Nobody Alive Has 200 IQ
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- I try to explain why no human alive has above 200 IQ by looking at the definition of IQ and then calculating the probability of at least 1 person alive having 200 IQ. Let me know what you think about the subject.
-------------------------------------
Contact me
Twitch: / pas1729
Twitter: / pas1729
Reddit: / puzzlesandsolutions
Discord: PAS#2348
Facebook: / puzzles-and-solutions-...
The Puzzles & Solutions channel will be dedicated to solving puzzles and other things similar to puzzles.
I only ever heard of Einstein having 160
This is a specific method when you measure the indicator of iq on the basis of life achievements or well-known mental things.
@@Zvirnabantsi IQ tests have been existing since the late 18 hundreds - early 19 hundreds.
Einstein had an IQ of 160 but Tesla's iQ was higher.
@@carmenwilliams6428 The first modern intelligence test in IQ history was developed in 1904, by Alfred Binet (1857-1911) and Theodore Simon (1873-1961).
The problem is, nobody really can say for sure what Einstein’s IQ was. There’s no indication that he ever was tested. Indeed, IQ testing was still in its beginning stages in the early 1900s, when Einstein first emerged as a scientific luminary. Since then, the tests have evolved significantly. The maximum IQ score assigned by the WAIS-IV, a commonly-used test today, is 160. A score of 135 or above puts a person in the 99th percentile of the population. News articles often put Einstein’s IQ at 160, though it’s unclear what that estimate is based upon.
@@carmenwilliams6428 I really wonder how do you get such info, beside that the fact that Einstein never took an IQ test is quite well known, also these are just certain rumoured approximations that you'd hear about famous personalities IQ.
Yeah also, IQ tests are measured from a long time, but the older method is quite very inaccurate imo which was something like Mental Age/actual age * some factor, today standardised test although not perfect but still are a reliable source of getting your IQ info.
Well, that the estimation. He never took it himself, so we'll never know what his score really is.
If I understand correctly, modern IQ tests will give you a score based on what % of the population you surpassed. But there is an inherent error in this, because this model considers the average IQ of humanity as immutably 100. Someone who surpasses 50% of the world today and someone who surpassed 50% of the world 50 years ago do not have the same IQ, because the humanity average intelligence has changed. In my opinion, the score should be based on something more solid, because this model is highly volatile over the time.
Duh.... thats why its called a sample..
Interesting video, what do you think about William James Sidis?
I haven't read any of his book/work but I have read some about him and he seems smart. Id love to read 'The Animate and the Inanimate' book. I dont think he has a significantly high IQ as people claim.
for his IQ:
There are claims that he had 250-300 IQ, however that would be impossible according to this quote [from wikipedia lol]:
"It has been acknowledged that Helena and William's mother Sarah had developed a reputation of exaggerated claims about the Sidi's family. Helena had also falsely claimed that the Civil Service exam William took in 1933 was an IQ test and that his ranking of 254 was instead an IQ score of 254."
If we assume he scored 250-300 IQ on a different test, then he would still rank 254 on this test. 253 people would score higher than him and therefore they should also have IQs in the 200-300 range. This is just unrealistic. 254 people scoring that high on a test with not that many participants.
Why would 253 people have an higher iq score than him if he ranked 254 in a Civil Service Exam as said in the quote?
The only possible flaw I see in your reasoning is as follows: You state that only one in 76.4 billion people will have an IQ of >200. However, as you mention well over 100 billion humans have lived throughout history (I have seen figures of nearly 120 billion) - with most of those being in just the last few centuries. Is it not quite possible that the human who most likely had >200IQ could be one that is alive today - given our population is bigger than ever?
The only issue is that average intelligence has probably gone up quite dramatically over the last couple hundred years (though if IQ is purely relative and 100 should always be the average in a perfectly conducted IQ test then this should not matter). The other obvious flaw with my point is that if IQ can only accurately be measured in individuals aged between 18-65, then that is obviously a smaller percentage of the population (though still a substantial one so I believe the point still stands).
I also do not think that there being "only" a 9.82% chance of the event occuring is low enough to state, with certainty, that it has not occurred. A more accurate position would probably be "why it is almost impossible anyone alive has an IQ of 200+".
Did you try out big 5 personality test 🤔....what about your big 5s?
what about me
What's your job...what degree you got 🤔..I've been watching your vids, figuring out what your job is😅
I study biotech master :)
Its statistics man, even if the maths tells us that, biology can very easily come along and break that simplification of a natural phenomenon. Chimera's are one example of biology breaking the rules.
I agree that biology doesn't follow statistical distributions perfectly, however IQ is defined to be follow a normal distribution "perfectly".
