5 ms·

> As World's Highest IQ Record Holder, I expect #BITCOIN is going to $220,000 in the next 45 days. > I will use 100% of my Bitcoin profits to build churches fo

> As World's Highest IQ Record Holder, I expect #BITCOIN is going to $220,000 in the next 45 days. > I will use 100% of my Bitcoin profits to build churches for Jesus Christ in every nation. > “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37) Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.

HappySweeney 1y ago
Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
- bena 1y ago
  Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150. When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter. So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
- csa 1y ago
  > Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults? “Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used. Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145). Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds. Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success. All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
- Lerc 1y ago
  There are separate tests for the extremes, but obviously less researched because the further out you go the less they have to work on. Many years ago, while unemployed, I was sent for a intelligence and dyslexia test (because of the very same perceived waste of potential that the article talks about). I was not dyslexic but scored above the range that the intelligence test could measure. The professor(I believe he was moonlighting for research funding) performing the test talked about the upper range tests, but said they were very long, required specialists to conduct and there's seldom any reason to investigate where you are in the upper range. Then we went on to waste a huge amount of time talking about human perception and I remember describing an idea that finally seems to be feasible because the new Steam VR headset does it and calls it Foveated rendering. I can't specifically recall the date of this but the tester was recording results on his palm pilot, which was a flash new thing at the time.
- Viliam1234 1y ago
  Yes they do. Not that it ever stopped people from making claims about having higher IQ. IQ 160 means that you are 1 in 30,000 of your age group. That means that to calibrate a test that can measure that high, the authors had to test more than 30,000 people in each age group (depending on what statistical certainty you need, but it could be 10x the number for reasonable values). Not sure how large the age groups typically are, but the total number of people necessary for calibration is counted in millions. You have to pay them all for participating in the calibration, and that's not going to be cheap. And with values greater than IQ 160, the numbers grow exponentially. So I am rolling to disbelieve than anyone actually calibrated tests for such large numbers. (Especially once the numbers start to exceed the total population of Earth, which is around IQ 190.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jagged-chisel 1y ago
You’re assuming he’s not playing at the Next Level(R)
maeln 1y ago
While it seems unlikely, I wouldn't find it impossible (edit: learning more about IQ score, yeah 276 is definitly BS). You can be "intelligent" as in very good at solving logic puzzle and math problem, and the most obtuse and subjectively dumb person when it comes to anything else. It might be less likely but definitely happened. I have met people working in very advanced field having the perspective and reflection of a middle schooler on politics, social challenges, etc. Somewhere also clearly blinded by their own capacity in own field and thought that it would absolutely transfer to other field and were talking with authority while anybody in the room with knowledge could smell the BS from miles away.
- stavros 1y ago
  I'm not saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because it's impossible for someone who says that stuff to be smart, I'm saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because people who say that stuff tend to also lie about their IQ.
  - zug_zug 1y ago
    Well, it is mathematically impossible. Traditional IQ tests have a mean/median of 100, and follow a normal distribution with standard-deviation of 15 points. So 270 would be 11 standard deviations above normal so 1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people.
    - Detrytus 1y ago
      So it is possible, and you just calculated the probability of that happening.
      - lupire 1y ago
        How many people would you estimate exist?
        WJW 1y ago
        Between 8 and 9 billion. But "impossible" means a chance of zero, and 8 billion / 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 0, so it's not impossible. The chances that he's lying or delusional are vastly higher of course, but that's no reason to use "impossible" incorrectly.
lnxg33k1 1y ago
“What about second breakfast?” (Tolkien 27:3)
fn-mote 1y ago
> Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276. Con artist skill of 276, maybe.
Aunche 1y ago
Every 15 iq points makes you 1 standard deviation above the median. That means if you legitimately have an IQ of 276, you would 1 in 2.3 * 10^31, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of humans in history.

HappySweeney 1y ago

Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?

bena 1y ago
Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150. When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter. So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
csa 1y ago
> Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults? “Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used. Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145). Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds. Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success. All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
Lerc 1y ago
There are separate tests for the extremes, but obviously less researched because the further out you go the less they have to work on. Many years ago, while unemployed, I was sent for a intelligence and dyslexia test (because of the very same perceived waste of potential that the article talks about). I was not dyslexic but scored above the range that the intelligence test could measure. The professor(I believe he was moonlighting for research funding) performing the test talked about the upper range tests, but said they were very long, required specialists to conduct and there's seldom any reason to investigate where you are in the upper range. Then we went on to waste a huge amount of time talking about human perception and I remember describing an idea that finally seems to be feasible because the new Steam VR headset does it and calls it Foveated rendering. I can't specifically recall the date of this but the tester was recording results on his palm pilot, which was a flash new thing at the time.
Viliam1234 1y ago
Yes they do. Not that it ever stopped people from making claims about having higher IQ. IQ 160 means that you are 1 in 30,000 of your age group. That means that to calibrate a test that can measure that high, the authors had to test more than 30,000 people in each age group (depending on what statistical certainty you need, but it could be 10x the number for reasonable values). Not sure how large the age groups typically are, but the total number of people necessary for calibration is counted in millions. You have to pay them all for participating in the calibration, and that's not going to be cheap. And with values greater than IQ 160, the numbers grow exponentially. So I am rolling to disbelieve than anyone actually calibrated tests for such large numbers. (Especially once the numbers start to exceed the total population of Earth, which is around IQ 190.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jagged-chisel 1y ago

You’re assuming he’s not playing at the Next Level(R)

maeln 1y ago

While it seems unlikely, I wouldn't find it impossible (edit: learning more about IQ score, yeah 276 is definitly BS). You can be "intelligent" as in very good at solving logic puzzle and math problem, and the most obtuse and subjectively dumb person when it comes to anything else. It might be less likely but definitely happened. I have met people working in very advanced field having the perspective and reflection of a middle schooler on politics, social challenges, etc. Somewhere also clearly blinded by their own capacity in own field and thought that it would absolutely transfer to other field and were talking with authority while anybody in the room with knowledge could smell the BS from miles away.

stavros 1y ago
I'm not saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because it's impossible for someone who says that stuff to be smart, I'm saying he doesn't have 276 IQ because people who say that stuff tend to also lie about their IQ.
- zug_zug 1y ago
  Well, it is mathematically impossible. Traditional IQ tests have a mean/median of 100, and follow a normal distribution with standard-deviation of 15 points. So 270 would be 11 standard deviations above normal so 1 in 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people.
  - Detrytus 1y ago
    So it is possible, and you just calculated the probability of that happening.
    - lupire 1y ago
      How many people would you estimate exist?
      - WJW 1y ago
        Between 8 and 9 billion. But "impossible" means a chance of zero, and 8 billion / 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 0, so it's not impossible. The chances that he's lying or delusional are vastly higher of course, but that's no reason to use "impossible" incorrectly.

lnxg33k1 1y ago

“What about second breakfast?” (Tolkien 27:3)

fn-mote 1y ago

> Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276. Con artist skill of 276, maybe.

Aunche 1y ago

Every 15 iq points makes you 1 standard deviation above the median. That means if you legitimately have an IQ of 276, you would 1 in 2.3 * 10^31, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of humans in history.