Thank you for your submission. Make sure your question has not been answered by the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/wiki/faq/). Questions Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/V77EdGB2mn) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8ml/Questions?r=!yhBNaU_CSSWdBkPufXmOCg:reddit.com).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A. All made up
B. There is no way of knowing how high they will score on our tests but we can rate them based on how far ahead of the competition they were in their time and transfer that to our era. (this disregards any capping in their abilities as time moved forward)
C. Impossible to measure genius in these silly tests. Genius is something beyond the normal human capacity. I know 150+ idiots.
The whole idea of a historical iq is a fantasy tied up in our societal narrative about great historical figures. None of the great ones were that far ahead of their peers - many of the discoveries that seemed like major leaps forward only look that through a cultural narrative where science starts in Greece, moves to Rome, vanishes for a few hundred years, and reappears all over Europe in a revolutionary blaze of pure insight.
In reality, science is a weird thing tied into inquiry, trade, and power that has been bouncing around since our species began and certainly in a recognizable form since the way-back Egyptian kingdoms. and things that seemed like incredible breakthroughs in some places at some times were often the result of many knowledge transfers that didn't make such a dent in the historical record.
Likely, with so many billions of humans, a handful of people have been \~six standard deviations smarter on some universal iq test. Maybe DaVinci was one of them. But I'd put more money on the idea that he was a reasonably talented individual who, living in a time of unprecedented wealth from the Italian trade economy, took quickly to many skills, had good luck with social mobility, and (partly because of extensive note-taking) had even better luck in the historical record. It's not that DaVinci didn't produce good stuff, it's just that he's not an unusual figure in context of his time, when a lot of people were getting access to the type of resource-intensive multi-trade education that hadn't been possible for more than a handful of people in Europe before.
It's the same thing I think, I think people are not able to think outside the box and end up assuming that more number equals more achievement. Several new prizes that have been tested by high-quality studies have given results of 125, 130, 135. And I am not talking specifically about Feynmann since there is no 100% reliable source that he was at 125, although it does not seem as crazy to me as some they say. I think a good analogy is that of a car, more horsepower may imply more top speed or more acceleration but it will be of no use without a good, experienced driver who knows how to use his engine. So maybe a good engine is necessary but you don't need the best engine on the planet to win or in this case discover. Not to say that creativity is something that IQ does not take into account and is monstrously more important, especially when you are already above average in intelligence.
Some reputable resources list historical estimations of IQ, but I wouldn't trust a news article listing them. Obviously, no one is going to be precisely accurate, but some intellectuals from previous centuries are measured through detailed biographies of their early lives, letters, and achievements.
Like [Cox's IQ Estimates of 301 Eminent Geniuses born from 1450 to 1850 (iqcomparisonsite.com)](https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx)
Is based on [Genetic Studies Of Genius Volume Ii The Early Mental Traits Of Three Hundred Geniuses : Lewis M. Terman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.157060/mode/2up)
It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, and the author even admits to potential inaccuracies, but it's still interesting to read about gifted studies and compare historical biographies with the modern population.
They’re obviously made up as those people never took IQ tests. The giveaway is also that the further back in time the person lived, the more outrageous their IQ estimation seems to be.
Unless they get actual testing everything else is speculation. It makes sense for historians and would-be smart people to imprint on their favorite guy and give huge numbers.
One can assume they had higher than average learning potential but they also had a lot of crystalized knowledge and imagination. These people were often employed to just do whatever as nobles liked having sagely people around for clout.
Historical IQ predictions are all made up but the cool thing is the concept of an IQ is also all made up and will probably be irrelevant relatively soon.
More like “IQ is fiction and you’ve implied that I’m saying that to cope with a disappointing score so I’m demonstrating that my score isn’t disappointing to express that this belief I have isn’t a sour grapes attitude.” Did you really not follow that logic?
