Anyone here with an extremely high IQ?

[Kutt]

Is there anyone here with an extremely high IQ or is a member of MENSA?

Less than 1% of the entire population has an IQ above 140. Anything above that number is what is considered "genius".

 

[genericusrnme]

My IQ is equal to my post count, every post on the non-general discussion boards increases my ability to do IQ tests.

 

[phinds]

Is there anyone here with an extremely high IQ or is a member of MENSA?

Why do you care?

 

[Pengwuino]

MENSA? Wasn't that an evil corporation in the Half-Life games?

 

[Averagesupernova]

One of those web-sites told me mine was 165 one time. I didn't believe it but if anyone else wants to believe my IQ is that high I won't mind. They do that to make you want to come back to the site for whatever reason.

 

[Kutt]

One of those web-sites told me mine was 165 one time. I didn't believe it but if anyone else wants to believe my IQ is that high I won't mind. They do that to make you want to come back to the site for whatever reason.

Online IQ tests are woefully inaccurate. I do not trust them.

 

[Antiphon]

Oddly every test I have ever taken whether its a large battery administered in elementary school or a simple test online gives me the same readings. I'm way lower than Marilyn Monroe.

She clocked in at 168. Keep that in mind whenever you feel like someone special for residing in the distant tail of a bell curve.

 

[Flumpster]

Is there anyone here with an extremely high IQ or is a member of MENSA?

Less than 1% of the entire population has an IQ above 140. Anything above that number is what is considered "genius".

You should probably know that, even if you take "genius" to be a construct that is equivalent to high IQ percentile (the concept is more complex, for instance it encompasses cognitive traits and not merely cognitive capacities), it is incorrect to state that IQ above 140 (or 145, or 135, or whatever) is considered genius. Genius doesn't "start" at a certain value. Generally, gifted individuals exhibit a range of IQ scores starting from about 130 or 140, with degree of giftedness increasing above that. Usually, at 130 or 140 someone is moderately gifted, 150 or 160 highly gifted, and above that exceptionally or profoundly gifted. To the best of my knowledge, giftedness and not genius is used to describe high IQs.

Why do you care? I'm just wondering...IQ score isn't very relevant to someone's life. IQ score represents proficiency at doing what the IQ tests test you on, and not much more.

As for your question, a few years ago (at age 13) a psychologist gave me a non verbal IQ taking test which rated me as gifted to highly gifted. Giving an accurate score was difficult because of several personal medical issues, one of which was difficulties in physically the test.

 

[Jack21222]

Let's see... There are 13 registered members currently on this site right now. Let's assume that this number holds at all hours of every day, and that each one is on the site for, on average 10 minutes any given day. That means there are roughly 2,000 active registered users on the site. (By active users, I mean people who log on, on average, once a day or so, not people who have accounts but are gone for years. And this also doesn't include unregistered guests, which make up an order of magnitude larger number).

So, if we assume that users of Physics Forums are representative of the general population, you'd expect about 20 registered, active members to have what you define to be "extremely high IQ." However, I'd wager that the average PF user has a higher IQ than the general population, due to the nature of the website. So, as a very rough guess, I'd imagine there are 40-50 registered, active PF users that meet your guidelines.

Note, I could be off by a factor of 10 in either direction, so don't take my number too seriously. But to answer your question, yes, there are plenty of people on here that can score in the top 1% on IQ tests. Why do you ask?

 

[Chi Meson]

Anything worth saying about IQ and Mensa has already been said on PF.

Two threads as examples:

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=230124
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=195298

 

[Jack21222]

Bah! I was off by an order of magnitude. The 13 members currently online are only the ones looking at General Discussion. There are 93 members currently online on the entire site. So, multiply my numbers by 10.

 

[OmCheeto]

Is there anyone here with an extremely high IQ or is a member of MENSA?

Less than 1% of the entire population has an IQ above 140. Anything above that number is what is considered "genius".

Although I have a self professed IQ of 161, my best guess is that at least 98% of the regulars here at the forum are way smarter than I am. Which is why I hang around.

as wiki states:

Whether IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence is debated. It is difficult to define what constitutes intelligence; instead, it may be the case that IQ represents a type of intelligence.

bolding mine

 

[turbo]

I entered elementary school in the Sputnik era, and we kids got the living crap tested out of us. I won't mention the numbers, because I was just a kid. Some tests test the ability to take tests.

 

[Danger]

From my experience with Mensa members, all that I can see is that it is an elitist club whose members are not actually elite. When I took the test, the cut-off IQ was only 132. In my real life, I know people who would probably score less than 100 and yet can hold a more intelligent, entertaining, and most importantly congenial conversation than the members that I have met.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, I do, but on the downside I'm sort of crazy.

 

[Danger]

Yes, I do, but on the downside I'm sort of crazy.

I believe that those conditions are inextricably entwined.

 

[Jack21222]

From my experience with Mensa members, all that I can see is that it is an elitist club whose members are not actually elite. When I took the test, the cut-off IQ was only 132. In my real life, I know people who would probably score less than 100 and yet can hold a more intelligent, entertaining, and most importantly congenial conversation than the members that I have met.

I can agree with that. When I was about 19 or 20 years old, I joined for a year, but didn't find it particularly interesting.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I never joined, but I looked into it a few years ago. My IQ is insufficient for their needs. However, I qualify based on my GRE scores. It seems to me that they spend a lot of time solving abstract puzzles and my time is taken up in solving problems from my physics books.

