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

Post Reply New Topic

MY IQ IS 50 HOW DO I TUNR OF KAP SKEE

139 here. Not genius level, but borderline. I don't particularly feel like a genius, but I think I'm reasonably intelligent.

Am ADHD Inattentive. My IQ is known to vary noticeably depending on whether I am med-free or I use a med which works for me a little. The right med, for me, will boost my IQ score 10% plus due to being more alert and mirroring something called predictable, sustained attention. The right med for me will literally allow me to spell a little longer words and work with slightly longer digits better. I do not consider myself a genius but I do know the difference between between looking at a lump of sculptor's clay and not being able to do anything with the clay and looking at the same sculptor's clay and being able to mold the clay into an object like a dog or human face. I am very aware of the difference between the idea of lacking imagination and having a good imagination. Regarding the general idea of testing IQ, I am aware that a number of persons with some kinds of epilepsies (petit mal/absence/complex partial/TLE) may have scores which do not completely tell the whole story due to involuntary time off task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Am aware that there have been chemists who have been so brilliant that they could hardly work with average persons at all since chemistry, to them, was an innate talent and they had no patience with trying to explain what was obvious to them to others who were slower to grasp the principles involved. Am also aware that progress often involves the idea of a team leader who often is not the most talented but does possess the rare talent of assembling a group of persons to work together in harmony to do that: examples are persons like Walt Disney who was not the world's best artist but assembled a group of artists who could work together and do what he could not; Lawrence Welk built an orchestra on that too - Lawrence Welk was not the world's most talented musician at all. Many stars in the world of sports - whether it is baseball, basketball, or football - do not make good team coaches at all. The stars can excel with individual records but they do not possess the rare talent which some managers have - getting a team to work together. In the large scheme of things, it is the skilled managers (my view) who allow progress to be made since pyramids/whatever are built by teams of skilled workers, not by the any single person themselves.

There are many cases where geniuses have been frustrated by the system, for example, the ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev was not allowed to use his artistic genius freely in the French ballet since the people doing the hiring (the chairs in the ballet department) resented the idea that a talented dancer would not have to work his way through the ballet system as they did so they did their best to make sure that Nureyev would not be allowed to be really creative in any dances they oversaw or funded with their ballet money. The inventor of the Xerox copying machine - his basic idea - was regularly rejected by many persons who had the money to fund his idea but didn't (often because they did not want things to change/the market to change). They viewed the man as a threat to the system/the ways things had been done. So what does that say about the way many businesses operate, how the system can work at times, and human nature in general? In a lot of cases, the only way a new idea gets into the system is to allow the current, idea blocking politicians to retire or die off which often takes thirty years. In some cases, it can take almost 400 years. It took the Vatican of Italy almost 400 years to finally agree that Galileo was a good astronomer (not a bad astronomer) and they should not have threatened Galileo with torture and put him under house arrest for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/ - http://www.nasa.gov/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

About human nature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here (syndrome)

Did we bump this thread *again*? Sheesh...

Anyway, I just thought of this: Why is 155 the cutoff here? Because that doesn't make any sense, statistically.

Most IQ tests use a standard deviation of either 15 or 16. If you're going to define "true genius" as anything related to IQ, it would make a lot of sense to use those standard deviations. (For those of you without stats classes, standard deviation is basically a measure of how far away someone is from the normal, and normal is a name for average, or the center of a bell curve.)

Two standard deviations is 130-132. That's the cutoff most schools use for gifted programs.

Three standard deviations is 145-148. I've seen this called "highly gifted", and some schools use it as a cutoff for gifted programs. This is the point where you're hitting multiple ceilings on IQ tests, and the accuracy starts to degrade pretty badly.

Four standard deviations is 160-164. At this point, I see phrases like "profoundly gifted"; in this range, IQ is nearly impossible to measure, and matters very little in any case because once you get into the highly-gifted category, it's pretty much certain that your IQ isn't going to be the factor that limits what you can do.

If you're going to define genius as anything related to IQ, you should probably use either the 145 or 160 cutoff, depending on how rare you're defining "genius" to be.

Also, sorry about the stats rant. I've been doing lots of analysis on lab data lately and I've had statistics on my mind pretty much 24/7...

Well....my full scale IQ has managed to go from the "very superior" range (143)
to the average range (104) in a matter of four years.

I had another WAIS test about a month ago and took one about four years
before that.

Both these tests were professionally-administered by neuropsychologists.


