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

Post Reply New Topic

4) Person who has the ability to cut through long, convoluted, and frequently nonsensical BS, and say something that actually makes sense.

Well I think 1-3 is pretty much any Aspie (or at least a portion of that) whereas 4 kinda goes against Aspies (the whole monologue thing). While I don't think it takes a genius to be number 4, like any person can be number 4 and not be considered a genius, it still is so refreshing sometimes to deal with people like that.

But seriously, some Aspies do score high on the test, and if they don't, it's safe to say that most Aspies generally have a special interest for which they totally could fulfill the criteria under definition 3.

Also,

That sounds pretty Aspie to me too.

Really, you guys aren't defining genius. You are defining Aspergers.

Genius...according to Webster's



So I guess it means that a person who has a high IQ is a genius, but a person who has a high IQ and can use it creatively in real life is more a genius than the guy with just a high IQ. A person who is smart, even if it doesn't show in the IQ, can be considered a genius, but not as much as one with a very high IQ. Based on all the "especially's." But, the in the end, a genius is a genius.

Me personally, I'm smart, but I don't consider myself genius. I really don't want the title of genius because people's expectations of me are high enough already. That's all it does. It doesn't make people respect you more. It doesn't make people listen to you more. It doesn't make people think you are better than them. Sadly, it doesn't even make people think you are smarter than them. All it does is increase what they expect of you, and if you spit out how smart you are, it only makes them think you are being arrogant or trying to push the idea that you think you are better than them, no matter what your intentions are. Besides, I'd rather have something much more valuable than a high intelligence like wisdom (which you have to be somewhat smart, but you don't have to be a genius).

If you really think about it, a person who stinks at math has no idea what kind of thought it takes to perform advanced mathematical functions, so to them, they will never understand what that means when someone else is good at math. In other words, it doesn't matter to them beyond "I wish I was better at math" unless you are their kid. Or better said possibly, most people have to relate to something for them to give it any value, so if they can't relate to it (such as genius), then they give it no real value. Now when you are talking about the parent of a kid, then it's a different story because that parent relates to the situation because the child is their child, so therefore, their child's accomplishments are their accomplishments which feed into their ego.

I scored 136 last time i took an IQ test.

All them long years of edumacation haven't done me wrong.

OK, Someone watched popeye one too many times!

not quite, i only got to 153. i now know i have dyscalculia though, so i'm not sure how i managed that score.

Everybody is throwing around a bunch of numbers with no reference to which testing system the number comes from. I don't know where this 155 cut off comes from, it would be far more useful if people were using the metric the numbers are actually targeted to find, the percentile. At least if I knew the system your number came from I could figure out if it is a differential or ratio system, and if it is a differential deviation system then the specific mean of the system and range of deviation, and derive the percentile.

Mensa likes to set the bar at top 2%, most IQ systems I am familiar with use the top 5% as the percentile encompassing "intellectual genius" and I would say that works good enough, the top 5% of athletic performers, which is basically professional athletes, are athletic geniuses. The top 5% of musical performers are musical geniuses. The top 5% of doing anything, represent the geniuses of the thing they do.

That seems like an easy enough definition, no? Genius = Top 5% or the 95th percentile. The question is, why the heck do we really care? What useful things is demarcating who the top 5% of something are providing for us? Like Tantybi says, the only thing that came about from me engaging in the exercise of admitting, well yes, I am what they like to call "A Genius" is having people come and say "NUH UH" which is what I expected. Okay, so nuh uh, I'm not a genius. I'm just in the top percentile of performers on tests of intellectual abilities. I just do my best to use my intelligence creatively in the attempt to reduce the suffering present in the world around me. I have an incredibly hard time accepting compliments because I'm constantly being told I'm just being uppity for being smart enough to realize I'm smart.

