the same scale (i.e., white mean = 100, SD = 15), the black mean is 84.0, with SD of 13.6.

(Ibid. p353.)

• This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

(Ibid. p403.)

The most popular IQ test is Stanford Binet not Wechsler and it has a standard deviation of 16. Raven's Progressive Matrices is also 16. Raven's Stanford Progressive Matrices and Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices have different standard deviations. One is 15, one is 16 I believe. I forget which is which. The old version of Raven's Progressive Matrices was 24 however.

You need to be 2 standard deviations above average to join Mensa. Here are the qualifying scores for various tests to join Mensa. I see quite a number of 132s proving the popularity of sd16. http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3

 

[selfAdjoint]

I thought the old Stanford Binet test was phased out. Hitsquad is right about Wechsler, I'm pretty sure. At least in popularity among psychologists.

 

[loseyourname]

That's all you need to join Mensa? What do they even do?

 

[hitssquad]

Is the Stanford Binet or the Wechsler the most common IQ test

The most popular IQ test is Stanford Binet not Wechsler

Are you http://giqtest.com/test/html/about.html ?

• About IQ[/size]
  
  What is the WAIS®-III IQ Test?
  The WAIS®-III is the 'gold standard' of IQ Tests. It was developed by the Psychological Corporation and released in 1997 as a refinement of the venerable WAIS®-R test. The WAIS® tests account for 97% of clinically proctored IQ tests administered in the US.

 

[hitssquad]

Why does Mensa have such low entrance standards

That's all you need to join Mensa?

Mensa seems to be set up to strike a happy medium between exclusivity and inclusivity. Mensa may not be meant to be purely exclusive. There are other high-IQ societies that cater to exclusivity, and the fact that a sizable proportion of persons who qualify for those other societies join Mensa also or instead evidences the value of inclusivity.

If you only dated people who were exactly as desirable as you, how many dates would you get?

Another item to consider, as Charles Murray has pointed out, is that people who are well above average in IQ tend -- due to their being surrounded full-time by their self-selected social and professional circles of acquaintances -- to be oblivious to the existence of the rest of the bell curve. Most people with IQs above 130 refuse or find it difficult to acknowledge the existence of the 85% of the population with IQs below 115 (where mean = 100 and SD = 15) since they so rarely meet these people. Mensa's cutoff may seem low to you and other high-IQ people, but in relation to the total bell curve its 98th percentile cutoff *is* exclusive (Arthur Jensen lists IQ 120 as "very superior" and states that the "normal" range of IQ is 90-110). However, pointing again to Mensa's inclusivity is the fact that its entrance cutoff is only one-third of the way from the bell curve median to the maximum theoretical IQ estimated by Richard Lynn as ~IQ 200 (SD = 15, so about 7 SD compared with Mensa's 2 SD cutoff).

What do they even do?

http://www.mensa.org/info.html socialize, and run websites and newsgroups. (Mensa's physical socializations take the forms of their regional, national, and international gatherings.)

• What is Mensa?
  
  Mensa was founded in England in 1946 by Roland Berrill, a barrister, and Dr. Lance Ware, a scientist and lawyer. They had the idea of forming a society for bright people, the only qualification for membership of which was a high IQ. The original aims were, as they are today, to create a society that is non-political and free from all racial or religious distinctions. The society welcomes people from every walk of life whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population, with the objective of enjoying each other's company and participating in a wide range of social and cultural activities.
  
  
  What are Mensa's goals?
  
  Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.

 

[BlackVision]

Almost all IQ tests seem to either fall under 15, 16, or 24 for standard deviation. 24 seems to be phasing out though although there are still IQ tests that still use 24. Cattell is one I believe.

 

[Tasthius]

Speaking of the "higher IQ societies" (those more exclusive than Mensa), here is an interesting history done by a fellow who knows more than one of the prominent members of the community: Highly suggested for entertainment value.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html

 

[hitssquad]

The American white-black IQ difference - 1σ or 1.31σ

This formula shows that for two normal distributions, A and B, where A has a mean = 100 and SD = 15 and B has a mean = 85 and SD = 12 (thus corresponding to typical IQ statistics for the white and black populations) the probability that the "score" of a randomly selected individual from distribution B will exceed that of a random individual from distribution A is precisely 22 percent

In words, better than one black in five is smarter than the average white.

