Are there any true geniuses here? (IQ over 155)

Post Reply New Topic

You know what would be an interesting experiment? Display the art but don't let people know that it was done by adults bearing the cognitave disability label. I wonder if people would gauge it differently. There is something that happens to peoples' perception of art when they know that the artist has a partcular label. I can almost feel the gears grinding in my own head as they go off in a different direction when I see that the art was made by "children", "the local seniors painting club", "a schizophrenic artist", "the cognitively disabled". I can feel the gears clunking into place when I know what label the artist has and I just can't push them back. Once I know the label, I can't un-know it and become objective.

I saw this very starkly in a book about Hitler. We all know Hitler was a failed artist. The author had included several plates of paintings that Hitler made back before he came to power. They weren't very good. The composition was boring and the skill level was just ok. They author just ripped the paintings apart. You would think they were the worst things anyone had ever painted. I looked at them and agreed they weren't very good and it was clear he could never have done it professionally, but by amateur standards they were decent enough. Then I felt a weird feeling that I shouldn't think there was anything good about them. They were done by Hitler! Therefore they are the worst paintings ever and to do anything but spit on them was to spit on the graves of all he killed. But then again, it was actually Hitler's legacy being judged and not the actual artwork. If you'd taken those very paintings and put them in an art show labeled "paintings done at the local senior center" people would probably coo over them. Then if you said they'd been done by Hitler they would shudder with revulsion and say how horrible they were.

What a long way that was to come around to my point; that once you know who made the art, it's impossible to judge it objectively.

And yes, you don't have to do well on an IQ test to make good art. In fact, no IQ tests even ask you to create art so it's not like they even attempt to measure that talent.

Actually I've talked to lots of people whose scores varied hugely over the course of a lifetime. Usually they were people who either scored incredibly low early on and then in the normal or gifted range as they caught up, or people like me who scored very high early on due to a few skills appearing very early, and whose scores dropped drastically over time due to those skills having emerged nearly full formed and therefore not advancing at the rate of other people, or else acquiring problems later on that made test taking difficult.

I have been tested at age 5, 15, and 22. At 5 I was in the gifted (and according to this thread anyway) so called "genius" range. At age 15 it was high average. At age 22 it was right on the cusp of the DSM's "borderline intellectual functioning". I have never had scores less than 35 points apart. This is one reason among many that I view the test as useless and destructive.

I.Q. tests seem to be unable to accurately measure fluid intelligence at I.Q. 130 and beyond. People with a measured I.Q. of 140 don't seem to behave too differently from people at I.Q. 160. Neither are they unable to understand what the highest I.Q. folks understand. There needs to be a vast reconstruction in intelligence testing when dealing with >130 I.Qs. in order to more properly represent intelligence at that level.

I have been tested many times, ages 8 and then at 9 then again at 14 and finally at 19. I maxed out around 138. I am surely no genius. But I did major in applied mathematics so I am no nit-wit.

IQ measurement is frequently a bourgeois-racist device of excluding minorities and propping up white supremacy.

I scored 100% in a cognitive ability test when I was 10. (It's more of a standardized IQ test for school kids in the UK)

I also scored 100% in my GCSE maths mock only using a calculator for trig (didn't get %ge back from the real exam), I also passed my Geography GCSE exam and didn't answer a single question we'd be taught anything about and passed the maths extension paper without knowing what was in it. and this was well before the internet, I've never read a book in my life and I didn't really talk to anyone until I was 21 or so.

When I went to college I dropped all but chemistry after about 5 months, but they let me stay for the rest of the year because I was getting 100% in all my chemistry work. (only 'kicked' me out when they couldn't get funding and then the teacher let me sit in class for a month or so afterwards, by which point I felt a little uncomfortable)

The teachers got me teaching the other kids in class when I was 6,
etc....

I wouldn't say I'm particularly intelligent as such, just my mind is less cluttered and the way that I think is a lot more 'elegant' than other people do.

When I was evaluated the psychologist told me that when you go above the 98th percentile (130 on Wechsler's Adult Intelligence Scale) the accuracy rate drops because (obviously) enough people don't end up in that category to allow for finer distinctions. So asking for IQ 155 on the WAISC is fruitless. You can ask who's over 130 and get a fairly accurate result, but anything beyond the first two standard deviations is unclear. Even if you test 155, you may be 131, and vice versa.