Our cultures have become sick with insecurities. Fear and confusion are the basis for vitally important decisions that shape the course of all humanity. Everybody is so obsessed with figuring out how they measure up, they forget to just go be alive and accomplish whatever things they can accomplish. The things we know are only as useful as the things we do with that knowledge. I could use my gifts to become a wealthy and powerful american of the Got Mine style taken to the ultimate extreme. It would be so easy.

Instead, I undertake the precepts of the buddha and attempt to purify my soul of the thousand and one toxins of civiilizations. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from doing harm to living things. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from taking that which is not freely given. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from accepting gold or silver. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from using high seats. I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from using false speech.

@Crassus hehe
Mensa has long been aware they are in fact idiots for not even reading into Dr Binet's whole study on IQ and the fact Binet's evidence would make Mensa look like a bunch of Hacks which they are

Genius' don't sit in a room all day and also fo a fact a genius only comes along like every 50 years except in the Renaisence when you had many art geius' I am quite sick of Mensa and their constant babbling of how superior a high IQ is a lot of people with a high IQ do not have a job for instance as they find it too daunting and plus a whole lot of them don't really chase after a specific interest they just chase after facts

Genius' know and develope and turn their subject on its head look at Issac Newton and Einstein all the people at Mensa do is quite frankly is have a massive *issing contest with eachother and hope for the best who knew Mensa actually has potential but they are so enamaured with theirselves possably Narcisism that nothing comes out of it which is pretty straight forward really when allthey do is love the sound of their own voice

I think the best way to sum up IQ is the age old desire men seem to have (and women too for that matter) to whip it out and see which one is bigger

How I wished in real life, we can really use this to measure IQ...

Realizing that this is an old thread and that perhaps nearly no one will even read this. . . . I will reply anyway.

First off, IQ tests do seem to reliably measure something. Although no one quite agrees on what it is exactly, few people dispute that it does measure some forms of intelligence, when administered and received correctly. I think the comments regarding analysis of the intelligence breakdowns are valid and important.

Secondly, IQ tests can be either reliable or un-reliable, so it's important to consider this when looking at scores. A non-verbal or verbally challenged people will obviously have additional barriers to understanding what they are meant to do, and will not be able to score as highly on the verbal parts of the test. I would imagine that for these folks, much like my own case, that they would tend to do better on IQ tests administered early and then see a subsequent drop in scores, unless they catch up on their verbal skills. My Wechsler result started at 145 at age five, dropped to the low 130's during my youth, and then rose back to the "top out" range (149) in high school as I improved verbally. The Wechsler does lose much of it's ability to differentiate scores above 130 for the (WISC-R and WISC-III) or 145 for the (WISC-IV). These scores are 3 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that about 87 people out of every 10,000 will score at or above this number. In other words, if you live in a town of 20,000 people, 174 of them will be in this range. So, basically part of what is required to do well is the ability to hear, understand, and also communicate according to certain means. Also, disinterest will play a huge role in determining one's score. I find it disappointing however, that others would de-value my score because of all the things that can go wrong with testing -- but in my case . . .didn't.

Third, the score may or may not be considered to be in the genius range depending on which test was administered.

Fourth, people's IQ scores nearly never vary more than 15 points over the course of their lives, regardless of practice, or acquired knowledge. In my case it varied little in spite of correction of some fairly serious language difficulties.

Fifth, I am proud of my IQ score. I don't value this kind of intelligence to the same degree as it seems that much of our culture does, but I refuse to dis-value it either. Our society practically worships intelligence and I think that this is immoral. But I will not lose an opportunity to feel good about myself regarding this number. I'm delighted that it is what it is. I'm also proud of my brown hair, and my short stature, the fact that I notice details that others don't, and other traits that I was born with and did not earn. I think you should be too. Whether you are short or tall, white/brown/dark brown/black, blue-eyed, european/arab/malaysian. So what if I can't spell, and my feet stink, and I bump into stuff all the time? So what if I'm just learning how to be a friend to NT's, and I've failed at nearly every significant relationship in my life? We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I'm also confident in my abilities as a computer programmer based on my very real contributions to the area, as well as my contributions to the understanding of individuals concerning autism. So what if some folks would think I was ugly, or fat, or lazy. . . .we all have things to be proud of and things that we aren't proud of. Maybe you are beautiful, or smart, or good with children, or strong, or athletic, or talented, or any combination of the above. maybe you're this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL3GR4i ... re=related and you have no arms or legs, but you've changed the lives of people the world over. To me the key is to value everyone equally, while being honest with ourselves and others concerning our weaknesses and strengths. I'm not worth any more, but I'm not worth any less than you are.

