Q&A

If You want to ask a question, please, check my FAQs first.
If You don't want your message to be posted on my site, please, let me know.

You can send Your questions related to this site to:
ulf.norlinger@bredband.net
(Your must always give me your name's initials or a pseudonym, if you want your message to be posted)

CONTENT

DATE: 04/24/98

Mr. Norlinger,

I found your web page on the estimated IQ's of various historical geniuses rather interesting. I was wondering - how did you come to the estimations that you did? Some of the scores differ substantially from other scores that I have seen reported in the past (and, to be honest, the scores that you report seem more reasonable).

Thank you.

CMPK

----

The main source for the estimates is a study made by a group of psychologists at Stanford University, California (mentioned in the sites' introduction). Its origin is from 1926, but it has been revised a couple of times. The last time, as far as I know, is by Dr. Catherine Morris Cox in The Mind, Life Science Library Series, 1964.

The rest is from various sources: Encyclopedia Britannica, Guinness Book of Records, Popular Science (Swedish magazine), Daily News (Swedish newspaper), my professor in Mathematics, a comparing study between the geniuses of their centuries in Mensa Research Journal, Buzan, etc.

The estimates are what they are - just estimates. They can't of course be justified.

DATE: 04/24/98

I've visited your IQ website and I wonder where you derive the idea that Russell thought that Nietzche's IQ and his own were 180.

Thank you.

----

I have read many of Russell's works, as he is one of my favourite authors, but I'm not sure from which book I got this information (It could have been Manners and Morals). However, it is not meant to be taken too seriously. Actually it is a sort of a Russell-ian joke. He said something like this: If you define a Nietzche's overman as a person with an IQ of at least 180 you surely want to be among them, as I do.

I apologize if I am perhaps a little bit unfair against Russell.

PS. I said nothing about Nietzche's IQ.

(A Web site visitor has later informed me that it was actually Human society in ethics and politics, Ch 5.UN)

DATE: 04/25/98

Ulf,

The articles and commentary gathered are very interesting. The relationship of IQ to Genius is of a highly fascinating nature. And in reading, the one thing that strikes me about the nature of Genius, is it's transcendence of IQ, be it in S.D. or the free variables of C.A. and M.A, and how that presence of Genius is communicated by an individual, whether the person be alive or dead.

Quote: These IQ tests are also made more difficult by the fact that it is often possible to logically, or from one's own value systems, arrive at answers that are as plausible as the one designated by the test designer.

This sentence is interesting in the fact that it shows the ambiguity in the IQ test problems at times, and that since problems of the world often incorporate a multi-dimensional ambiguity, i.e. a solution set, that IQ tests may be better designed by incorporating such an ambiguity.

DATE: 04/25/98

Hei,

Jeg leste med interesse din web-side med oversikt over estimert iq for kjente historiske genier. I den forbindelse har jeg et par kommentarer. For det første er det klart at disse estimatene er svært usikre siden en ikke har hatt tilgang til personene selv, men har måttet gjøre estimatene utfra mer eller mindre pålitelige kilder. For det andre bør en være klar over måten iq er blitt estimert på. Såvidt jeg vet er estimatene gjort utfra beretninger om subjektene som barn. De tallene som er oppgitt er derfor iq definert som mental alder delt på intellektuell alder. Denne måten å måle iq på kan en som kjent ikke bruke på voksne personer. For voksne er derimot iq antatt å være normalfordelt, vanligvis med et standardavvik på 16. Det betyr at pr. definisjon skal bare én person av ca. 10 milliarder ha en iq på over 200. Det er dermed svært lite sannsynelig at for eksempel Goethe som voksen hadde en iq på over 200. Ifølge opplysninger fra en person på rec.org.mensa som har forsket på iq, er det som regel slik at eksepsjonelt intelligente mennesker scorer langt høyere på tester som barn enn som voksne. For eksempel vil en person som scorer 180 som barn, som regel score rundt 150 som voksen.