My last IQ test was many years ago; the number I got was 159. I should check the Internet for my local branch of MENSA (the high-IQ organization) and ask to take the tests they offer.

I can completely relate to the communication issues. I think in a complex arrangement of visualized words and imagery. I can, however, communicate much more comfortably in writing. My IQ scores have fluctuated from anywhere from 90-165 at ages 14-18. Granted, I was disinterested in the test when I was younger and with two incidences I have serious doubts over the veracity of the examinations. I have no idea what my current score is, nor do I much care. I don't need a standardized test to determined my current level of intellectual functioning. Maybe I'll be curious enough sometime to take it again, but for now, I prefer to use my intelligence for more productive and valuable pursuits. I agree with what ookamika posted as well, that a high score is not the only verifier of high intelligence, nor should it be used to demean others, regardless of how high a score is.

IQ is only brain speed measure. It doesn't matter I have high IQ, if I stopped emotionally at age ~13. It doesn't matter if life is not only rotating the shapes, looking for systems and choosing next puzzle. People aren't pictures on the paper. If you can't live with them, you can have IQ 200 and so what?
IQ doesn't mean social skills, right PR. It doesn't make people love you.

When I was child, I was one of this wonderkids that delight people or make them jealous. I had IQ 180. But I was in normal school where they equalise everyone to one level, this worse level. Because we must socialise you! My only results are depression and post-school trauma.

My last score was 163, but I don't think I'm a genius. I never thought that. I think only that it's all failed.

All I know is that I obtained a FSIQ of 143 on the last professionally-administered WAIS I has three years ago. My VIQ score was 155 and my PIQ was 111. Though my scores on all the IQ tests (again...all professionally-administered) i've had were never even close to this high, I never scored below 112 on FSIQ, 119 on VIQ, or 94 on PIQ. According to many on this forum (and to the general consensus) IQ tests can, generally speaking, only predict one's ACADEMIC potential. Assuming this is true, i'm forced to wonder why my own academic performance is so abysmal. I don't think it's for want of motivation, or because I was depressed when I started college (I certainly didn't FEEL depressed at that time) or for any other reason aside from neurologically-based learning/memory deficits. Nonetheless...I seem to have no aptitude whatsoever for mathematics (I dropped intro algebra twice and then opted for course substitutions for math...which I was eligible for because of the documented LD) science, or even courses involving mathematical/logical and scientific reasoning like logic and macroeconomics. Also....I believe I have profound problems with long-term memory which would eventually bar me from careers that don't even require much in the way of mathematical/logical/scientific reasoning. In other words....I don't even think I could be a history teacher because I would only remember a few isolated facts in regards to all the history I studied in school. Oh sure....I easily aced tests in the history, psychology, sociology and anthropology courses I took (to name a few non-math/science examples). But my memory was cued or prompted by the test. If you wanted to have in-depth CONVERSATION with me about everything I studied in these classes, I would only be able to remember a few isolated facts. Ditto if I was expected to write something substantial, strictly from memory, about the material covered in any of these classes. The memory problems I am claiming to have aren't reflected on any of the memory tests (like the Weschler memory scale, for one example) i've had on my various neuropsych evals. Nevertheless....based on all my experiences and self-observations over the past 30 years or so...they seem VERY REAL to me.

I am no closer to a solution for these cognitive mysteries of mine than I was when I (and all the "professionals" for that matter) started investigating them nearly four decades ago. I was the ONLY person who BOTHERED to investigate them until I was 23 years old. NOBODY, not my immediate family, my teachers, or anyone wanted believed there was anything wrong with my brain at all. I was the first one to suggest that there was when I was about seven years old. But in the eyes of my family, teachers, etc... I was just "lazy", "unmotivated", "emotionally disturbed", etc...I was finally "diagnosed" (technically LD-NOS since NVLD isn't a formal DX) with NVLD when I was 23 y/o. Thus I proved everyone wrong....indeed there WAS something wrong with my brain!! ! But after intially thinking this was the extent of it....I came to believe my deficits were FAR, FAR more serious than those of the vast majority of people with similar NVLD characteristics. And beyond....."well Horus.....you just have a rather typical *case* of NVLD and that's that"....no other answers have been forthcoming.