Sixth, We never know where genius will appear, and sometimes I think GOD puts it where we least expect it. Also, hard work is always necessary to accomplish great things. Even the very brilliant must expend some effort at what they do, and in communicating this brilliance to others. My brother has met with much more worldly success than I have with a lower IQ, a higher work ethic, more emotional and relational stability, and no processing disorder. He has three master's degrees in Engineering and business, and he's also very handsome! I love him dearly and have often valued him more than myself.

Seventh, arrogance knows no intelligence. I don't see how this "positive" in someone's life is any more predictive of how arrogant they will be than any other perceived "positive". Some it's because their rich, powerful, have a certain job, look a certain way, are the best at something, etc. I've seen arrogance among many types of people: rich/poor, etc. Personality and intelligence may not even be related at all. I think the most one can reliably guess at is whether or not they will be arrogant, and perhaps this extends to others that they know well.

So, in summary I would also like to say in disagreement and agreement (hah!) that high IQ is certainly one kind of genius, but it just as certainly isn't the only kind. And, like most anything else, should never be used to value one person over another.

Oh, there's definitely intelligence they don't measure on IQ tests.

There's a place near where I used to live where adults with developmental disabilities get together and do art; then they put it together in a display for people to look at. Most of it is run-of-the-mill stuff, the kind of thing you might do if you were bored, or in a school art class. But every once in a while, somebody will put up a piece that includes obvious talent. A cityscape with every line perfectly drawn and every building perfectly in perspective... an abstract piece with splashes and streaks of color that make you feel like you want to dance... a vase of flowers painted with such an obvious eye for color and form that you can't help but admire it. I've seen professionally done artwork with much less merit. It's got nothing to do with the fact that they're cognitively disabled; when it comes to art, they're quite simply very talented artists in their own right. I've never met them; only looked at their art; but I hope that some day their talent will be discovered and they'll be able to show more than just one town what they can do. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck on the idea that cognitive disability means the inability to do anything at all as well as the average person, not just the things they measure on IQ tests.

That interests me because I agree good art comes from a different kind of intelligence. Every once and a while you'll see something done by a child that will stun you with it's beauty and it doesn't have anything to do (for me) with technical rendering ability. Art is a language for me that I cannot translate into words.

They tested me out the wazoo when I was in HS because I wanted to graduate a year early and go on to college (high school was boring and the social environment sucked). I think I took four IQ tests...two exceeded the arbitrarily-chosen 155 score and two were just below it. I think basically they're all equivalent (dunno why they felt they had to reinvent the wheel that many times...felt like a lab rat) and I have no desire to try to join Mensa or any other high-IQ group. I think there's more to intelligence than IQ anyway. Yes, I'm glad I have a high IQ but no, it's not the *only* thing that counts when it comes to intelligence.

~Kate

160+ mathematical and visual modeling I.Q. scores, but the other categories lower me to 130~140ish.

I wouldn't say I'm wasting potential because I'm working on what I'd be doing whether I was in a college math department or a mini-mart.

I've been reading about how IQ tests started... they were trying to figure out who was a "moron" so they could sterilize them. *shudder* And then they did. Tens of thousands of them.

Not an auspicious beginning.

Last edited by Callista on 07 Apr 2010, 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I got the impression it's more the contrary. In true our society don't worship intelligence, but perfomance. The frequently go with each other but not always, and it's not the same thing.


I'm not suprised about the math part.