No. These are just aggregates of IQ scores. Current American IQ tests are somewhat biased in favor of blacks. The actual IQ difference between blacks and whites in terms of pure g is 19.65 (1.31σ * SD 15) points:

• A further validating feature of these data is revealed by the linear regression of the standardized W-B differences on the tests' g loadings. (The regression equation for the W-B difference, shown in Figure 11.6 , is D = 1.47σ - .163). The regression line, which indicates the best estimate of the mean W-B difference on a test with a given g loading, shows that for a hypothetical test with zero g loading, the predicted mean group difference is slightly below zero (- .163σ), and for a hypothetical test with a g loading of unity (g = 1), the predicted mean group difference is 1.31σ. The latter value is, in fact, approached or equaled by the average difference found for the most highly g-loaded test batteries using highly representative samples of black and white Americans twelve years of age and over. In the black and white standardization samples of the Stanford-Binet IV, for example, the mean difference is 1.11σ; for the WISCR, 1.14σ; and the most precisely representative large-scale sampling of the American youth population (aged fifteen to twenty-three), sponsored by the Department of Defense in 1980, showed a W-B difference of 1.3σ on the AFQT. 36

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp377-378.)


An American black meeting the white mean would be 1.64σ (19.65σ / 12) above the black mean. This would put him at the 95th percentile of the black distribution. Hence, in terms of pure g, only 5% of American blacks - and not 22% of blacks - exceed the American white IQ mean. Only 1 in twenty blacks is "smarter" than the average white.

 

[BlackVision]

Do you happen to have statistics to compare Asians and/or Ashkenazi Jews to Whites as well?

 

[Monique]

On the credibility of A. Jensen:

In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould, the late Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, makes three criticisms of Jensen's work:

The first criticism is also the criticism most commonly leveled against Jensen by other anthropologists and biologists: that Jensen misunderstands the concept of "heritability." Heritability measures the percentage of variation of a trait due to inheritance, within a population. Jensen, however, has used the concept of heritability to measure differences in inheritance between populations (Gould 1981: 127; 156-156).

The second criticism is relatively minor: Gould disagrees with Jensen's support of the attempts of others to calculate the IQ of dead people (such as the famous Polish astronomer and Prussian monetary theorist Copernicus) (1981: 153-154).

The third criticism is significant: Gould disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable called g or "general intelligence," which can be measured along a unilinear scale. This is a claim most closely identified with Cyril Burt and Charles Spearman. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of L. L. Thurstone to ultimately support this claim; Gould however argues that Thurstone's factoral analysis of intelligence revealed g to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

 

[Tigers2B1]

Here are some links to results of monozygotic twin studies and the high correlation found when comparing IQ results. In fact, IQ results have a correlation in almost direct relation with the degree of genetic relatedness. I seriously doubt this is mere coincidence and I doubt very seriously that anyone will find any study from an .edu source that substantially differs from these. The monozygotic twin studies implies a very strong correlation of genetics and IQ. IQ results of monozygotic twins raised apart and together, siblings raised apart and together, adoptees raised together and compared to biologically unrelated persons raised apart all point to the inescapable conclusion that IQ is heritable to a high percentage. In fact, the argument is no longer whether IQ is heritable as once maintained by the ‘blank slaters’ - but whether it’s 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80% -- heritable --

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/ns.html


http://www.atlantis.edu/~nutmeg/neuro/twinstudies.htm

 

[Monique]

What I'd like to see is a study that compares correlation of IQ scores of monozygotic twins raised apart to correlation of IQ scores of unrelated matched individuals.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is a major new paper on the physical correlates and heritabilitiy of g.

See the summary at http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366, and then follow the link there to read the whole PDF file. To all those people who claim IQ and g are fictions, here's the evidence they are real.

And Monique, it's not very productive at this late date to quote Gould's Mismeasure of Man against Jensen. That book has been shown by professionals to be tendentious and misleading. It's agit-prop, not science.

 

[Monique]

I agree cognitive abilities can be inheritable.

But you have to agree that the effect is most clear in MZ twins, less clear in DZ twins, even less clear in siblings, disappearing in cousins. So how would you justify extending MZ twin data to a whole population.

I will believe data on restricted purified groups, not on undefined populations such as Asians and whites.

 

[shonagon53]

It's agit-prop, not science.

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

It's full of subjective appreciations and bold statements which are open for ideological debate. It's a highly political article, using a warrior tone and a combattant style of reasoning.