So all I gotten since is a million theories and zero conclusions. The theories themselves are of little value since one person's "educated guess" often wildly conflicts with another's.


Out of unbearable desperation, I came to this forum seeking some answers since I haven't found any elsewhere and since you get the best diagnosis you can afford in America. All I could ever afford was the five neuropsych evals i've had which were either paid for by OVR or offered to me on a sliding scale at a university psych services center. Aside from that,i've been my own neuropsychologist/neurologist and i'm hardly qualified, to say the least. I've spent countless hours online, in libraries, in bookstores, etc.....researching the brain and everything that could conceivably go wrong with it and like Gollum of LOTR fame, all i've uncovered is "empty night".

As far as anyone on WP is concerned,once again, i've received little but a million theories and no conclusions here as well. To be clear....i'm not disparaging ANYONE on WP because they can't give me any definitve answers. I never expected anyone to offer me any, but I had nothing to lose by asking for some right? But it always the same thing no matter which oracle I consult. Maybe you have perceptual problems, maybe it's an executive functioning deficit, maybe it's an attention/concentration problem, maybe it's a problem with short-term memory masquerading as a long-term memory problem, maybe you have a chicken wing lodged in your orbitofrontal cortex, etc.....ad infinitum/nauseum.

Again....considering the complexity of the human brain and what little we still know about it....it's surely UNREASONABLE to think neuroscience/psychology can offer definitive answers to EVERYONE in regards to whatever neurologically-based problems they have. I realize that it's unrealistic for me to expect some neuropsychologist to finally say...."OK Horus...we've clearly identified the source of all the learning/memory problems which have plagued you since childhood and you do have a chicken wing lodged in your orbitofrontal cortex. We've never seen anything like it....but there can be NO DOUBT.....the chicken wing is the source of all your problems"! !!


Well....a clear realization of all this hardly makes it any easier to live with. Aside from the profound depression, anxiety, hopelessness, etc.....which are perfectly natural and reasonable reactions to the unspeakably wretched circumstances of my life, the frustration of living with a neurological mystery for forty years is impossible to describe. All I can ever say is that I feel like a genius imprisoned inside the brain of mentally ret*d person, if that makes any sense to anyone. If not....my situation is so damnably perplexing and incongruous that I might as well try to describe it in Martian.

Bottom line....these IQ tests have proven absolutely worthless...at least in my case. I don't think they tell me anything more meaningful and undeniable about my brain than a Tarot card reader could.

IQ tests measure how well you take IQ tests... true story!

I'm an excellent test taker, it's why I don't like my IQ scores other than the math/science ones, which I can tell I have more of an aptitude at, funnily that aptitude helps me take tests by overlaying the question with the answers in my head so the wrong options stand out.

I reckon the guy who unraveled the D.N.A. code isn't a true genius, then.
His I.Q. was 115.

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq02.htm

Another example of why IQ tests aren't worth the paper they're written on.


So much for the scientific fields being off-limits to anyone with an IQ under 125 or something.

I firmly believe anybody with at least average intelligence has the potential to reach the heights of human achievement.

But they must possess those more elusive human qualities we call drive, determination, motivation, dogged ambition, emotional fortitude, etc....

There's no reason to believe these qualities are any less determined by nature and nurture than intelligence is. Some people just have more of them and some have less. Herein lies some of the major differences between the person with an IQ of 105 who becomes a doctor and the person with an IQ of 132 who becomes a homeless alcoholic. For the most part....I think IQ only significantly helps or hinders people
in the extremes. And even many "below average" people achieve incredible things and plenty of "geniuses" wind up working at Piggly-Wiggly for eight bucks an hour.

I have taken the WISC test every 4 years from first grade to my senior year in high school for placement. I was never given my score but was told I was above average and I qualified for the gifted and talented courses in my school district. As to why I was never given my score “I don’t know“. but I’m sure it may have saved me a lot of headache considering knowing your score may create expectation stressors.

I believe my school district had a policy of not disclosing scores because they knew a precise score was bull S*@T….. also I never heard any of my class mates ever brag about their high IQ’s. And I was surrounded by some freaking smart kids…..

I have a low IQ - lower than all of you in here. There are things I am good at, but not clever at.