One reason I scored lower on this recent test has little or nothing to do with me
and everything to do with the new edition of WAIS (WAIS-IV.)


They are now double-weighing the value of both working memory and
processing speed on the new edition of WAIS.


While my working memory index score was in the high-ish end of average, (111)
my processing speed index score was only 86.

Research has shown that full scale IQ and similar scores tend to be
somewhat lower on this new edition of WAIS primarily for the reason
I mentioned.


But this isn't the entire reason my score was so much lower this time. While
my verbal comprehension index score was high (136) as usual, my perceptual-
organizational index score was in the borderline intellectual functioning range
at 79.


On my last WAIS four years ago....my PIQ was in the high average range
at 111 and my VIQ was very superior at 155.


I don't know exactly what to attribute this to, but I was far more depressed during this recent WAIS than I was during the one I took four years ago.


Also....I barely slept at all the night before this recent exam and I didn't eat anything before taking it either.


Beyond all those factors....I really don't know why I did so poorly this time
on both processing speed and perceptual-organizational tasks.

My recent scores on both are the lowest i've ever obtained out of all the
seven professionally-administered IQ tests i've had in my life.


The large discrepancy between VIQ and PIQ (in favor of VIQ) has been
present on all of them though.

The late Richard Feynman was a genius and he only scored 125 on a standardized IQ test. I suspect it had something to do with the way he interpreted some of the questions.

ruveyn

An IQ of 155 is exceeded by approximately 1% of the population. But I think the actual figure of 155 is taken from a survey of the average IQ of people considered to be geniuses, so their actual IQs had a wide range. I am not sure what the original source is, but the figure is widely quoted.

One point that most people miss is that the vast majority with "genius IQ" (all 65 million that are alive now, for instance) are living very ordinary lives.

My verbal IQ is about 150, but my performance IQ is 95. For those who don't know, Verbal is the standard IQ test, while performance is recognizing patterns, arranging blocks into certain shapes, etc. In other words, non-verbal stuff. Not non-verbal "social cues" but that's what they call it. But I'm not sure how much of that discrepancy is due to my Asperger's because my NT sister has an identical discrepancy and my mom suspects she does as well, although she has never been formally tested. One of my eval doctors said that in addition to Asperger's (which makes reading non-verbal cues difficult) I also have Non-Verbal Learning Disability, which causes such a discrepancy between the IQs and also compounds the social cue part of the Asperger's.

Is that what they are referring to when they talk about Non Verbal Learning Disorder? Not associated with non verbal cues but in pattern recognition? Also I had read earlier that typically kids with AS score better on verbal (i.e. words) and kids with HFA do better on performance. My son's performance scores were significantly higher than his verbal. Are they no longer taking that into account when they talk about the difference between As and HFA?

You're probably right it's not easy at all to understand what they truly mean by some question. I never took an official IQ test but did some tests in primary schools like every other kids at school, many disorders can make the results fluctuate and will give one a result that is actually lower than one's real potential. By the way, IQ is only a number based on your ability to... take IQ test, in a way they don't truly determine intelligence and most people who have a high IQ are not geniuses at all. My father has an IQ of 162 but he barely passed high school, he was mostly interested in mechanics and manual activities linked to this interest and is nowhere near a real genius (i.e : those scientists who did change the scientific history).

By the way most people don't take IQ tests or don't really take them seriously so the results may not be accurate. I also had a math teacher who told us that since IQ tests were based on math someone who had studied maths would probably do better than anyone who could be more intelligent than them.

True geniuses have changed the world.

Most of us did nothing.

i took some of the online tests and scored in the 130's-140's range.
Who knows how accurate those really are though, if even at all.
for all i know i'm a genius on a real test; people tell me that i seem pretty intelligent and mature for my age.
on the other hand maybe i'm just marginally smarter than average.
Either way, i can take comfort in that at least i'm not a dummy .

Mine is 162, and I do actually plot novels in my head frequently. I rarely end up actually typing them out, because I feel like once I have them plotted and scripted in my head they're essentially done, and then my interest in the subject wanes so I move on to something else.



People do call me arrogant at times, and statistically the intelligence gap between myself and an average person is the same as the gap between an average person and a chimpanzee. So, there are times when I feel like the only human walking amongst a society of apes.

When I was younger and would hear people talk about "being stranded on a desert island," and how horrible that would be, I always thought it sounded nice. To be alone with my thoughts and not have other people bothering me all the time, as long as there was plentiful food and fresh water sign me up.