Just one quote (about the ideological relevance of HapMap):

"We will know that we are triumphant when educated people believe that human genetic differences matter and they matter intensely."

-Now that's the tautology of the matter: the HapMappers will need a lot of lobbying to shove that up "educated people's" throats. They believe what they want to believe. (They use the word "believe" themselves.)

-For me, and for many "educated people" (they're called "nihilists" by the HapMap fundamentalists) genetic differences are so small, that they don't matter very much; the equality is far greater and far more important.

Deciding how "intensely" they matter is a purely social, cultural, political and ideological matter.

Sorry, no escape from politics on this one.

You know, many educated people (the ones who will be triumphant) have read Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" and they understand the basic fact that whenever you're trying to assess the "importance" of genetic differences, you're out of science and into politics.

 

[Tigers2B1]

What I'd like to see is a study that compares correlation of IQ scores of monozygotic twins raised apart to correlation of IQ scores of unrelated matched individuals.

Well - here is a chart (linked below) showing IQ results and the correlation with the degree of genetic relatedness (including unrelated individuals) -

Note that this guy doesn’t appear to be an advocate based on the subscript -- so, I suspect that if pushed, I could find stats that are more compelling than these -

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/IQ_Correlations.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

I agree that GNXP and related sites like Steve Sailer and Griffe du Lion are political to the max, and their use of genetics and statistics is racist (although you know, you have to refute the statistics and genetics, not just call names).

But the paper is not racist and the bullet point summary of it is good, comments apart. This is genuine scientific data.

 

[hitssquad]

GNXP's summary of Gray-Thompson 2004 vs GNXP's commentary on Gray-Thompson 2004

There is a major new paper on the physical correlates and heritabilitiy of g.

See the summary at http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366, and then follow the link there to read the whole PDF file. To all those people who claim IQ and g are fictions, here's the evidence they are real.

And Monique, it's not very productive at this late date to quote Gould's Mismeasure of Man against Jensen. That book has been shown by professionals to be tendentious and misleading. It's agit-prop, not science.

I just read your article. If that isn't agit-prop, then what is.

selfAdjoint said "summary." The GNXP http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002366.html?entry=2366 linked to by selfAdjoint contains, according to the introduction "First, a bulleted list. Then, my commentary, and finally the full Thompson/Gray PDF."

It's full of subjective appreciations and bold statements which are open for ideological debate.

The summary ("bulleted list") section - aside from the use of the word "Intriguingly" in Point 4 of the "Behavioral Genetics of IQ" section - does not appear to contain agitprop. In contrast, the commentary section that follows it does appear to contain, or be, agitprop. Here is the former:

• these are the points reviewed by the article, divided by subheading:
  
  
  Neurobiological determinants of intelligence as measured by IQ:
  
  
  1. Posterior lesions often cause substantial decreases in IQ. Duncan and colleagues suggested that the frontal lobes are involved more in Gf and goal-directed behaviour than in Gc (Fig. 2). In addition, Gf is compromised more by damage to the frontal lobes than to posterior lobe...
  2. MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51
  3. g was significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors... the volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out
  4. Only one region is consistently activated during three different intelligence tasks when compared to control tasks...The surface features of the tasks differed (spatial, verbal, circles) but all were moderately strong predictors of g (g LOADING; range of r, 0.55–0.67), whereas control tasks were weaker predictors of g (range of r, 0.37–0.41). Neural activity in several areas, measured by a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, was greater during high-g than low-g tasks.
  5. Speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence (reviewed in Refs 15,20). Early neuroimaging studies using PET found that intelligence correlated negatively with cerebral glucose metabolism during mental activity54 (for a review, see Ref. 55), leading to the formulation of a 'neural efficiency' hypothesis...
  6. Gf is mediated by neural mechanisms that support the executive control of attention during working memory...greater event-related neural activity in many regions, including the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, dorsal anterior cingulate and lateral cerebellum. Crucially, these patterns were most distinct during high-interference trials, even after controlling for behavioural performance and for activity on low-interference trials within the same regions
  7. RAPM scores obtained outside the scanner predicted brain activity in a single left parietal/temporal region, and not in the frontal lobes.
  8. An exploratory fMRI study60 (n = 7) indicated that parietal areas are involved in inspection time tasks, specifically Brodmann area (BA) 40 and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (BA47) but not the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
  
  
  Behavioral Genetics of IQ:
  