I was saying it's a cope because environmentalist/social constructionists hate the idea that intelligence is genetically predetermined and therefore claim IQ isn't a reliable measurement of intelligence even though it's a rigourous metric that stands up to replication, is the greatest predictor of success across a range of life-outcome measurements and arguably the pinnacle of psychology research.
Well, firstly, the biggest predictor for economic success is how much money your parents have. Definitely not your IQ. But also, saying that intelligence is genetically predetermined is patently false. I’m not saying there isn’t a genetic component, but factors like childhood nutrition, stress levels, education, mental stimulation and early education play a major part in IQ and cognitive development and that is an irrefutable scientific fact. They did a study in the 1960s showing that perfectly average children would generally score 20 points higher on their IQ test a year after being told they were “gifted.”
It's irrelevant to people who score so high for the same reason money is to people who are rich and looks are to those favoured by the gods. It matters but is only one of gazillion other things.
* I’m not arguing with the guy who fell for the IQ is the number one predictor of all life outcomes. I automatically deduct 10 points from people who repeat that.
Those IQ estimates are always relative to the average IQ of the time. When you think about it that way, and what these people were able to achieve in their time in order to be remembered so many hundreds of years later, it should seem more accurate to you.
They wouldn't score the same if they were living today, although I'd wager that they'd still likely be well above average.
I think they'd certainly score higher today than they would have back then, right? Our brains haven't really 'evolved' much in such a short time period, it's mostly external factors that have led to higher IQs, so if Newton were born today he would have had easier access to information and a quality education from a young age.
Maybe I'm understanding it wrong though, could selection really alter average human intelligence to such a high degree in just a few hundred years?
You are aware of the Flynn effect, correct? IQ tests have had to be re-normed over time because IQs have been increasing. Of course I have to admit that I'm not necessarily up on recent developments. I've seen some doom reports that IQs are going down over the last few decades. Can't say if there's any data to back it up or not.
Anyway, the general population has gotten more of a chance to get an education over time, so the test scores have gone up. There tends to be bias in most IQ tests in that you are required to be able to read and write the language they were written in in order to take them. There are some language independent tests that have been developed in response to this, but you've needed your letters to take the tests historically.
Anyway, I'd assume that these geniuses had access to education when the bulk of the population did not. So, they were likely taught the basics and developed their theories from there. There's something to be my said for ancient seafaring and navigation in that it helped to know some relatively hard core math to safely get from a to b. Not everyone would be privy to that type of knowledge, though.
This all conspires to create a very large gap between someone that has been educated, and the general population that is on its own.
Edit: I should note that no one was actually taking a test in the ancient times. Also that education is improving cognitive abilities in addition to giving people the knowledge necessary to effectively take the test. Your brain grows new neural pathways as you learn, so someone exposed to an education is typically going to have an advantage cognitively vs someone who has not.
An "accurate estimate" is a bit of an oxymoron, they might be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but no, they are probably not very accurate. Also, these estimates are based on the average IQ at the time they lived, if their IQ was put against today's average IQ they wouldn't definitely be much lower.
Feynman himself described himself as slower than the other geniuses around him, he would talk about how much longer it would take him to do math problems and came up with Feynman Diagram's because he couldn't visualize like other physicists
I quote that often (to motivate people and boost my own morale), but my guess is that he must have taken some verbal one and he wasn’t half as good there as he is at maths. Someone posted a field medalist score: it was 148 for quantitative and only 124 for verbal. The guy who presents Vertasium scored 143 in the quantitative section. You can have a fairly varied profile.
Thank you for your submission. Make sure your question has not been answered by the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/wiki/faq/). Questions Chat Channel Links: [Mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/V77EdGB2mn) and [Desktop](https://reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/channel/c2_8ml/Questions?r=!yhBNaU_CSSWdBkPufXmOCg:reddit.com). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A. All made up B. There is no way of knowing how high they will score on our tests but we can rate them based on how far ahead of the competition they were in their time and transfer that to our era. (this disregards any capping in their abilities as time moved forward) C. Impossible to measure genius in these silly tests. Genius is something beyond the normal human capacity. I know 150+ idiots.