 

[Danger]

As was mentioned in the second thread that Chi Meson linked to, it is a club with no apparent purpose other than bragging. As such, it is a joke, since a lot of the people that they are boasting about their intelligence to are actually more intelligent than they are.
Clubs usually have a commonality of interest amongst the members, but are not exclusive. For instance, I belonged to the Experimental Aircraft Association for a few years until I moved away. Most of the members were pilots (me being one), aircraft builders, and/or aeronautical engineers because of shared interests. That was not a requirement, and there was no obligation to become a member if you attended meetings. One of my half-dozen friends when I lived in that area was a champion motocross racer. He went to a meeting with me once just for the socialization after the formal speaker, because he wanted a technical explanation as to why 2-stroke engines aren't used in aeroplanes. All that I was able to offer on my own was because of the narrow power band, which is why I invited him, but the members surrounded him and talked for over an hour. Even some of our guest speakers weren't members.
In the same vein, I belong to a pool league and used to belong to a couple of darts leagues. Guess what the commonality is?
Some Mensa members might have some common interests, but the only universal one is arrogance.

 

[Pythagorean]

Hell yeah, my IQ is up in the 60's, let me share my secret with you:

 

[Number Nine]

Less than 1% of the entire population has an IQ above 140. Anything above that number is what is considered "genius".

It means nothing to discuss raw scores. Different tests produce different IQ's and different percentiles.

 

[Pythagorean]

To clear up some confusion that seems apparent in this thread:

Well-known modern IQ tests include Raven's Progressive Matrices, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.

Approximately 95% of the population have scores within two standard deviations (SD) of the mean. If one SD is 15 points, as is common in almost all modern tests, then 95% of the population are within a range of 70 to 130, and 98% are below 131. Alternatively, two-thirds of the population have IQ scores within one SD of the mean, i.e. within the range 85-115.

IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[21][22][23][24] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points.
The correlation between IQ test results and achievement test results is about 0.7.[7][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Modern_tests

 

[pgardn]

Very muddy as to what these things actually measure. The old IQ tests were used to test for deficiencies, high scores meant nothing.

One should automatically deduct 35.347 pts from their score if they actually care.

 

[turbo]

One should automatically deduct 35.347 pts from their score if they actually care.

It would be a really good idea to back up this statement.

 

[Danger]

One should automatically deduct 35.347 pts from their score if they actually care.

Are you sure that it's not 35.346?
I could be mistaken, or perhaps my paper about the subject is outdated, but that's the figure that I remember.

 

[Pythagorean]

Significant figures people, sheesh.

 

[Danger]

Significant figures people, sheesh.

You must be a math guy; I'm unfamiliar with that term.

 

[Kutt]

People with gifted IQ's attribute their intelligence to "brainy" subjects such as physics, mathematics, and assorted sciences.

You're average person might struggle to become proficient in these academic and occupational fields.

The most famous and notable scientists in history all had IQ's above 140.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The most famous and notable scientists in history all had IQ's above 140.

Your reference for this statement?

 

[lisab]

The most famous and notable scientists in history all had IQ's above 140.

Feynman's IQ was 125.

 

[Curious3141]

Feynman's IQ was 125.

That number and that factoid about Feynman are often bandied about by those skeptical of IQ tests. I believe it's almost certain that that number was an aberration, caused by a multiplicity of factors - a poor test (maybe one emphasising verbal ability, or prior recall of facts/trivia), Feynman's lack of seriousness in taking the test and/or well-known antipathy toward psychometrics in general.

You only have to read his autobiographical "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" to know how he viewed shrinks and their ilk.

Psychometrics wasn't that far along those days, and there were plenty of bad tests floating about. I'm willing to wager that a properly administered "culture-fair" modern test that tests symbolic logic and reasoning ability would have demonstrated Feynman to have had a VERY high IQ (at least 160), provided Feynman were serious about taking it. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

I believe that IQ is correlated with cognitive ability, and the top achievers in any intellectual field will have high IQs. It's certainly not the only factor that's important - motivation, emotional adaptability (I hate the catchphrase "emotional intelligence") and other factors play very important roles. But it's unnecessary to measure IQs to judge the worth of these top achievers, because their achievements speak for themselves.

IQ remains important in stratifying the cognitively subnormal, but it's really fairly useless in quantifying supernormal cognition, except to provide underachievers with dubious bragging rights.

 

[Andre]

Maybe Feynman used his estimated 160 to judge that one should not take those tests seriously.

I added some comments in an edit.

Agreed

 

[Curious3141]

Maybe Feynman used his estimated 160 to judge that one should not take those tests seriously.

I added some comments in an edit.

 

[chemisttree]

You must be a math guy; I'm unfamiliar with that term.

'Sheesh' means the same thing as "geez" or "golly" or "darn" or "eh?" (in Canadian)... as in, "Significant figures people, eh?"

 

[DragonPetter]

I've never been IQ tested as an adult, but I guess I am probably close to average.

I put about as much merit in IQ testing as I do in horoscopes. I actually think it is the same psychological phenomenon for people to latch on to IQ scores as for people to believe they are a leo or scorpio. They want to put meaning into arbitrary signs or patterns about something they know nothing about in order to explain something about themselves. Now that I think about it, a lot of the same websites with "IQ tests" also offer horoscope quizzes and other meaningless questions that are supposed to identify what you are.

I care much more about what a person has done with themselves than I do about their IQ. People put little merit into the theories of the smartest man in America, and the only reason he's given attention is because of his IQ, not because of his theory.

I have a guess that I have come across a few geniuses through various encounters, and they truly amazed me with their quick and firm grasp of a broad range of advanced concepts, and their ease of using these concepts. I really doubt high IQ is the full story with these people's brains.