Aimless wrote:

According to Dr. Byron Rourke, a Canadian neuropsychologist and one of the leading researchers of the NLD/NVLD syndrome, these are the rules for classifying
children (i'm pretty sure they apply to adults as well) who exhibit the NLD syndrome:






Question # 10

Are there any rules for the classification of children who exhibit NLD?




We have generated some rules for this purpose. The rules should be used only to determine whether a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation would be worthwhile. These rules are not a substitute for a neuropsychological evaluation.

Classification rules derived for 9- to 15-year-old children (Pelletier, Ahmad, & Rourke, 2001). (Percentages of cases for which each feature/rule applied). A brief version of the classification principle (in bold) follows each rule.

Note:
It is crucial to bear in mind that the importance of the rules presented here lies in the principles, not in the specific tests that were chosen to represent these principles. These principles are, of course, derived from the characteristics of NLD (See NLD Content and Dynamics), and are consistent with the proposed ICD definition of NLD (See Question #3). A consideration of all of these dimensions should allow for the characterization of groups of persons with NLD for research purposes (See Question #42) and for determining the extent to which the syndrome of NLD is represented in the behavioural phenotypes of various types of neurological disease, disorder, and dysfunction (See NLD and Neurological Disease).

(1) Less than two errors on simple tactile perception and suppression vs. finger agnosia, finger dysgraphesthesia, and astereognosis composite greater than 1 SD below the mean (90.9%)
Simple tactile-perceptual skills are superior to complex tactile-perceptual skills.

(2) WRAT /WRAT -R standard score for Reading is at least 8 points greater than Arithmetic (85.7%)
Single-word reading is superior to mechanical arithmetic.

(3) Two of WISC/WISC- R Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information are highest of the Verbal scale (77.9%)
Straightforward and/or rote verbal skills are superior to those involving more complex processing (e.g., Comprehension).

(4) Two of WISC/WISC -R Block Design, Object Assembly, and Coding subtests are the lowest of the Performance scale (76.6%)
Complex visual-spatial-organizational skills and speeded eye-hand coordination are impaired.

(5) Target Test at least 1 SD below the mean (63.6 %)
Memory for visual sequences is impaired.

(6) Grip strength within one standard deviation of the mean or above vs. Grooved Pegboard Test greater than one standard deviation below the mean (63.6%)
Simple motor skills are superior to those involving complex eye-hand coordination, especially under speeded conditions.

(7) Tactual Performance Test Right, Left, and Both hand times become progressively worse vis-a-vis the norms (59.7%)
Complex tactile-perceptual and problem-solving skills under novel conditions are impaired.

(8) WISC/WISC -R VIQ > PIQ by at least 10 points (27.3%)
Verbal skills are superior to visual-spatial-organizational skills.

Notes
(a) It should be clear that there is some overlap in the tests that contribute to some of these rules.

(b) These rules are very much in need of refinement, even after the rather impressive results of our first concurrent validity study.

(c) The following criteria are currently under investigation:

The first 5 features: Definite NLD
7 or 8 of these features: Definite NLD
5 or 6 of these features: Probable NLD
3 or 4 of these features: Questionable NLD
1 or 2 of these features: Low Probability of NLD



Classification rules derived for 7- and 8-year-old children (Drummond, Ahmad, & Rourke, 2005). (Percentages of cases for which each feature/rule applied). A brief version of the classification principle (in bold) follows each rule.

(1) Target Test at least 1 SD below the mean (90.0%)
Memory for visual sequences is impaired.

(2) Two of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Block Design, Object Assembly, and Coding subtests are the lowest of the Performance scale (90.0%)
Complex visual-spatial-organizational skills and speeded eye-hand coordination are impaired.

(3) Two of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information are the highest of the Verbal scale (80.0%)
Straightforward and/or rote verbal skills are superior to those involving more complex processing (e.g., Comprehension).

(4) Tactual Performance Test Right, Left, and Both hand times become progressively worse vis-a-vis the norms (77.8%)
Complex tactile-perceptual and problem-solving skills under novel conditions are impaired.

(5) Grip Strength within one standard deviation of the mean or above versus Grooved Pegboard Test greater than one standard deviation below the mean (70.0%)
Simple motor skills are superior to those involving complex eye-hand coordination, especially under speeded conditions.