----

Du har rätt i att man kan tycka att det är väl många personer som har haft en IQ över (eller lika med!) 200 (enligt tabell II). Man måste dock komma ihåg att Bell-kurvan som är en teoretisk representation av fördelningen av intelligensvärden (IQ) inte stämmer med verkligheten i sina yttre ändar. Osäkerheten är här av naturliga skäl mycket stor. Man har dock konstaterat att betydligt fler personer än vad Bell-kurvan utvisar, har extremt hög IQ (över 180). Statistiken säger visserligen (men med stor felmarginal) att en på 10 miljarder skulle kunna ha en IQ på 200 eller högre. Men i realiteten skulle siffran 1 på 3 miljarder ligga närmare sanningen. Om vi då utför tankeexperimentet att det har levat c:a 85 miljarder människor (Ja, det låter mycket. Men jag har sett den siffran) sen 10 000 år före år 0, då skulle det alltså ha kunnat funnits c:a 30 personer med så fantastisk IQ. Det är väl ändå rätt många.

En del menar på fullt allvar att det inte kan ha funnits någon med en IQ på 200 eller över. För dessa är Bell-kurvan helig: För hur många personer har det funnits som haft en IQ på 0 eller under? (Bell-kurvan är ju symmetrisk!).

Eftersom värdena i tabellen grundar sig på uppskattningar, så måste man naturligtvis ta dem med en nypa salt. Och den här undersökningen vid Stanford University av tidigare levande genier har ansetts som mycket kontroversiell och många har kritiserat den. Man måste dock komma ihåg att psykologerna som utförde undersökningen var väl medvetna om att intelligensvärdet normalt sjunker när personen ifråga når vuxen ålder. Notera att jag underströk värdet. Det är ju faktiskt så att personens absoluta aktuella intelligens fortfarande ökar. Detta återspeglas dock inte i värdet beroende på olika beräkningsmetoder för barn (relativt IQ) och vuxna (absolut IQ).

DATE: 06/13/98

You hear the phrase Idiot Savant a lot. Does this phrase have anything to do with Marilyn Savant?

Thanks,

----

In fact I don't know, but perhaps there could be a connection :-).

A seemingly idiot can be a genius, a genius can be an idiot within other areas. I don't believe Savant is an exception to this rule.

Look for an example at the Marilyn was wrong website:

http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/

DATE: 06/30/98

My intellectual heroes are John von Neumann and Alan Turing. Neumann must be up amongst the highest IQs ever, though I would not have a clue where to start to estimate a figure.

Regards

DATE: 08/11/98

Hi,

You should include Nietzsche (200+) and Bach (180) in your list!

Which is the best online test you can recommend? And what can you tell about project renaissance and that book the einstein method (something like that, anyway)? By the way, you probably would be interested in a page devoted to famous musicians with perfect pitch. Perfect pitch is the highest level of music IQ, so this page is somewhat an equivalent of yours.

http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/a/n/cancrians/index.htm

I suggested bach in YOUR list, because as far as he know he had a prodigious mind, beyond music abillity (which, of course, was incredible).

Yours,

----

I will maybe include Nietzsche and Bach if you give me the source for the made estimates. I have seen the figure 180 for Beethoven (src. Buzan) so it doesn't surprise me with your reported figure on Bach (He is after all the greatest classical composer in western music). I know that Nietzsche had a brilliant head for studying, and became a professor in classical philology at the age of only 23. He has unfortunately inspired some tyrants, who at the best have had a smattering understanding of his teachings.

I am very suspicious myself to those who proclaim that they can raise one's intelligence (at least at adult age). You can probably improve the results on certain tests. It has been shown, that on most IQ tests it is possible to improve one's results with at least 5 points through repeated accomplishments.

With mental gymnastics, made on a customed basis, you can keep your intelligence scores (displayed normally at its maximum at the age of 25) at about the same level throughout life.

I have not estimated the value of different on-line tests, but there exist a couple of good ones out there. You have one link on my site (Hot Links).

DATE: 08/16/98

Hi Ulf,

I was just browsing your site again when I noticed that Isaac Newton is not listed as a portrait on your chart. Surely he is one of the most influential people in history, and unquestionably a genius. Maybe you could explain on your site the criteria you used to include people, as well as how you estimated people's IQs.

