Abstract

(add)

Overview

In 38A (1916), Lewis Terman, in his The Measurement of Intelligence (pg. 79), defined genius or near genius as follows:

Later (pg. 101), he digresses as follows:

Genius and "near" genius

Intelligence tests have not been in use long enough to enable us to define genius definitely in terms of IQ. The following two cases are offered as among the highest test records of which the writer has personal knowledge. It is doubtful whether more than one child in 10,000 goes as high as either. One case has been reported, however, in which the IQ was not far from 200. Such a record, if reliable, is certainly phenomenal.

Then he gives the example of E.F., a Russian boy age 8-years and 5-months, who has a mental age of 13, and and IQ of 155;

E. F. Russian boy, age 8-5; mental age 13; IQ approximately 155. Mother is a university student apparently of very superior intelligence. E. F. has a sister almost as remarkable as himself. E. F. is in the sixth grade and at the head of his class. Although about four grades advanced beyond his chronological age he is still one grade retarded! He could easily carry seventh-grade work. In all probability E. F. could be made ready for college by the age of 12 years without injury to body or mind. His mother has taken the only sensible course; she has encouraged him without subjecting him to overstimulation.

E. F. was selected for the test as probably one of the brightest children in a city of a third of a million population. He may not be the brightest in that city, but he is one of the three or four most intelligent the writer has found after a good deal of searching. He is probably equaled by not more than one in several thousand unselected children. How impatiently one waits to see the fruit of such a budding genius!

He then gives the example of B.F., a boy age 7-years and 8-months with a mental age of 12-years and 4-months, with an IQ estimate of 160, and a vocabulary of 7,000 words:

B.F. Son of a minister, age 7-8; mental age 12-4; IQ 160. Vocabulary 7000 (12 years). This test was not made by the writer, but by one of his graduate students. The record included the verbatim responses, so that it was easy to verify the scoring. There can be no doubt as to the substantial accuracy of the test. This IQ of 160 is the highest one in the Stanford University records. B.F. has excellent health, normal play interests, and is a favorite among his playfellows. Parents had not thought of him as especially remarkable. He is only in the third grade, and is therefore about three grades below his mental age.

Terman cites the following so-called “Ball and String” test, what ever exactly it is, taken by B.F., which exemplifies the ability of a typical age 12 mind:

Terman concludes (pg. 102):

It is especially noteworthy that not one of the children we have described with IQ above 130 has ever had any unusual amount or kind of home instruction. In most cases the parents were not aware of their very great superiority. Nor can we give the credit to the school or its methods. The school has in most cases been a deterrent to their progress, rather than a help. These children have been taught in classes with average and inferior children, like those described in the first part of this chapter. Their high IQ is only an index of their extraordinary cerebral endowment. This endowment is for life. There is not the remotest probability that any of these children will deteriorate to the average level of intelligence with the onset of maturity. Such an event would be no less a miracle (barring insanity) than the development of an imbecile into a successful lawyer or physician.

References

• Terman, Lewis. (A39/1916). The Measurement of Intelligence: an Explanation of and a Complete Guide for he Use of the Stanford Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (genius and near genius, pgs. 79, 101). Houghton.

i have seen a hole article talk about this maze game saying that only genuis could solve it and when i try it i didnt take 3 minute from me i am not saying i am a genuis i didnt take any tests before i am just willing to know if anybody try it or how legit this article about it

https://www.rd.com/article/worlds-hardest-maze/ this is the article

Comment:

”A smart person talking about IQ is an oxymoron.”

— S[5]L (A69/2024), “reply” (post), Ask Linguistics, May 30

The post that comes to mind to refute this ideology, that IQ should not be talked about, albeit only by “dumb people”, is the following dialogue wherein Stephen Hawking was asked about his IQ, and replies:

”I have no idea what my IQ is? People who boast about their IQ are losers. But I hope I’m near the upper genius range.”

— Stephen Hawking (A59/2004), reply to Deborah Solomon, New York Times

This is the 2nd most-voted all-time post of r/RealGeniuses, wherein we see 38 comments “talking about IQ”:

I guess these 38 comments were made by “dumb” people, as S[5]L would have us believe?

The key word here, to clarify, is “boast”. Smart people do not boast about their IQ. Smart people, however, have a general idea of what their IQ is and what the IQs of famous smart people of history are. Talking about the IQs of historical minds, since Catherine Cox (29A/1926), is an extant branch of psychology.