For example lets say that we were measuring height instead and the human population fitted close to a normal distribution with an average of 175 cm and a standard deviation of 10 cm. This distribution would naturally have statistical outliers, but this is because we are measuring a real quantity [height].
Instead imagine if we converted height into a relative measurement.
We go from "cm" to "rh = relative height".
Relative height will be defined as a normal distribution with an average of 175 rh and a standard deviation of 10 rh.
Even though height and relative height has the same average and standard deviation, they do not have the same distribution. A height of 192 cm would not be equivalent to a relative height of 192 rh.
Just imagine that when it comes to height, we have we have too many people that are too tall and too many people that are too short [compared to the normal distribution]. Relative height would fix these outliers closer to the average score, such that the distribution became truly normal.
So maybe
175 cm people have 175 rh
180 cm people have 181 rh
185 cm people have 184.5 rh
190 cm people have 188.7 rh
We do not have a linear relationship between height and relative height. We squeeze and pull the real height population so that it becomes truly normal.
Sorry if I made any of this unclear, I just woke up so im just rambling away :P
While the math is sound, it makes the mistake of taking probability too strictly. Highly improbable events happen all of the time. There is a very small chance of getting hit by a car and then hit by lightening, but that event chain is possible. So, you can state it with moderate confidence that no one alive has an IQ >= 200, it is still within the realm of possibility that 1 person does, or heck, even 3 people. Randomness can result in clustering of probabilistic events too. Perhaps 3 individuals hit that probability now, and no one will hit it for 200 years, then 1 after that, and so on. So, good math, but taking the math too strictly. If I were a betting man, I'd fully agree with you, but that is me playing the odds while still knowing it is possible. However, you seem to state it with too much confidence. Though, towards the end of the video you do word it more appropriately, so I'd more so like to see the title, and your other wording to express the proper nuance of the subject. Otherwise you'll get people that miss the nuance and take the statement at face value.
"I try to explain why no human alive has above 200 IQ by looking at the definition of IQ"
"Nobody Alive Has 200 IQ"
Are incorrect statements, as they're absolute statements rather than it just being unlikely. Your own video refutes the absoluteness of your wording here.
Listen here my fellow smart ass (no offence:)
The chances of getting in a car crash and getting hit by a lighting after that is actually a lot higher than you think. In fact 2000 thousand people get hit by a lighting every year and an average person is involved in 4 car crashes in their life time. If you would add those odds together, realistically they would be a lot higher than essentially getting an IQ above 200. Just for the perspective, there had been in total 100 billion people that had ever lived. Chances of getting an IQ of 200 is literally one in 76 billion, and for whatever the reason, just recently we have dozens of those people with that score and even higher. Ironically, but logically, math just doesn’t add up. Unless those people are aliens or the deviation system has a flaw.
I would like to clarify that the chances of getting one person that score are reasonable, it is that it is almost impossible to get multiple people with that score all at once.
Hello rune I have a very good modern iq test and I really would like you to check it out it was titled The world hardest iq test by scott morris I found two different set of questions on two versions of The test one was on 1985 and another was on 1990 they are both Made of 48 problems some are verbal and some are spital and some are number sequence and I have uesd The same exact method that you used in this video to slove The Q40 on The test that was in 1985 great to see you put it in a formula and The test would make a great video
I will check it out tomorrow morning!
6standard deviation is almost taken as full curve.
There for sd of iq =15,give range of 55-145
Less probability doesn't mean doesn't exist.
Calculate probability of life on earth
Intelligent people evolving
Etc
But if it happened there is no point in probability
You are a malayali? 🤣🤣yes?
You watched the video full?... what do you mean by our conjecture conclusions 🤔
@@anandunambiar1032 Are you 10?
Classical 200iq,
When child have mental abilities of twice of their age.
2year old children having mental abilities of normal average 4year old children abilities/10year old child having 20 aged person's mental abilities.
It's not mental abilities exactly, if it is what if a 50yr old man have 200 classical iq, means he has mental abilities of 100yr old,(which is 2x dumber).
It's not mental speed, it's what you know? ....if you are 5 and you know something that average 10 year old know, it's that.
@@anandunambiar1032 The age of 100 without the chronological constraints, thats why its called "Mental Age" and not "Chronological Age".
What movies do you like?...what books you like?...Were you kinda smart-ass in your school(learning calculus at 5th😄)?...
What were your ambition when you were a teen?..
Dont read much fiction, I like to listen to fiction audio books tho. I watch pretty much all movies hehe. I would say I was always good at math but bad at the other subjects. What about you
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions I read fiction. I watch Alferd Hitchcock movies ....I kinda good at math though not the one who scores 100/100 at annual exam, were you bad at physics :-?