----

Certainly, Newton is one of the most influential scientists throughout history. When I chose among them to be on the portraits, I gave first priority to those who have showed examples on greatest intelligence (partly, using the investigation made by the team at Stanford Univ.), and second priority to those who have had an outstanding impact on the development within certain areas. I tried to choose one man - woman pair from at the most each generation. Unfortunately, Newton was contemporary with Leibniz. In that case I was constrained to use my selection criteria.

However, after your proposal I have chosen to include Newton. Can you find him on my page? HINT: Leibniz and Newton have something in common.

DATE: 09/01/98

Hej!

Mitt namn är C.C. och jag undervisar i psykologi på gymnasienivå. Vi håller nu på att prata om differentiell psykologi och där ibland intelligenstest. Anledningen till att jag skiver dig är att jag under en lektion fick en fråga gällande föreningar för personer med högt IQ samt hur högt IQ som har uppmätts på en person i Sverige.

----

Det högsta värde som mig veterligen har uppmätts på någon person i Sverige är inte IQ 192 som angivits för Jola Sigmond. Du har kanske sett hans spalt i Expressen's bilaga Exxet. Egentligen är det rätt meningslöst att ange ett intelligensvärde utan att upplysa om vilken skala som använts. Värdet i Exxet refererar till Cattell's intelligenskvotskala och motsvarar ungefär IQ 156 enligt den skala (Terman - Binet) som nästan utan undantag används i Sverige. Man räknar med att ungefär 1 på 5000 personer i Sverige når upp till samma intelligensvärden som Jola. Det högsta värde som uppmätts i Sverige är IQ 180 (Terman-Binet) för matematikern och dechiffreringsgurun Arne Beurling (Han lyckades bl.a. med den fenomenala bedriften att skapa ett dechiffreringssystem för de berömda tyska Enigma krypteringsmaskinerna under andra världskriget...på mindre än två veckor … med enbart papper och penna!).

IQ 180 motsvarar ungefär vad som är statistiskt möjligt att uppnå för en befolkning på 9 miljoner.

Även bortgångne generalsekreteraren för FN, Dag Hammarskjöld, skulle ha haft ett mycket högt IQ.

PS. Det kan kanske också vara av intresse att veta att enligt en undersökning för Europa så har den genomsnittlige svensken en IQ på 106 vilket placerar honom/henne på fjärde plats i Europa (efter Holland, Tyskland och Polen).

DATE: 09/04/98

Possible Bug (follow up)

I've just played around a bit more with your IQ Conversions utility and I've come to think that perhaps your sample population is not restricted to those residing on the planet presently, but perhaps those currently living on Earth in addition to those who've lived on this planet before. Is that correct? And the size of this sample...100 billion?

Thanks again.

----

Yes, you are right. It is not a bug, but it is easy to start from the wrong assumption. The statistics for this input box is performed on a rough estimate (Reader's Digest) of the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (That is us) since about 50 000 years B.C. and up to now. And, as you correctly estimated, I have set the number to 100 billion. The figures are also empirically adjusted for scores above IQ 180 and below IQ 40 (St-Bin). I hope you have Browser version 4.0 or later, as I have noticed some problems with the calculations on older Browsers.

DATE: 11/10/98

Do you think is possible to improve our intelligence? I make a test and the result was about 164 according to the Cattell's scale. I would like to achieve 205 of the same scale and I hope is possible, when I will be older. Is it in this way?

Thank you for the answer.

----

On the question if it's possible to improve one's scores on an IQ-test: It is. But with how much depends to a large extent on your age. The younger you are, the more you can improve your scores. Don't be too optimistic, though. Your score at 164 Cattell, is already very high, indeed. With intellectual training, especially with help of a repertoire of problem solving methods and approaches, and practice with IQ-tests, it is possible to score 5 - 10 points, perhaps up to one standard deviation, better on these tests.

In my own view there is no intrinsic value on scoring high on IQ-tests if it's not coupled with true and significant improvement in intelligence, which is not a necessary consequence of IQ-test related training! Intelligence is too complex for that.

