Your IQ isn’t 160. No one’s is: Stratospheric IQs are like leprechauns, unicorns, or mermaids, writing:
So if someone regularly talks about IQs significantly above 140 like these were actual measurable and reliable numbers that have a real-world effect, know that they are talking about a fantasy. And if they make claims that various historical figures possessed such numbers, then they’re talking unscientific nonsense. If they’re bragging about themselves, well. . . it’s like someone talking about their astrological sign.
The author makes the following claims, or at least infers:
1. Anyone claiming to have a >160 IQ is lying or misled, as there is no reliable way to measure IQs that high due to measurement error.
2. Therefore, IQs above 160 cannot exist.
3. IQs above 160 cannot exist because of diminishing returns above some threshold, typically 120. Because there is no way to map a > 160 IQ with anything that is quantifiable, it’s as if it does not exist.
I wouldn’t even say “IQ is unimportant.” I think it is important, in that it’s one of the only measurements we have that does an okay job at capturing intelligence, in that it’s not too bad at this when it comes to the center of the distribution, although it gets increasingly bad at it at the tails.
Yes, IQ tests are less reliable for the highest of scores, typically anything above 135-140 or so. But the difficultly of measuring something does not also imply it doesn’t exist.
Given that IQ is a biological trait, which, like height, is normally distributed, extreme outliers must exist. To say that people with IQs > 160 cannot exist because of measurement error, is like saying that 7+ft tall people cannot exist because the tape measure only goes up to to 6′ 6″ (78 inches). If you line everyone up, then those outliers must still exist. Why would human intelligence, unlike other traits, be the exception.
The third reason is a non sequitur or orthogonal to the other two. It does not even merit inclusion, as the author is making a normative statement about the qualities of very high intelligence, not its existence. But diminishing returns beyond some arbitrary threshold, say 120, does not mean that IQs way above said threshold cannot exist. But I think this too is false. I have perceived, at least, that there are notable or perceptible differences between smart and vs exceptionally smart people.
Consider someone like Steve Sailer. It would be reasonable to assume his IQ is around 130-135, mostly skewed towards verbal. Now consider the likes of Moldbug, Brian Chau, or Beff Jezos, who also have popular accounts on X/Twitter. Regardless of what you think of their politics, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume their IQs are higher–owing to not only high verbal intelligence–but also mastery of complicated computer science topics. There is a noticeable step-up in breadth of general knowledge and conceptual ability. Or credentials or other quantifiable achievement, like placing well in competitions.
I have have seen this with others on X/Twitter, who have quantifiable markers or signifiers of achievement that correlates with exceptionally high IQ, compared to only being smart. People have a general intuitive sense where others fall on the IQ distribution, without testing, and this is well in excess of 120-130. The same is true on the other extreme. There are noticeable assessed differences between someone with an IQ of 70 vs 100. This is why special education exists; or conversely, gifted education. So IQ scores do indeed map to something that is ‘real’, on either extreme. This also corroborated by the the US armed forces, which heavily uses IQ-like tests for assigning recruits to jobs or for enlistment. Someone who scores higher has a broader or more technical range of possible roles, like radar technician.
Additionally, someone claiming to have an IQ above 160, or claimed >160 IQs of historical figures are not necessarily wrong if sufficient evidence or reason is supplied, such as exceptional ability at g-loaded endeavors. So given the limitations or absence of tests, evidence or ‘works’ is the next best thing to go on.
I have claimed to have an IQ of at least 160, and this backed by quantifiable evidence, like forecasting ability (although I was wrong about Trump and the crypto reserve), trading strategies, and math research. For 2025, my accounts are positive despite the market sell-off, by shorting Bitcoin, as I documented transparently on the blog, with great success despite being wrong about my prediction.
I mentioned before finding an elementary analytic solution to a difficult identities that had vexed some of the experts for decades. Someone in the ’90s found such a solution, but it’s difficult and convoluted and makes many ad hoc assumptions (by working backwards from knowing the answer first).
My solution is simpler and makes fewer assumptions, instead of working backwards with the gift of foresight of knowing the answer ahead of time. I showed that the ratio of two integrals is equal to an integer, by converting said integrals to infinite series, in which changing the integrals slightly leads to the integer to factor out but the series otherwise being identical. This integral, being a cubic equation, factors in such a way as to apply some additional techniques to prove the identities. This included making a clever trigonometric argument.
Am I wrong? Possibly. As the article mentioned, Feynman tested at only an IQ of 125, although it’s also likely the entire story is apocryphal, as no one has ever been able to substantiate it, such as the type of IQ test he took. Which to the author’s point, shows the limitations of IQ tests. But this does not also imply that such a testing ceiling is the same as the biological or phenotypical ceiling of the ‘thing’ or trait that one seeks to measure, that being individual human intelligence, just as there are no such limitations for measuring height.
If we play this game of hypothetical oval-filling, just based on his actual academic record I would estimate that Einstein would get in the 700s on the math section of the SATs, and maybe in the 600s on the verbal section. Ball-parking it, as one must, I think Einstein’s IQ was therefore probably more around 120 or 130 than 160. Indeed very high! But maybe not even “genius level.” He would have scored similarly to Feynman, one of the few geniuses we for sure have a modern IQ for, which was “merely” 125. This conclusion fits well with how
Getting a single question wrong can make the difference between an IQ of 130 (a ceiling score) vs 125, which is what Feynman allegedly scored. This is similar to the SATs, in which getting a a few questions wrong can make the difference between a score of 1600 vs 1550. Whereas for IQs in the 90-110 range, there is much less sensitivity on a per-question basis.
If the average IQ of a physics or math major is around 120-130 (going by SAT vs IQ regressions), and given that Feynman’s abilities were obviously well in excess of that, it’s also not unreasonable to assume that his IQ must also be higher, or at least higher than his reported 125 score. This has more to do with the limitations of IQ testing than not possessing an IQ higher than 125. Maybe his article should have been titled “Measured IQs above 160 do not exist, due to testing error” instead of no one actually possessing an IQ of >160. That would make more sense.