  
  1. Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence
  2. For 48 identical twin pairs separated in early infancy and reared apart, Bouchard et al.83 found remarkably high between-twin correlations for verbal scores on the WAIS (0.64) and for the first principal component of special mental abilities (0.78)
  3. Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.62, Ref. 87 compare with Ref. 88; h2 = 0.48, Ref. 89; h2 = 0.6–0.8, Refs 90,91)...
  4. Intriguingly, the influence of shared family environments on IQ dissipates once children leave home — between adult adoptive relatives, there is a correlation of IQ of -0.01
  
  
  Molecular Genetics of IQ:
  
  
  1. Chorney et al.104 discovered an allelic variation in a gene on chromosome 6, which codes for an insulin-like growth factor-2 receptor (IGF2R), that was linked with high intelligence...
  2. Later studies identified a second IQ-related polymorphism in the IGF2R gene, and others in the cathepsin D (CTSD) gene, in the gene for an acetylcholine receptor (CHRM2)106, and in a HOMEOBOX GENE (MSX1) that is important in brain development107, 108.
  3. Influence of each polymorphism was minimal — variants of CHRM2 accounted for a range of only 3–4 IQ points, whereas different forms of CTSD accounted for about 3% of the variation between people...None of these associations has yet been replicated by other research groups
  4. Some patients with microcephaly also possesses the ASPM mutation, indicating that a shortened version of the gene might lead to the development of fewer cerebral neurons and a smaller head.
  5. Polymorphism in the human brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene is associated with impaired performance on memory tests
  6. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene influences the activation of working memory circuits. COMT polymorphisms seem to be highly specific to some prefrontal cortex-dependent tasks in children.
  7. Dopamine receptor (DRD4) and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) polymorphisms are associated with differences in performance and brain activity during tasks that involve executive attention

You know, many educated people (the ones who will be triumphant) have read Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" and they understand the basic fact that whenever you're trying to assess the "importance" of genetic differences, you're out of science and into politics.

It appears that the commentary section that follows the above-quoted article summary may gave been written intentionally in an agitprop style.

 

[shonagon53]

I agree that GNXP and related sites like Steve Sailer and Griffe du Lion are political to the max, and their use of genetics and statistics is racist (although you know, you have to refute the statistics and genetics, not just call names).

But the paper is not racist and the bullet point summary of it is good, comments apart. This is genuine scientific data.

I agree that the article is sound science, but there's a tad of propaganda in it too. I think we can agree on that.

The basic question remains: do you agree that judging to which extent "genetic differences" matter ("intensely" or not), is always a cultural, political, social and ideological judgement?

Isn't that what makes science mere science, and once you're out of that realm, politics begins?

Most scientists agree that global warming, caused by humans, is a scientific fact. But the extent to which this matters, and what, if anything, we should do about it, is always a political question. (In this case: there are sound arguments to say that Kyoto is important, but that there are far more important things, like the war against terror, aids, hunger, or providing sanitation and clean water to people).

So once again, genetic research is genetic research. Nothing more, nothing less. What we do with it, and how important we judge these scientific findings to be, is always a socio-political problem, open for debate. The HapMap people simply "state" that they think that genetic differences in IQ matter very much. But this is clearly an ideological debate.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[Tigers2B1]

A question on the correlation of brain size and IQ results. While I understand that this correlation exists in both men and women (when compared within sexes) -- women, on average, have a smaller brains and fewer neurons than men even after correcting for body -- without similar differences in IQ results. Is the reason for this diffference known?

Is this related to the differences in male and female brains -- that is, men are more aggressive and the areas thought to control agression are proportionally larger in men --- while the portion that links the right and left sides of brains is larger, after considering body size, in women. Maybe women use their brains in less of a lopsided manner?

 

[Vance]

A question on the correlation of brain size and IQ results. While I understand that this correlation exists in both men and women (when compared within sexes) -- women, on average, have a smaller brains and fewer neurons than men even after correcting for body -- without similar differences in IQ results. Is the reason for this diffference known?

Is this related to the differences in male and female brains -- that is, men are more aggressive and the areas thought to control agression are proportionally larger in men --- while the portion that links the right and left sides of brains is larger, after considering body size, in women. Maybe women use their brains in less of a lopsided manner?

I am sorry for my ignorance but may I ask what makes you think men are more aggressive than women since I think it depends on each person and on circumstances in which each individual is educated and grown up ?
Or am I misreading your post at any points up there ?

Thanks,