Buzz
The average IQ of a person is 100. A claim, though without sources, puts O. J. Simpson’s IQ at 89. Marilyn vos Savant is famously known in the Guinness Book of World Records for holding the highest recorded IQ of 228, a number traced back to... Marilyn vos Savant herself. Beyond her intellectual achievements, Savant is known for her “Dear Abby” style column in the newspaper and for publishing several books derived from it. Here are eight reasons why your IQ score might not matter as much as you think.
8. The Original Intention
Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon were the pioneers behind the first standardized test designed to measure human intelligence, specifically focusing on verbal abilities. Their goal was not to gauge general intelligence but to identify children with developmental disabilities. The test was later refined by William Stern in 1912, who compared a child’s mental age with their chronological age. Stern introduced the term 'intelligence quotient.' The IQ is determined by dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying the result by 100. For example, a 10-year-old with a mental age of 5 would have an IQ of 50. The challenge lies in accurately determining that mental age.
By the time a person reaches around 15, the IQ test becomes less significant, as their mental age has matured. However, a typical 5-year-old child should have a mental age of 5. If their mental age is 1, it indicates a below-average IQ. The two most widely used tests today are the Weschler and the Stanford-Binet. Albert Einstein, for instance, scored an impressive 186 on the Stanford-Binet as a child, a number that is still widely discussed. On the Weschler test, this score would be equivalent to 160. The issue with both scores is that these tests weren't originally designed to reach such high numbers.
Extremely high scores are often unreliable. For example, 180 is typically the highest score on the Stanford-Binet, and anything beyond that lacks sufficient precedents for comparison, so it should be taken with caution. Essentially, a person who scores this high is likely highly adaptable, versatile, and able to retain information quickly. But is a 186 really 'smarter' than a 176?
The various IQ tests are effective at identifying those with very low scores, and these are generally accurate. The difference between a score of 79 and 69 is noticeable, and the tests can pinpoint these differences and their causes. To accurately measure extremely high IQs, the only reliable method is to make the questions more difficult. More complex spatial reasoning, longer word puzzles, and arithmetic sequences with more gaps can test higher abilities. However, if you can easily solve these simpler challenges, the only real difference between them and the harder ones is how long it takes you to complete them. If time is excluded from the equation, your score should remain the same. If additional difficulty earns you a bonus, then your score is arbitrary.
7. The Inequality
Many IQ tests evaluate 'general knowledge.' Here's a real IQ question this person encountered at age 5: 'What color is an apple?' The only apples they'd seen were green, so they got it wrong. Apples, in fact, come in many colors, sometimes even multiple shades. Mensa’s test includes puzzles like, '2D is to mobius strip as 3D is to ______.' Google suggests the answer is 'Klein bottle.' Now that we know the answer, does it make us smarter? As Einstein once said, he avoided filling his memory with facts and numbers he could simply look up in a dictionary.
General knowledge questions aim to ask things that any 5-year-old should know. Some questions are clear examples, such as 'What is 2 + 2?' But does getting this question right actually reflect a higher intellectual capacity in the child? Historically, IQ tests have worked to remove bias, and one way to do that is by excluding 'general knowledge' questions. For instance, one question this person encountered online was 'If you unscramble the letters in CIFAIPC, what word do you get?' The correct answer, 'ocean,' tests vocabulary, reading, and visual reasoning. But what if the person taking the test understands English but has never heard of the Pacific Ocean?
6. The Right to Boast
IQ tests were designed to assess children. It's well-known that kids need significant guidance from their parents to ensure they don’t grow up making poor decisions. This often begins with seemingly harmless behavior, such as bullying, name-calling, and using any available advantage to demean another child. While kids with high IQs are often labeled 'nerds' and picked on by bigger, usually less intelligent, bullies, the 'nerds' can also turn on each other. Size may not matter, but a group of Star Trek enthusiasts may mock the individual who wants to fit in but can't.
Children can be quite cruel. They need maturity to move past this behavior, and while good parenting plays a role, it ultimately comes down to age. This is why parents are often advised against revealing their child’s IQ. If a child’s IQ is even slightly below the average of 100, they might feel inadequate. If it’s significantly higher, they could use it to boast over their peers. Even with an average IQ, the child may still struggle with feelings of inferiority.
