Even Forrest Gump’s IQ was 75. But then again, he was a multimillionaire and Medal of Honor winner.
Not precisely reliable, but it does provide an estimate. If you score >140, you’re smart, regardless if you prepped or what not. I wouldn’t use IQ to rank two closely matched individuals though, for sure, as you can score lower or higher based on how much sleep you got or if you missed your morning coffee. But directionally, I think they can provide general insight.
Just some FYI - here are some IQ facts that I learned a couple of years ago while reading some stuff.
The average IQ in America is, by definition, 100, with a standard deviation of 15.
But since researchers always set the average = 100, there is some “drift” in the average intelligence of Americans. It’s estimated that a person who scored 100 in the 1950’s would score around 120 today, because people as a whole have gotten more intelligent (at least based on g, or whatever the test is supposed to examine).
The average Ivy League graduate has an IQ of about 135.
I don’t buy it. I saw a really interesting documentary called “Idiocracy” that completely and credibly refutes this claim.
Greenman is probably right on the fact, but wrong on interpretation. If someone who scored 100 in 1950 would score 120 today, that means the average American has become dumber, not smarter. Someone who was average in 1950 is now more than 1 standard deviation above average. If Greenie’s stats are correct.
Hmmm…now I wonder which it was.
I recall thinking that people are about 20 points “smarter” today than they were fifty years ago. But I can’t recall the source exactly.
I interpreted that not as the same person, but the average person. Such that the average person would score 100 in 1950, but the average person would score 120 today if that same scale were used. So 120 has been adjusted to 100, making the current average person smarter.
But as I already noted, my IQ is roughly 72, so whatever.
Wikipedia (the ultimate source of all knowledge) talks about this in their IQ page and the Flynn Effect page.
Basically, IQ points have been rising at the rate of about 3 pts per decade. So if you have a group of people from 2010 take the the 1950 test, they’d average 120 on the test, which means they’re 20 points smarter than the people who took the test in 1950.
So people are getting smarter, at least according to this theory and this methodolgy.
(Edit - Inky posted while I was typing. And my source was probably “The Bell Curve”. Take that for what it’s worth.)
Greenman is correct; but it doesn’t necessarily mean humans are getting innately more intelligent, just achieving higher levels of book learnin’. Some American pioneer in the early 19th century would get demolished by an IQ test, but he could do a lot of practical things that we absolutely could not. Abstract thinking was not really valued outside of a extremely narrow slice of the population until the very recent past in historical terms.
Also, I’m inclined to think that anyone who believes their IQ is 72 is dumb enough for that to be the case.
Abstract reasoning and the like is not book learning. IQ tests don’t test knowledge. Leonardo Di Vinci would have still had a high IQ today. As would Copernicus or Galileo. Or whatever. Those skills were less desired in times when sustainance was more important, but its not as though no gifted reasoners existed.
Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus… sounds like the hoi polloi to me!
mensa considers 720 on the gmat as the equivalency of an IQ of 132 (their entrance requirement). i would defer to the main high IQ society when it comes to determining these things, considering its all they do. we know that IQ does predict GPAs (in high school and post-secondary) and future salary expectations well. we also know that comparison of IQs within 2 standard deviations are useful in determining relative intelligence. it is only beyond IQ of 132 and below 68 (2 standard deviations) that comparisons are useless as accurately measuring intellegence beyond these markers is currently impossible.
note: you can study for an IQ test just as much as the GMAT. its just a matter of practicing stupid little problems and riddles until your brain is trained to think a certain way, and quickly. ever heard of lumosity.com? you don’t actually get smarter, you just get better at doing what they ask you to do.
From the link: “But other experts argue that if we are becoming more stupid, better healthcare and technology means the ‘problem’ will regulate itself.”
Yeah right. That is until some genius decides that Brawndo is bad for crops, causing a worldwide economic collapse.
Everyone that thinks that IQ=success should really give Malcolm Galdwell’s Outlier’s a read as it deals with this exact topic.
It doesn’t equal success, but there is a real correlation.
As I recall, Outliers made the point that there was a serious correlation, but at the extreme end the correlation fades. He wrote about the savants who couldn’t really hold a steady job, which makes a lot of sense.
something that was known of IQ tests, far before Gladwell’s Outliers. we’ve always known that IQ tests fail in accurately determining IQ beyond 2 standard deviations from the mean.
the book is called Outliers. it probably wouldn’t be useful in making conclusions about the majority.
What about making conclusions about the majority of outliers?