Best wishes with you ambitions,

PS. The value 205 Cattell is the ceiling for many tests. To reach that high, you have to be a child prodigy.

DATE: 12/29/98

Hvilke IQ- skalaer blir mest brukt på Internett?

Jeg er ikke sikker.

----

Den skala som förekommer mest på Internet bör vara Stanford-Binet (Tidigare reviderad Terman). Cattell-skalan infördes för att man skulle kunna mäta intelligensen hos infödingar, bl.a. Jo, det är faktiskt sikkert. Den använder ett skriftbefriat IQ-test (enbart symboler) för att analfabeter i U-länderna skulle kunna utföra testerna.

De flesta HIQ sällskap accepterar IQ-tester som utförts enligt någon av de etablerade skalorna. Mig veterligen är det bara Mensa som använder Cattell-skalan. Detta för att förenkla intagningen från icke engelskspråkiga länder.

Med venlig hilsen,

DATE: 02/17/99

According to your webpage, Hypatia of Alexandria, Sofia Kovalevskaya, and Maria Gaetana Agnesi are of greater intelligence than Carl Friedrich Gauss, the so-called prince of mathematicians. I find this hard to believe. If, as you say, the resultant IQs were based largely on the degree of brightness and intelligence each subject showed before attaining the age of 17, then surely one cannot neglect Gauss' precocity, of which there are numerous examples. One incident that comes to mind is his derivation of the arithmetic series summation formula when he was only in grade two (or its equivalent). While the mathematicians above are certainly of note (Hypatia, in particular), I have a hard time coming to grips with the possibility of their intelligence exceeding Gauss'. I, however, am no expert in the life stories of these individuals. I am just looking for reassurance that these estimated IQs have some solid foundation. Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that the inclusion of several females was more an attempt at political correctness than an attempt at accuracy.

----

The investigation at Stanford University is only represented by the results in Table II. The fifty-fifty division between men's and women's portraits is intentional. It is my personal view on which men and women were among the most brilliant under different time periods. Carl Friedrich Gauss, an outstanding mathematician, has been mentioned on table II (also Alexander von Humboldt). I took these two away for a more pleasing division between men and women. But I am aware of that this is not reflected in the real situation.

DATE: 02/23/99

Dear Ulf:

Loved your Genius IQ site.

But what's the estimated IQ of Sir Isaac Newton? Couldn't find on the list.

How about Albert Einstein?

Did you see the film Good Will Hunting? If so, how high would you estimate this kid's IQ to be?

Are you a clinical psychologist? How did you arrive at these estimates? What are your sources?

Cheers,

----

If you read the third paragraph on my home page, you will see that according to a paper Einstein should have had just above 160. However, it is not the level itself that impress the most, but his creative genius.

Yes, I have seen the movie with Will Hunting. I remember that I for fun estimated his IQ to be about 190 (The same estimate has been given for Sir Isaac Newton in The Mind, 1964). Will had some resemblance with the American chess player Bobby Fisher: Both have astronomical IQs and remarkable photographic memories.

The estimates given in table II are mainly based on a revised investigation at Stanford University (1st paragraph).

No, I'm not a psychologist, but a synthesis between a philosopher and a computer scientist ;-).

DATE: 03/20/99

Hello , I just have a question : I toke the European IQ test on the Internet and they said I have over 153, perhaps you can tell me if this is real.

Sincerely

----

Unfortunately I don't know which European IQ test you mean. But the score 153 says nothing if ...

... it is not associated with an intelligence scale
... it is a time-limit test and you have not stopped in time (If it is a Capacity Test the time is rather unessential)
... you have found the answers from outside yourself (books, friends, etc)!

Important note: Most tests not performed under supervision of a professional - where the tests are constructed by professionals (statistically correlated), and to get the IQ score you have to perform a battery of tests - can't be considered as really serious.

So under all circumstances you have to take the result with a grain of salt. The exact number itself (153) is also far too optimistic. One could say: This guy has with great probability an intelligence score which lies somewhere in the 150 range on the Stanford-Binet scale statistically verified against this region's (country, etc) population.