Yet, adults tend to take their IQs very seriously—especially when it works in their favor. Around the world, there are exclusive groups like Mensa, the Triple Nine Society, the Prometheus Society, and the Mega Society. The Mega Society is considered the most exclusive intellectual group, requiring a score of at least 171 on the Stanford-Binet test for admission. Mensa has a lower threshold of 132. But what’s the real value of belonging to these clubs? The Mega Society, for instance, doesn’t offer much beyond occasional meetings where members gather, chat, and congratulate one another. More on this in #1.
5. Imagination
The Internet, and so-called 'experts' even before it, have spread numerous speculative claims about the famously high IQs throughout history. However, these are purely conjectural, as the IQ and its associated tests didn’t exist until the early 20th century. If you search for 'famous high IQs' online, you’ll find sites that claim Leonardo da Vinci had an IQ of 220, based on a scale where 100 is average and Einstein's IQ was 160. This is an outright fabrication for several reasons: da Vinci didn’t take a test that hadn’t been created yet, and even if he did have an IQ of 220, there’s no proof of it. The numbers on these websites are mere estimates, often influenced by a person’s historical importance and the breadth of their achievements.
Da Vinci is widely known for his vast array of talents, but does this explain why Einstein’s IQ is 160, lower than expected? Does it imply that Einstein was less creative? Measuring intellect in fields like mathematics and science is already difficult, so how could we ever accurately measure a person’s skills in something as subjective as the liberal arts? Take literature, for example. IQ tests typically assess spatial reasoning, reading, vocabulary, arithmetic, memory, and general knowledge. So, regarding vocabulary, would Shakespeare’s IQ be higher than Ernest Hemingway’s just because Shakespeare uses more complex words? Hemingway famously responded to such criticisms, 'William Faulkner believes that because I don’t use the ten-dollar words, I don’t know them. Well, we both have Nobel Prizes, so I assure you, I do. But there are older words, simpler ones, better ones, and those are the ones I use.'
How do we evaluate Ludwig van Beethoven’s IQ? While he excelled in music, his mathematical skills were not impressive—his education stopped at basic arithmetic, and he couldn’t even handle intermediate algebra. If he were to take an IQ test, his score might be low, but his lack of mathematical ability did not hinder his success. Charles Dickens, on the other hand, is said to have had an IQ of 180. Why? Because Nicholas Nickleby is considered a great story? The beauty of literature is subjective, and it’s hard to compare one piece of writing to another in terms of quality. Just as many of Justin Bieber's fans would argue that his music surpasses Mozart’s, opinions on art vary greatly.
Is it fair to say that Stephen Hawking’s estimated IQ of 160 should be considered lower than Isaac Newton’s 190? Both made their mark in similar fields, yet Newton 'created' calculus, whereas Hawking worked with it. Does this justify a 30-point difference? And what about Andy Warhol, an accomplished artist despite an IQ of 86? Though, to be fair, he may have intentionally answered questions wrong in protest. So who was truly smarter: Warhol or Jackson Pollock?
4. Speed Doesn't Matter
Einstein is often remembered as a poor student during his youth, but this perception is far from accurate. By the time he graduated from high school, Einstein's biggest challenge was not his understanding of concepts but his speed in answering questions. German teachers were trained to instill knowledge in students through rote memorization, but Einstein’s mind worked differently. When asked a question, he would pause to recall the answer, then take additional time to ensure its accuracy. This slow approach nearly caused him to fail several times, but he never did. His teachers, however, considered him to be intellectually deficient. One teacher even shook his head as Einstein pondered and said, 'Einstein, you will never amount to anything!'
Most IQ tests are timed, meaning your speed contributes to your score. Even if you answer every question correctly, your slower pace can lower your IQ by several points, sometimes significantly. But is speed truly critical in life? For example, if you're an astronaut working through calculus to fix your reentry trajectory before the heat kills you, speed becomes a matter of life and death. However, how many of us will ever face such an extreme situation? And besides, shouldn’t the priority be getting the calculations right before reentering?
3. Is It Just About Intellect?
Intelligence is undeniably significant in life, and the higher one’s IQ, the better—if it is used effectively. The movie *Good Will Hunting* explores this idea, showing how important it is to apply one’s 'gift' for the betterment of humanity. We all know Einstein was a genius, but is his fame due to his 186 IQ alone? Or did his groundbreaking papers on Relativity and the photoelectric effect play a role in his legacy? Furthermore, Einstein was deeply involved in the development of the atomic bomb. *Time* magazine even named him the Man of the 20th Century.