Very great video and something that makes a lot of sense.
Speaking subjectively, I have no trouble believing that. Despite having "only" an IQ ~130 (barely around that mark) most people tend to tell me how smart I am and that I am one of the smartest individuals they have ever met. The thing is, my best friend during HS was so, so much smarter than I was. I know for a fact that he took an IQ test and scored >145. And the things he did were just astounding. Despite having an IQ difference of ~20-30 points, he felt like an Alien to me. At least sometimes. It fels like that your knowledge/potential rises exponentially the smarter you are at least this is what it feels like.So I have no trouble believing that the smartest individuals of all time were probably a lot lower than we think. Simply because we, with our "primitive" minds could not hope to understand their genius.
What kind of things could your friend do?
@@kallebanan1924 Spoke English, German and French fluently in the seventh grade. And by fluent, I mean better and more eloquent than many native speakers.
Was semi fluent in Latin in the eigth. Added ancient greek in the ninth. Gave supplementary lessons in Latin for people who would take their finals in it in the tenth grade.
Played the Piano better than anyone I have ever heard.
Had such an extensive knowledge in just about everything that it felt like you just opened wikipedia. Especially in history. Knew pretty much several hundreds of birthdays/death days of important people throughout history.
Was pretty much teaching himself chemistry on university level in the ninth. Could recite entire poems after reading them once, including the entire Act that included Hamlets monologue. Word by word.
Taught himself spanish during the eleventh grade because he was bored by the normal school curriculum, Took him 6 months before he was able to speak it fluently.
I was evaluated to have an IQ >130 with special talents in the mathematical/logic field. We used to compete in logic games with one another. I would win ~1/7 games.
He graduated as one of the best in our entire year. He could have been the best but was to lazy to learn.
And my favorite thing about him : He made his own list of every snake on the planet, including the latin name and the english name, how the snake looked, where it lived etc.. He could recite every single one of them.
The crazy thing is, now in my day to day life, people tell me how smart I am and that I might be the smartest person they have met in a long time. Which feels so weird, considering how dumb and useless I have always felt right next to him.
@@gameplayer3050 Jesus christ. What is he up to nowadays?
@@kallebanan1924 Teacher. He always wanted to be a teacher. You usually study only 2 subjects. He studies 3 and will most likely get a DR. in at least two of them. But whatever.
@@gameplayer3050 My iq is 126 and i am the best in the field of mathematics and physics in the entire high school. I am 16 years old. I luck verbal knowledge and general knowledge. I tend to learn only what triggers me which is mostly phsycic and math staff
There is a 75% chance of having at least 200 IQ, and who would be that person you think 🤔...Will Sidis?
The smartest person that has ever lived is probably some unknown person that has been forgotten through history.
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions yeah may be 😊
Do you watch Jordan B Peterson?....you could get more ideas about IQ in a psychological perspective.....big 5 personality traits. Only if you're interested in
me
@@GAOMaster 😅
you said that in modern iq the test is for 18-65 what of you score above the average and you are 14 i scored 127 on the arealme and i scored 128 on the mensa norway and i scored 140 on a 40 question iq test that involved more calculating rather than looking at algorithms. Would it be accurate to say that my universal score is probably a 133.5 .What i also dont get is that i dont have straight As but i can score higher than the vast majority of my school including kids who take AP and Honors classes.
I would not trust arealme. Your Mensa score is pretty solid, you should be proud of it :) I think there are some modern IQ tests which are also for younger people, some have the option to select a younger age.
Arealme is terrible, I scored over 170 on it (whilst doing it in bed at night and even skipping a couple of questions). That said, if you got 128 on Mensa Norway I'd be very happy with that!
Don't trust any online tests, especially the paid ones; they're all scams.
What about the integrety of testing pools, do we have enough data on the human population in total to make such an assessment based on statistical data?
We do not. To say that a person, for certain, has 200 IQ we would need ~70 billion people to take a test, and the person who does best has 200 IQ. We do have some pools normed to a couple thousand people which is good enough to be satisfactorily accurate up to 160 IQ like the WAIS-IV. IQ is meant to compare you against other people, and if there are not enough people in a set to compare you against, then the score is meaningless. 200 IQ doesn't mean anything because you can't be better than 70 billion people in a world with 8 billion people.
What about Magnus Carlsen, the top chess player?
They say he's got 190. But forget about him, what about William James Sidis ?
@@emar22111 since you scored in 140s d oyou have any tips how to think when answering questions in an iq tests similar that is in mensa? i want to learn how to pick the right answer
Chris langan
Areea
Curious, did Einstein not have IQ 165?
Im not sure how much he had. I just found this random claim by searching for his IQ.