DATE: 03/20/99

Recently read biography of Benjamin Franklin again. When he died at Philadelphia early in the 19th century, he was a celebrated in the western world as a scientist, inventor, diplomat, politican, etc.

Here and there I have seen passing comments about his "genius", but nowhere have I seen anything published on his intellect.

Was Franklin a genius by the measures used in your web page and, if so, where would he rank?

----

Certainly was he a genius! Actually he was mentioned in the Stanford University study of earlier living geniuses. If I remember rightly he was ranked at about the same level as Charles Darwin (The estimate IQ 160 has been given for Franklin in The Mind, 1964).

DATE: 04/09/99

Hej!

Jag har en fråga beträffande IQ mätning.

Jag fick 117 i IQ på ett test som jag gjorde på en hemsida, det var närmare bestämt European IQ-Test. Min pappa fick 156 i IQ på samma test.

Jag är 15 år och han 50, motsvarar min iq vid 15 högre när jag blivit 50?

Hälsningar

----

Jag hoppas du inte tar resultaten från testet för allvarligt. Den här typen av tester på Internet gör man ju mest för skojs skull (Vilken skala har man använt? Vilken är refererensgruppen? Var finns de verbala testerna, t.ex.? - Jo, jag tog en glutt på testet).

Och inte minst: För vilken åldersgrupp är det anpassat.

Ponera att det är anpassat för vuxna, vilket är mest troligt.

Man räknar med att intelligensen stiger fram till ungefär sjuttonårsåldern. Det innebär att din pappas IQ fortfarande skulle vara 156, men att din - enligt definitionen på IQ - skulle kunna vara 17*117/15=132.

Dags för att söka medlemskap i Mensa kanske ;-).

Statistiskt är detta förhållande mellan barn och förälder rätt vanligt (Detta är också det enda säkra man kan utläsa av testet - förutsatt att din pappa inte har fuskat!).

DATE: 04/22/99

(I have taken the liberty to shorten this long letter. UN)

I am writing to you about your "Estimated IQs of the Greatest Geniuses". I think that page is one of my favorites.

The reason why I'm writing you this is because I think you can help me. I have done many IQ tests on the internet, and they've all given me a variety of answers:

IQ 125 http://www.queendom.com/iq.html
IQ 132 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1641/iqown2.html
IQ 132 on a CD ROM by MEMOREX SOFTWARE
IQ 146 on a CD ROM by GLOBAL STAR SOFTWARE (but there were a lot of questions that were similar to the ones on the MEMOREX SOFTWARE CD ROM)
IQ 140 http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3055/cyiq-test.html
IQ 156 http://www.stateless.com/savell/iq.html
IQ 165+ http://www.virtnet.com/familyent/testcntr/iqtest.html
IQ 166 http://www.iqtest.com

Personally I think my IQ is somewhere between 120 and 140, where 130 is considered gifted.

Do you think I'm gifted? Who would I be able to contact that would be able to decipher the scores on all the tests I've done and give me a "real" score?

It would be great if you could tell me something, but it's okay if you want to disregard this letter.

----

I can understand your interest in your own abilities, as it is a part of one's self-knowledge.

To begin, don't take those on-line tests too seriously. As you have noticed, there are very big differences between the results - which gives a first indication of their lack of reliability. And what are the scales?

A safe result can only be given by a professional (Can't your cousin help you?). However, there are many good books on the subject, on the market, giving adequate answers. For example, H.J. Eysenck's Know Your Own I.Q..

But I think that it is, at least, rather safe to say that you are gifted. Especially when taking into consideration your young age (Actually, from my subconsciousness it is popping up a feeling that you have I.Q. 132 on the Stanford-Binet scale. Time to join Mensa perhaps? ;-)

DATE: 05/08/99

Interesting page. I was tested ad nauseaum between the ages of 5 and 10 and was told that my mean IQ was somewhere around 211. I'm now 24 and I wonder what value that number has anymore. Any thoughts on this?

Regards,

----

Thanks for your interest in my home page.

I don't know to which intelligence scale your measured IQ belongs. But, of course, it was incredibly high no matter which scale we refer to (Sorry, if you felt that you were tested in absur'dum).