Have you ever heard of William James Sidis? Born in 1898 and passing away in 1944, he's said to have had an IQ between 250 and 300, a claim still surrounded by much debate since the evidence is mostly hearsay. What’s indisputable is his exceptional ability to learn. By his twenties, Sidis could speak over 40 languages and claimed he could learn a new one in a single day. He even created his own language, Vendergood, which was a blend of Ancient Greek, Latin, and several other European languages. J.R.R. Tolkien also crafted Elvish, speaking at least 30 languages. Despite Sidis’s staggering IQ, we don’t think of Tolkien as someone with a 250+ IQ, even though his literature is vastly more popular than Sidis’s obscure inventions, such as the rotary calendar he created to be accurate to the leap year. But honestly, who needs that when we already have functioning calendars? With a 300 IQ, you’d think he could have invented something like a time machine or a real lightsaber.
René Descartes, often considered another individual with a high IQ, famously said, 'Cogito, ergo sum.'—'I think, therefore I am.' I wholeheartedly agree, but I've always thought this statement is incomplete. William Sidis proves that high intelligence doesn't guarantee success or meaningful accomplishments. Einstein achieved extraordinary things with an IQ of 'only' 186. Imagine what Sir Isaac Newton could have accomplished with an IQ of 300. Perhaps Descartes’ phrase should have been expanded to 'Cogito, ergo sum. Facio, ergo recordaremur.'—'I think, therefore I am. I do, therefore I will be remembered.'
2. What Does IQ Actually Mean?
If Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali had taken the same IQ test, who would have scored higher? Ali is the obvious choice, yet this is a curious question because we know very little about their intellectual abilities. Neither of them worked in fields like mathematics or engineering; they were boxers, and their wealth came from their ability to beat opponents in the ring. Ali won two out of three bouts against Frazier, but Frazier should not be dismissed as a mere footnote in Ali’s career. Frazier was the only man to defeat Ali in his prime, doing so by points and even knocking Ali down in their famous fight.
What do you think Frazier’s IQ would have been? The average score of 100? But a high IQ doesn’t guarantee someone like Einstein would excel at boxing. Einstein wasn’t interested in boxing or physical activity. Maybe we could say there’s a concept of a 'physical IQ.' Boxing requires motor skills, which are controlled by the brain. Some individuals are born with a remarkable ability to develop these skills effortlessly. Franz Liszt, for example, had exceptional motor skills in both his hands and feet.
Imagine two boxers who train the same way. One quickly masters the techniques of dodging, jabbing, dancing, and counter-punching, while the other struggles. Does that mean the more skilled boxer is more intelligent? IQ tests are designed to assess general mental acuity, but they don’t necessarily account for these innate talents. Can we truly measure the boxer’s natural ability with an IQ test? These tests don’t identify such natural prodigies.
1. The Einstein Dilemma
The myth of Einstein being a poor student is widely debunked by now. He never failed a course in his life, and in high school, his grades were solid. However, for someone who would go on to redefine the 20th century and whose name became synonymous with genius, you might expect perfect grades—and he didn’t quite achieve that. His report card from his junior and senior years is widely circulated online, showing A’s in algebra, geometry, applied geometry, physics, and history. He received B’s in chemistry, Italian, and German, a C in French, and a D in geography and art. While some of these grades were decent, it’s clear that his strongest subjects were evident.
IQ tests are designed to evaluate the sciences and mathematics effectively because they offer clear-cut answers—either right or wrong, with little room for ambiguity. This is why it makes sense that Einstein earned a 186. He had an exceptional aptitude for math. However, during his elementary and middle school years, he received solid C’s in most of his language-based subjects, including his native tongue. If the test he took was more balanced, giving equal weight to the liberal arts, his scores in those areas would have certainly lowered his overall score, implying that his mathematical abilities likely exceeded a 186. To make matters more interesting, Einstein initially failed his entrance exam for the Swiss Federal Polytechnical School. He excelled in math and science but struggled with French, Italian, history, and geography. This resulted in him attending a regular vocational school for a year before retaking the exam. So how reliable can we really consider that single number?