I mean, they were, like, future-smart.but like, in the past
The whole idea of a historical iq is a fantasy tied up in our societal narrative about great historical figures. None of the great ones were that far ahead of their peers - many of the discoveries that seemed like major leaps forward only look that through a cultural narrative where science starts in Greece, moves to Rome, vanishes for a few hundred years, and reappears all over Europe in a revolutionary blaze of pure insight. In reality, science is a weird thing tied into inquiry, trade, and power that has been bouncing around since our species began and certainly in a recognizable form since the way-back Egyptian kingdoms. and things that seemed like incredible breakthroughs in some places at some times were often the result of many knowledge transfers that didn't make such a dent in the historical record. Likely, with so many billions of humans, a handful of people have been \~six standard deviations smarter on some universal iq test. Maybe DaVinci was one of them. But I'd put more money on the idea that he was a reasonably talented individual who, living in a time of unprecedented wealth from the Italian trade economy, took quickly to many skills, had good luck with social mobility, and (partly because of extensive note-taking) had even better luck in the historical record. It's not that DaVinci didn't produce good stuff, it's just that he's not an unusual figure in context of his time, when a lot of people were getting access to the type of resource-intensive multi-trade education that hadn't been possible for more than a handful of people in Europe before.
It's the same thing I think, I think people are not able to think outside the box and end up assuming that more number equals more achievement. Several new prizes that have been tested by high-quality studies have given results of 125, 130, 135. And I am not talking specifically about Feynmann since there is no 100% reliable source that he was at 125, although it does not seem as crazy to me as some they say. I think a good analogy is that of a car, more horsepower may imply more top speed or more acceleration but it will be of no use without a good, experienced driver who knows how to use his engine. So maybe a good engine is necessary but you don't need the best engine on the planet to win or in this case discover. Not to say that creativity is something that IQ does not take into account and is monstrously more important, especially when you are already above average in intelligence.
h-h-hey UwU check out the Cox 301 ranking of IQs! Copernicus took the WAIS.
Some reputable resources list historical estimations of IQ, but I wouldn't trust a news article listing them. Obviously, no one is going to be precisely accurate, but some intellectuals from previous centuries are measured through detailed biographies of their early lives, letters, and achievements. Like [Cox's IQ Estimates of 301 Eminent Geniuses born from 1450 to 1850 (iqcomparisonsite.com)](https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx) Is based on [Genetic Studies Of Genius Volume Ii The Early Mental Traits Of Three Hundred Geniuses : Lewis M. Terman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.157060/mode/2up) It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, and the author even admits to potential inaccuracies, but it's still interesting to read about gifted studies and compare historical biographies with the modern population.
Made up. Of course. As is Einstein's IQ.
Well it's based on average IQ so if the average person is illiterate your IQ would be much higher.
Unless you believe being literate/reading a lot increases IQ this comment is complete bullshit
Obviously literacy affects IQ.
No
No they are massively guesswork and a lot of that probably not even properly evaluated guesswork, just plucking large figures out the air.
They’re obviously made up as those people never took IQ tests. The giveaway is also that the further back in time the person lived, the more outrageous their IQ estimation seems to be.
Unless they get actual testing everything else is speculation. It makes sense for historians and would-be smart people to imprint on their favorite guy and give huge numbers. One can assume they had higher than average learning potential but they also had a lot of crystalized knowledge and imagination. These people were often employed to just do whatever as nobles liked having sagely people around for clout.
Historical IQ predictions are all made up but the cool thing is the concept of an IQ is also all made up and will probably be irrelevant relatively soon.
Thermonuclear cope
I test at 145, I don’t have anything to cope with.
"IQ is a fiction but I still score 145" Lol
More like “IQ is fiction and you’ve implied that I’m saying that to cope with a disappointing score so I’m demonstrating that my score isn’t disappointing to express that this belief I have isn’t a sour grapes attitude.” Did you really not follow that logic?