However, serious research have showed that a person scoring around 210 St-Bin as a child, normally scores around 170 St-Bin as an adult (Like a really brilliant mathematician).

DATE: 05/26/99

I was wondering why you decided to hide Newton behind Leibniz?

----

Experts regard Leibniz as a broader genius than Newton, so therefore the link is from the text of Leibniz to the text of Newton, and not the other way around.

Important note: If you have Internet Explorer you may not see the text and photo of Newton.

DATE: 05/27/99

I like your site very much but I would like to see W.J. Sidis under a different heading. What do you mean by Amazing, but the truth? - he was a genius, and maybe due to unfortunate circumstances did not achieve as much as he could have, but he certainly wasn't a failure. Also, the description under the picture gives an inaccurate impression of him, described by the NY Times as the result of a forcing experiment, which he was not. The Times doesn't deserve to be quoted here or anywhere.

A.L.

----

The heading Amazing, but the truth? refers to the extremely improbable IQ-scores, mentioned in the texts. In the case of W.J. Sidis it can partly be explained through some confusion with his amazing photographic memory. He can't be blamed for the sensationalism around him, though, but the people interpreting him. Of course he was a great genius. It is, however, up to the reader to judge the degree of truth when the quote comes from the Times. I think the page arrived at from a link from this photo about Sidis, hardly can said to be underestimating him.

DATE: 06/01/99

I submit that the neanderthals were mostly geniuses, their brains being 20% bigger than ours. They do not appear on your list, although admittedly it would be hard to measure their i.q.

----

Excuse me, but I assume that you are joking. Otherwise I can give you a bunch of counter-evidence.

DATE: 06/09/99

Just found your web site. It is EXCELLENT. I've been trying to find a list of the IQ's of our top minds for ages. However, I couldn't see where the IQs were for all the people with photos eg. Stephen Hawking. Are there longer lists? I couldn't see any in your hot links section. Also, do you know what Bill Gates IQ is?

Thanks
P.F.

----

Thanks for your letter and compliments about my site.

Note: All figures refer to the Stanford-Binet (revised Terman) Intelligence Scale.

Unfortunately I don't know the IQs for the main part of the persons displayed on my site. I know that Stephen Hawking is said to have 160+, and there have been guesses for Hypatia and Plato (170). The list I refer to has originally been published in Genetic Studies of Geniuses, Vol II, by Catherine Morris Cox (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1926). You can't find it on the Internet - only excerpts from it - but perhaps you can get it through some well-assorted bookstore. You can also search for the revised study by Dr. Catherine Morris Cox, in The Mind, Life Science Library Series, 1964.

You have luck! In fact I know the IQ for Bill Gates from a safe source: 160.

Statistically you would find the most intelligent (if eq. highest IQ) persons among the most brilliant mathematicians (that is to a great degree caused by how IQ is measured): Like John von Neumann and Alan Turing. Such persons can sometimes score up to 180 at adult age.

DATE: 06/21/99

I recently came across a book Origins of Genius, by Simonton indicating that Charles Darwin was assigned a "Terman" IQ of 135. This was constrasted with the well known "Terman" IQ for Galton of 200. Could you elaborate on your sources for Darwin's IQ of 165 and give an opinion, fatuous or otherwise, as why you believe a person with such accomplishments as Darwin could pale in comparison IQ wise to Galton? Perhaps your last entry on DATE: 06/09/99 to do with mathematics and IQ could be a baseboard?

----

I have seen the figure 135 Terman for Charles Darwin before - In the original publication of the list which I am also referring to. Many of the estimates there were set ridiculously low because of lack of data: Eg. 135 for Leonardo da Vinci, 115 for Emanuel Swedenborg, and 105 for Nicolaus Copernicus!

However, the estimates on my site are from a later revision, also partly published in an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, and used in Guiness Book of Records.

Sir Francis Galton was a genius, although I haven't seen this estimate. But I must say: Something is terribly wrong here. How could a country - England - with roughly 15 million people at that time, accommodate at least two contemporary persons with such incredibly high IQs (the other one was J.S. Mill)? Remember that only one person per one billion people can be expected to have an IQ near 200 Terman or above!

