(January 1, 2015 at 11:18 am)Alex K Wrote: That sounds indeed crazy, in Gaussian distributions with mean 100 and deviation 15, as is assumed for the IQ scores I'm used to, there are only one in five million people with 176 or higher.
Is there a competition among testers who can give parents the smartest kids?
Yes, I am well aware of how rare an IQ of 176 is. Depending on the test, it can be anywhere from just over 3 to 5 standard deviations above the norm, and knowing the Cattel test (with the SD of 24) is currently rare, I'm leaning far more towards 5. Of course, that said, Childhood IQ tests are tabulated like this:
(Mental Age of the tested child/Actual age of the tested child)*100=IQ.
Also, when I was taking it, Stanford-Binet's Standard Deviation was still 16 and not 15, so, there's a very good chance it's not as much of an outlier than you might think.
And just FYI, I was something of a prodigy when I was a kid; I learned to read when I was 18 months old, reading aloud from the Tribune. That said, it's balanced out by the fact that it took longer for me to learn to speak extemporaneously than it took for me to learn to read. It's called Hyperlexia and it's fucking weird.
Needless to say, I take my results with a grain of salt.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.