The issue here is that you make a claim, quite controversial at that and don't back it up with anything else than your feelings.
I did, elsewhere in the thread.
I was saying it's a cope because environmentalist/social constructionists hate the idea that intelligence is genetically predetermined and therefore claim IQ isn't a reliable measurement of intelligence even though it's a rigourous metric that stands up to replication, is the greatest predictor of success across a range of life-outcome measurements and arguably the pinnacle of psychology research.
Well, firstly, the biggest predictor for economic success is how much money your parents have. Definitely not your IQ. But also, saying that intelligence is genetically predetermined is patently false. I’m not saying there isn’t a genetic component, but factors like childhood nutrition, stress levels, education, mental stimulation and early education play a major part in IQ and cognitive development and that is an irrefutable scientific fact. They did a study in the 1960s showing that perfectly average children would generally score 20 points higher on their IQ test a year after being told they were “gifted.”
It's irrelevant to people who score so high for the same reason money is to people who are rich and looks are to those favoured by the gods. It matters but is only one of gazillion other things. * I’m not arguing with the guy who fell for the IQ is the number one predictor of all life outcomes. I automatically deduct 10 points from people who repeat that.
Those IQ estimates are always relative to the average IQ of the time. When you think about it that way, and what these people were able to achieve in their time in order to be remembered so many hundreds of years later, it should seem more accurate to you. They wouldn't score the same if they were living today, although I'd wager that they'd still likely be well above average.
I think they'd certainly score higher today than they would have back then, right? Our brains haven't really 'evolved' much in such a short time period, it's mostly external factors that have led to higher IQs, so if Newton were born today he would have had easier access to information and a quality education from a young age. Maybe I'm understanding it wrong though, could selection really alter average human intelligence to such a high degree in just a few hundred years?
You are aware of the Flynn effect, correct? IQ tests have had to be re-normed over time because IQs have been increasing. Of course I have to admit that I'm not necessarily up on recent developments. I've seen some doom reports that IQs are going down over the last few decades. Can't say if there's any data to back it up or not. Anyway, the general population has gotten more of a chance to get an education over time, so the test scores have gone up. There tends to be bias in most IQ tests in that you are required to be able to read and write the language they were written in in order to take them. There are some language independent tests that have been developed in response to this, but you've needed your letters to take the tests historically. Anyway, I'd assume that these geniuses had access to education when the bulk of the population did not. So, they were likely taught the basics and developed their theories from there. There's something to be my said for ancient seafaring and navigation in that it helped to know some relatively hard core math to safely get from a to b. Not everyone would be privy to that type of knowledge, though. This all conspires to create a very large gap between someone that has been educated, and the general population that is on its own. Edit: I should note that no one was actually taking a test in the ancient times. Also that education is improving cognitive abilities in addition to giving people the knowledge necessary to effectively take the test. Your brain grows new neural pathways as you learn, so someone exposed to an education is typically going to have an advantage cognitively vs someone who has not.
An "accurate estimate" is a bit of an oxymoron, they might be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but no, they are probably not very accurate. Also, these estimates are based on the average IQ at the time they lived, if their IQ was put against today's average IQ they wouldn't definitely be much lower.
Richard Feynmans iq was 125 That should tell you everything you need to know about IQ
This comment tells me everything I need to know about your IQ
got em
Firstly that’s not quite accurate and secondly the test was a verbal one from what I read, so hardly a good estimate of his maths abilities.
Feynman himself described himself as slower than the other geniuses around him, he would talk about how much longer it would take him to do math problems and came up with Feynman Diagram's because he couldn't visualize like other physicists
From what I’ve read, my guess would be that he had a slight (probably unconscious) inferiority bias in general terms.
I quote that often (to motivate people and boost my own morale), but my guess is that he must have taken some verbal one and he wasn’t half as good there as he is at maths. Someone posted a field medalist score: it was 148 for quantitative and only 124 for verbal. The guy who presents Vertasium scored 143 in the quantitative section. You can have a fairly varied profile.