As far as I'm aware, Einstein never had his IQ tested..
What is your iq
i think that iq tests tends to measure the rarity and performance relative to a sample of the general population
so the sample size and performance do effect the iq score of the test
through the iq equation to have an iq of 194-195 u must be one in 6-8 billion ppl lets say human population
that is only if we test all humans and you performed better than all of them
so having an iq above that or even that is just not measurable
although i wonder how mensa and real iq tests measure their iq tests the only right way to have an accurate iq test is to measure the performance of the general population and the more the sample is bigger the more accurate and high the iq scores of the test would be
(this is my own thoughts
tho the arguments in the vid are also true but i feel the owns i presented are stronger
feel free to criticize constructively)
Grigori Perelman
Intresting video, what are your thoughts about Walter obrien?
I haven't heard about him before. Reading about him now and he sure seems like an interesting person. His IQ claims are based on classical IQ tho.
How many people have an iq of 160?
Statistically speaking, 1 in every 30,000 people have kinda 160 IQ
It depends on which scale is used:
*sd24:
bro i have
Cant you just divide 76.4 with 7.9 or whatever to get the % chance of a person to have 200 iq
Nvm
Everyone knows Einstein iq is 160 what are you talking about ?
No one: "everyone knows the Earth is flat"
@puzzles and solutions
Do you think in words or in pictures?
Amo este canal
You just made my day better ❤️
Lol why?
@@aliiqbal7368 what why ?...
@@anandunambiar1032 Why did it make his day better?
@@aliiqbal7368 it's like that a new idea he just saw ...he excited 😊 , got a feeling of having a worthwhile information that he didn't know until watching this video....
@@anandunambiar1032 It doesn't seem like it 🤣
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I can think of at least three criticism off the top of my tongue:
1) All of this assumes the 15 SD is used, whereas 24 SD is a viable alternative that isn't used. Whilst you may argue it inflates the scores, which is true in comparison to the 15 SD scale, it is also more congruent with the age differences in Raven's test performance in children.
2) Whilst it has even now been proven that intelligence is made up of an endless series of alleles, entailing a gaussian distribution, when some alleles mutate they may on their own adversely affect the score by a whole standard deviation or two, which when considered with environmental effects like blunt force trauma or malnutrition, leads to the distribution being more likely a left-skewed one, rather than a gaussian one. For example, you discuss the effects of height, and I once thought the same, however the outliers through effects such as pituitary cancer, which leads to heights which under the assumption of a normal distribution should've been impossible. Though on the other hand, it is quite likely, but still not impossible, there isn't any incredibly rare effect with such a large positive influence on intelligence.
3) The 15 SD and standardization of tests is done mostly on a national level, e.g. USA. This means that, for example, in oriental countries, particular scores may be far more common than in the USA if we standardize by USA tests. A related idea to this one is the fact that if there were anything like a global standardization of intelligence, there may be particular small groups with a lot of outliers masked by the larger distribution. On top of that, there is quite a variation of intelligence across age, which may be another finnicky statistical factor to consider, which isn't represented in an intelligence test, which automatically standardizes for age.
As for the celebrities you mentioned, Terrence Tao actually did a matrix reasoning test, and his intelligence lies somewhere in the low 140s on the 15 SD scale, though he hasn't yet reached peak heritability, so it may be underestimating him.
@@gabrielmelnik7847 And mercury has been used in medieval times to cure all ailments. Just because something is "considered" and "used" doesn't mean it's done the right way.
But iq after 160 cant be measured?
It can only be extrapolated, not measured, as there is an issue of norming beyond a certain point.
Cool video. What is your MBTI type?
INTx may be
I did the test 4-5 years ago and I think I got INTP. I dont remember exactly what I got.
@Citizen Of Earth yes it is inaccurate, why don't you try out big 5 personality test?....
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions so you are low in conscientiousness🤣🤣
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions Cool. INTP here also.
did you check WGD (World genius directory) ?There is recently added guy who has 202 IQ
this is not his result, more precisely, it is a single result. To make it clearer, let's take a person who is on the 2nd place in the same list Greek with an iq of 198, I looked at his results in other tests and he has: 185, 190, 178 and 187 (this is from what I saw), that is, in he doesn’t have an average of 198, so iq above 160 is changed in ranges, that is, his range (180-195) is something like this, and when they want to say a specific value, they say the arithmetic mean.
Sorry for my bad English
Thank you for making sense. That's not so common anymore in this world.
it's quiet obvious you didn't do your research i think you should stick vids of iq tests this is something i realize your not skilled enough for, you got my like for trying though but i was really expecting some more fun puzzles.
no need for hatred.
@ushani saunders can you elaborate?
can you explain about g loading?