smartest posters (redux)

[??????????]

There is a reason why so many high IQ individuals are 45 and live in their parents basements.

Quit the cheap attacks on Opebo. lol

[J. J.]

There is a reason why so many high IQ individuals are 45 and live in their parents basements.

Quit the cheap attacks on Opebo. lol

He isn't; he said "high IQ."

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Having an IQ of 142 and all, one would think I would be mentioned more.  Sorry, that was shameless. 

What test?  Throwing out a number is meaningless unless you know the test.  For example 132 on some tests will qualify you for Mensa (top 2% score), while others a qualifying score of 148.

http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3

I love their LSAT qualifying score:

prior to 1982                662
1982 through 5/91       39
effective 6/91               163

Just because of how it shows what an absurd scoring range the LSAT has, and how they keep changing it.  As of now, the the minimum LSAT score is 120 and the the maximum is 180.  What the hell?  I would understand if it was recentered based on some earlier range, but they obviously based it on nothing whatsoever.  Why not make it 0 to 60, or at least 20 to 80?

Also, 163 is only 90th percentile on the LSAT.  Maybe they figure only the smarted 20% of people ever take the LSAT in the first place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thank you.  Nice to be mentioned.  It is kinda hard to prove intellegence on this forum.  Having an IQ of 142 and all, one would think I would be mentioned more.  Sorry, that was shameless. 

142 isn't that high, actually.

[Ebowed]

OK, let's hear what is a "high" IQ then.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, let's hear what is a "high" IQ then.

170 or above is more like it, at least for children. Maybe it's harder to get a high score as an adult.

[Ebowed]

Considering below 70 is considered mentally retarded, and 90 being average, and over 120 considered exceptionally intelligent, I have to wonder if you're talking about a different IQ test.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Considering below 70 is considered mentally retarded, and 90 being average, and over 120 considered exceptionally intelligent, I have to wonder if you're talking about a different IQ test.

There might be some other IQ tests, but at least under some, a 170 isn't that rare.

[J. J.]

Thank you.  Nice to be mentioned.  It is kinda hard to prove intellegence on this forum.  Having an IQ of 142 and all, one would think I would be mentioned more.  Sorry, that was shameless. 

142 isn't that high, actually.

It depends on the scale used.  On some that well above average, but well below the 2% level (percentile).  On others it would well above the 99% level, and possibly above the 99.5% level.

That why you really can't throw raw numbers around.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Isn't the standard deviation of IQ supposed to be 15?  Meaning only 1 in 1000 have IQ over 145?  170 would be almost 5 SDs...I'm not sure what the probablility of that is off the top of my head, but it must be phenomenally high.

[ATFFL]

Isn't the standard deviation of IQ supposed to be 15?  Meaning only 1 in 1000 have IQ over 145?  170 would be almost 5 SDs...I'm not sure what the probablility of that is off the top of my head, but it must be phenomenally high.

You mention standard deviations in a thread in which both JJ and jfern have voted?  You are so off my list of intelligent posters.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If I'm reading my normal distribution table right, it looks like 4.7 SDs (IQ 170 if SD=15) is about 1 in 1 million (just slightly more).  But I haven't done any real statistics in years, so I could be forgetting something totally.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Isn't the standard deviation of IQ supposed to be 15?  Meaning only 1 in 1000 have IQ over 145?  170 would be almost 5 SDs...I'm not sure what the probablility of that is off the top of my head, but it must be phenomenally high.

You mention standard deviations in a thread in which both JJ and jfern have voted?  You are so off my list of intelligent posters.

I must have missed something...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If I'm reading my normal distribution table right, it looks like 4.7 SDs (IQ 170 if SD=15) is about 1 in 1 million (just slightly more).  But I haven't done any real statistics in years, so I could be forgetting something totally.

Yes, if it was both exactly normal and had a SD of 15, the probability of a 170 or higher would be 1.5 in a million.

[Gabu]

By the way, Supersoulty...

Thank you.  Nice to be mentioned.  It is kinda hard to prove intellegence on this forum.  Having an IQ of 142 and all, one would think I would be mentioned more.  Sorry, that was shameless. 

"People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."
- Stephen Hawking



(Source)

[J. J.]

Isn't the standard deviation of IQ supposed to be 15?  Meaning only 1 in 1000 have IQ over 145?  170 would be almost 5 SDs...I'm not sure what the probablility of that is off the top of my head, but it must be phenomenally high.

No, the SD varies from type of test to type of test.  That's why you get these different standards depending on the type of test used.

If I told you that I had an IQ of 146 for example, on some tests that would put me in the top 0.1% while on others I'd be below the the top 2%.  

One of the reasons I have not posted mine is that it has little meaning unless you know what test its from.  

I am not eligible to be a member of the Triple Nine Society (0.1%).  :-)  If my Cattell number was my CA WISC number, I would be more than eligible.

To give you an example the 1 in a 1000 number on the CA WISC is 146.  On the Cattell it would be 173.  BTW:  Roughly 300,000 Americans have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.  That's hardly exclusive.

[Gabu]

BTW:  Roughly 300,000 Americans have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.  That's hardly exclusive.

Well, that would mean that roughly 289,700,000 Americans don't have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.

[J. J.]

BTW:  Roughly 300,000 Americans have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.  That's hardly exclusive.

Well, that would mean that roughly 289,700,000 Americans don't have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.

It's too late on the East Coast to look up Census numbers.  :-)

[ATFFL]

Isn't the standard deviation of IQ supposed to be 15?  Meaning only 1 in 1000 have IQ over 145?  170 would be almost 5 SDs...I'm not sure what the probablility of that is off the top of my head, but it must be phenomenally high.

You mention standard deviations in a thread in which both JJ and jfern have voted?  You are so off my list of intelligent posters.

I must have missed something...

You must have missed their several stasticics debates.

[Gabu]

BTW:  Roughly 300,000 Americans have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.  That's hardly exclusive.

Well, that would mean that roughly 289,700,000 Americans don't have an IQ in the top 0.1% range.

It's too late on the East Coast to look up Census numbers.  :-)

I have the CIA World Factbook bookmarked, so I don't have to look.

The latest number is around 295 million, so I was close enough.

[dazzleman]

I think muon2 is one of the most intelligent posters.

[A18]

I think muon2 is one of the most intelligent posters.

I agree with that too. I would put him under policy, with Ford and David S. He certainly knows what he's talking about.

However, he's not quite as regular a poster as some of us here, which is why he didn't come to mind immediately.

[Beet]

Personally, I have had good discussions with dazzleman, Ford, and WMS.

[Richard]

I went to one Mensa meeting and canceled my membership.  Most are neo-commies.

[muon2]

I think muon2 is one of the most intelligent posters.

I agree with that too. I would put him under policy, with Ford and David S. He certainly knows what he's talking about.

However, he's not quite as regular a poster as some of us here, which is why he didn't come to mind immediately.

Thanks for the vote of support. With two jobs I probably can't spend the time to debate online as much as I would enjoy. Forum statistics put me at about 3 posts per day.