PS. As Darwin and Galton were cousins it is not unlikely that their intelligence levels were about the same (Actually, if 200 was expressed as a Cattell value, it would correspond to 167 Terman, near the estimate for Darwin. Or is the value measured in his childhood?).

DATE: 06/26/99

I think you have clearly misunderstood of the term Genius,

Many people you have shown on your web page might be highest in their caliber in terms of IQ, but many are no where near Geniuses. Genius means to give something new to the world, that didnt exist before. (mostly within Arts,Literature and Sciences). These contributions have to show the highest forms of unrivalled creativity and imagination. Although you have mentioned explicitly the names of some of these geniuses, many do not belong to this category. For instance Newton and Einstein are considered as two of the greatest geniuses in physics, if not the whole mankind. However, Stephen Hawking is not a genius. He might be a first rate physicist similar to Fred Hoyle or Openheimer, but not a genius. Giving the status of genius to many people with exceptional IQ's will undermine the prestiege of this term. And, the experts have found for some reason that, Genius has only been found in men. This could have been a biological or a social reason. If you want to learn more on this, please refer to the following book; Genius by Eysenck (Cambridge press 1993).

I hope you will not take this correction as an offense.

S.S.

----

Thanks for your letter and interesting comments.

Your interpretation of a Genius makes me think of John Hersey's; True genius rearranges old material in a way never seen...before. This is according to one definition of genius, i.e. a person with exceptional or transcendent intellectual and creative powers. The quotation above is a more poetic approach than the psychological (intellectualistic): A person who on a standardized IQ test scores above 150 on the Terman Intelligence Scale. Of course, this definition doesn't measure artistic genius, or genius in diplomacy or acting.

The persons on my site fall under the first two definitions, or either of them.

Both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are famous for their extraordinary creative genius, but eg. John Stuart Mill is not: The most of his works are extensions of others' results. Nevertheless he is regarded as a Genius.

PS. To not lower the prestige of the term, and to differentiate between the meanings, perhaps we can agree on that persons satisfying the first definition can be called true Geniuses but the others only Geniuses. ;-)

DATE: 06/29/99

After reading parts of your site, which I found very informative,I have three questions. First, my IQ was measured at 137 when I was 10 years old and then 141 when I was 11. The 4 point difference is relatively great and I was wondering what it implies, if anything. Also, I am 15 now and I am curious as to what my IQ would come out to if I was to take the test again. Do you think a significant drop or increase would occur?

Finally, I am extremely interested in the subject of IQs and how they relate to the different types of inteligence. For example, I am a very profound thinker and I regard myself as quite gifted, however, I am only above average as far as mathematics is concerned. I can learn, understand, and remember any level of math (as long as I have the background information for it), but I could never pioneer in the subject or figure anything to do with it out on my own. In contrast, I can understand and come up with abstruse concepts and ideas regarding things such as human behavior in a way that a philosopher or writer would. If the occupation of "philosopher" still existed, it would be my first choice =).

What aspect or aspects of intelligence do IQ tests measure?, and why do mathematicians seem to have the highest IQs? Are the areas of the brain that deal with math-type problem solving related to areas of the brain that deal with different types of thinking very closely?

I am sorry I have so many questions. I would greatly appreciate if you answered them them to the best of your knowledge for me. I would also appreciate links to any sites that might have answers I am looking for. Books are good to.

Thank you very much,

K.R.

----

Thanks for your long letter.

Your increase with 4 points between the two IQ tests can most likely be credited to a "practice effect". Your IQ today should still lie around 140.

I am inclined to assert that you have a typical "female" profile of talent: Strong verbally, but weaker at mathematical thinking. It also seems characteristic that your philosophical disposition is practical (represented by phil. branches as Ethics, Aesthetics, Value Theory, etc.) rather than theoretical (Logic, Science-, Knowledge Theory, etc.).

Can't you teach Philosophy at a high school/college/university, in the future?

Fundamental qualities for succeeding in IQ tests are without doubt: Power of concentration, Creativity, and Capacity for logical thinking. (That is due to the intellectualistic nature of IQ tests). Qualities mathematicians often have plenty of. The ability to think logically solely enhance many of the functions in brain.