(6) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children VIQ > PIQ by at least 10 points (70.0%)
Verbal skills are superior to visual-spatial-organizational skills.

(7) WRAT standard score for Reading is at least 8 points higher than Arithmetic (60.0%)
Single-word reading is superior to mechanical arithmetic.

(8) Less than two errors are made on simple tactile perception and suppression versus finger agnosia, finger dysgraphesthesia, and astereognosis composite greater than one standard deviation below the mean (10.0%)
Simple tactile-perceptual skills are superior to complex tactile-perceptual skills.

Particularly notable regarding this ranking of the rules/criteria is that criteria #1, 2, and 3 are evident 80-90% of the time. It would appear that dropping #8 as a criterion would, in all likelihood, have no appreciable effect on classification/diagnostic accuracy. The strict application of criteria #1 through 3 should result in very few false positives or false negatives.

Notes
(a) It should be clear that there is some overlap in the tests that contribute to some of these rules.

(b) These rules are very much in need of refinement, even after the rather impressive results of our first concurrent validity study.

(c) The following criteria are currently under investigation:

The first 3 features: Definite NLD
Two of the first 3 features and one of 4 or 5: Definite NLD
Criteria 4, 5, 6, & 7: Probable NLD
Only two of features 1 through 7: Questionable NLD
None of features 1 through 7: Low Probability of NLD

Notes:

(1) The interested reader should consult the two articles cited for details regarding how these rules were generated.

(2) Classification rules for children with Basic Phonological Processing Disabilities (BPPD) were also generated in these studies.

(3) In the Drummond et al. (2005) study it was determined that none of the children classified as probable or definite NLD met criteria for classification of probable or definite BPPD. Also, none of the children classified as probable or definite BPPD met criteria for classification of probable or definite NLD. Thus, the specificity of the classification rules was, in this sense, perfect (100%).


http://www.nld-bprourke.ca/BPRA10.html



According to these rules, I fall into the "definite NLD" category on everyone
of the neuropsychological evaluations i've had.

I tested out at 162 in the early 80's. Not sure where I would be now.
(Between aging and the Flynn effect, maybe it would be the same )

*sighs*


I would probably sell my soul in exchange for the sky-high IQ's some of you people have.


I could also live without the giant gap between my VIQ and PIQ.

Check my Nickname .... LOL

My IQ is definitely not impressive, since math/logic is my biggest weakness, which makes it amazing that I can manage to walk upright, with that IQ! I think it is around 120 or so on the Mensa.

My social IQ is very good though, since I have spend my whole life, trying to fit in, in the real world of NT's. I understand the most complex dynamics of human interaction, right down to the reason behind the reason why people do or say so and so in this or that situation. I even teach on it and write books about it.

But I still have no clue when a girl is flirting with me

So what is being a genius really? I love the description earlier about "thinking outside the box" etc, because if we look at history, who of all the so called geniuses have made the most profound discoveries and advancements for the human race as a whole? Isn't it all the people that did NOT just take what we learned in school for granted? Isn't it all the ones who just thought to themselves "What if....?" - Darwin is my hero on this example. He was so afraid to publish his views and findings, because he knew that it would rock the foundation of the establishment. Kepler likewise. The list goes on and on ....

Real genius, in my view, is when you are able to take to things, that are not directly related, and bring them together in new ways, to create something novel. The technique is called "Bricolage" and it is just a gift to all of us with an AS brain, since we can take all the useless information, that we cannot seem to forget, and put them to good use, in creating novel ideas and challenging the world as we know and perceive it.

That is why I call myself an Aspie Genius, not based on IQ scores, but on my ability to "rock the foundation, on which we base the self evident truths that shape our perceived reality". What we know is only what we have looked for so far, right?

I work with people everyday, helping them realize their true potential, and helping them bring it to life, helping them believe their value and worth, and "kick them to the stars" so that they can make them work in real life. I dig for gold, and I can find gold in everybody, wash it and help them make the sparkeling necklace that everyone will admire, when they wear it.

So thank God for all the people who are math/logic geniuses, without you I would not have survived for long, since all that is helping me cope with everyday life, is essentially based on what math is and what math can do.

But when will we get the opposite to IQ valued as much? When will the world realize, that being able to envision a totally different way for humanity, in our interaction with each other, is just as valueable as making up great math theorems? When will the world learn, that no sports team is much worth with only a great offense and no defense?

All men are created equal - but not all men are created equally skilled! And what we do in life, echoes in eternity!! !

/AG