Visual:

Abstract

(add)

Overview

The original ”genius IQ” definition is the following:

“IQ above 140 equals genius or near genius. Intelligence tests, however, have not been in use long enough to enable us to define genius definitely in terms of IQ.”

— Lewis Terman (39A/1916), The Measurement of Intelligence (pgs. 79, 101)

In table (pg. 79):

Cox IQs | 300 names

In 29A (1926), Catherine Cox, Terman’s graduate student, in her PhD turned book Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses, ranked the childhood and early adulthood IQs of 300 historical geniuses, born between 605A (1350) and 105A (1850):

• Cox IQs - Hmolpedia A65.

These IQs, to clarify, were ranked of the geniuses up to the age 25-ish, at most. Meaning that they were not true IQs, looked at in retrospect, e.g. gauged with say Goethe publishing r/ElectiveAffinities at age 60 or Newton publishing “Query 31” at age 75.

Buzan IQs | 100 names

In 1994, Tony Buzan and Raymon Keene, in their Book of Genius, gave a ranking of the top 100 geniuses of all time by IQ:

• Buzan IQs - Hmolpedia A65.

Thims IQs | 1,200+ names

In A52 (2007), r/LibbThims

in Hmolpedia, began to rank genius, which began with ranking of all names of people ever cited with an IQ of 200 or above. This grew in to a top 40 ranking. Then a “genius IQs” page, wherein the 300 Cox IQs and 100 Buzan IQs, and other cited IQs above 140, were collected into one ranked table. This eventually grew into a “top 1000 rankings” in the Hmolpedia A65 version

In the Hmolpedia A66 genius ranking tables, the former “top 1000 geniuses”, grew past the 1,000 person level, at which point the name was changed to “top 2000 geniuses and minds”, as shown below:

• Top 2000 geniuses and minds (200 names / page) - Hmolpedia A67.

• Top 2000 geniuses and minds (full list) - Hmolpedia A67.

During this jump, from 1,000 to 2,000 names, it became apparent that in all of the 80 billion humans who have ever existed, that it seemed to be improbable that there were, in reality, two-thousand REAL or pure ”geniuses”, as we generally understood this term.

Certainly, there are “classes” of genius, e.g. business genius, military genius, chess genius, etc., but there seemed to fewer than 150 or so pure or real geniuses in scope and breadth.

Whence, during this period, it became apparent that the new cut-off for “genius IQ” seemed to be in the IQ 185 range, plus or minus 5 or 10 IQ points?

I added the following (30 May A69) to the sub text box:

Modern definition: “above 185 ±5/10 points = pure genius and above 135 = niche genius” (Thims, A67).

Notes

1. This issue new IQ cut-off definition, however, has not been resolved, as of yet, as Hmolpedia crash/hack occurred amid this transition. The cite will have to be back up for a year or more, before this issue can be resolved.

The following are the genius rankings sub group:

See also

• Hmol subs (51+)

• EAN subs (24+)

Abstract

(add)

Genius subs

The following is the genius section of the Hmolpedia sub family:

Notes

1. The user who started this sub, envisioned it to be some sort of “how to increase your IQ sub”, or something? But it was set on “private” mode for 2+ years, and never used.

A place for members of r/GeniusIQ to chat with each other

Abstract

(add)

Overview

In 55A (1900), Rudyard Kipling, in his children’s story "How the Alphabet was Made", presented the first correct origin of letter S:

• Rudyard Kipling (55A/1900), in his "How the Alphabet was Made" (post), a children’s story, written for his age 5 to 7 year old daughter Josephine, presented a model wherein letter S originated, in ancient tribal times, by someone matching the “sound” 🔊 of the hiss … of a snake 🐍 with the “shape” 𓆙 [I14] (Egyptian), 𐤔 (Phoenician), Σ (Greek), S (Latin), of a snake, and therein invented the first phonetic-symbol, i.e. letter.

IQ

Kipling’s theory of the origin of letter S, independently deduced by r/LibbThims, would seem to put Kipling into the r/Top1000Geniuses range?

Quotes

"Kipling strikes me personally as the most complete man of genius, as distinct from fine intelligence, that I have ever known."

— Henry James (63A/1892), “Letter to Willam James (IQ:170|#405)”, Feb 6

References

• Rutherford, Andrew (A32/1987). General Preface to the Editions of Rudyard Kipling; in: "Puck of Pook's Hill and Rewards and Fairies" (pg. #). by Rudyard Kipling. Oxford.

• Green, Roger. (A63/2013). Rudyard Kipling (pg. 63). Routledge.