Your intelligence quotient is at such a level that you can apply for membership in several HIQ socities. Eg. Mensa, Intertel and Colloquy. Both Mensa and Intertel requires an annual fee, but Colloquy is a free society entirely based on the Internet. In these societies you will be able to find the answers to many of your IQ related questions.

Some good links you can find in my Hot Links section.

One of the best books I have read on the subject is IQ, A Mensa Analysis and History, by the earlier president in British Mensa, Victor Serebriakoff.

I hope you feel, at least, a little bit more satisfied after my attempts to answer your questions (Unfortunately, I haven't the time to dive too much into your questions).

DATE: 07/04/99

As far as I know Andrew Wiles didn't win a Fields medal for the Fermat proof.

Why not?

N.E.

----

J.C. Fields wished that the awards should recognize both existing mathematical work and also the promise of future achievement. To fit with these wishes Fields Medals are only awarded to mathematicans under the age of 40.

As Andrew J. Wiles was 43 at the time of the proof he was not considered for the price! But his achievement was so unprecedented that he was rewarded a special tribute, the IMU silver plaque (1998).

DATE: 07/06/99

The names Paul Coojman and Ronald Hoeflin are often associated with high ceiling IQ tests. Assuming M. Savants claims to the highest IQ, doesn't that make testing her by someone else with a lower IQ such as either of the two above mentioned individuals problematic?

In answering a reply about a person tested during their childhood you provided the estimate that a child who tested near 210 would be somewhere near 170 as an adult. Could you provide a similar estimate for a 9yr. old who tested at 174?

W.C.

----

Cooijmans' and Hoeflin's tests have been normed using other well-established supervised time limited tests. However, these two test designers' tests are unsupervised power (no time limit) tests - and the problems which follow with that are obvious - and it is also very hard to discriminate at such high IQ scores the tests are designed for. So I am inclined to believe that those tests only give rough estimates.

I think that the problem with the test subject beeing more intelligent than the test designer, is of minor importance. It is mostly easier for you to design a problem, than it is for another to solve it ;-). For time limited tests, another important factor is speed (No time limit is set for the test designer!). Parenthetical note: M. Savant scored IQ 186 on the Mega test (designed by Hoeflin).

174 as a child should correspond to 145-150 as an adult.

DATE: 07/28/99

Is GCA (General Conceptual Ability) considered the same thing as IQ when testing a child of 6 yrs. old? We had our son tested and the intellectual evaluation that came back did not use the term IQ at all so we are wondering if it is the same and where does Standard Score of 138 fit into the realm of IQ scores for a 6 year old boy. Anything you can tell us or perhaps give us information on will be greatly appreciated.

L.O.

----

GCA is an expression for the scores measured with the well standardized Differential Ability Scales (DAS), which correlates highly with specifically the Wechsler Scales. The Wechsler Scales for children (from 6 year and up) have a standard deviation of 15 and the wide-spread Stanford-Binet Scale a standard deviation of 16, so GCA 138 should correspond to IQ 138 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scales and about IQ 140 St-Bin, with some uncertainty derived from different compositions of the tests (i.e. biased against different parts of the profile of talent).

DATE: 08/06/99

What has been done to see if other parts of the brain can be used? In other words, the other 87% of our brain; what is that part used for, and what physiologically is different with people with very high I.Q.'s?

S.H.

----

I must admit that my knowledge within this area, is strongly limited.

What I have heard is that the thinking takes place in the cerebral cortex. The rest of the brain isn't involved in the thinking processes, but necessary for a well-functioning human body (Perhaps we could say that those 13% is what separate us from other non-thinking animals).

There also seems that extra many convolutions of the brain and connections between neurons, plus enhanced oxygen supply to the brain, increases the power (capacity) of the brain.

Typically, during the years the brain evolves and we are constantly learning new things - and as a consequence the capacity is raised - the number of connections between neurons increases steadily.

Also the size of the brain has some importance, although less than - perhaps - expected.

Questions & Answers

Page 1

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4