Do you think you're smarter than most of the posters on this forum?

[the_bob_delusion]

A simple yes or no will do. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@*ibis wrote:

ploppy there is a poster here who is in the top 10% of smartest people in the world

are you smater then her?

---

No, that was the top 5% if I recall.

[poddster]

The following is a chart of I.Q. scores from 100 to 202. The rarity column shows how many people in the general population are expected to achieve this percentile or higher. For example, 1 out of 100 people are expected to achieve an I.Q. score of 137 or higher.

I.Q.	Percentile	Rarity (1/x)
100	50	2.0
101	52	2.1
102	55	2.2
103	57	2.3
104	60	2.5
105	62	2.7
106	65	2.8
107	67	3.0
108	69	3.2
109	71	3.5
110	73	3.8
111	75	4.1
112	77	4.4
113	79	4.8
114	81	5.2
115	83	5.7
116	84	6.3
117	86	6.9
118	87	7.7
119	88	8.5
120	89	9.5
121	91	11
122	91.5	12
123	92.5	13
124	93.3	15
125	94.1	17
126	94.8	19
127	95.4	22
128	96.0	25
129	96.5	29
130	97.0	33
131	97.4	38
132	97.7	44
133	98.0	50
134	98.3	60
135	98.6	70
136	98.8	80
137	99.0	100
138	99.1	110
139	99.3	140
140	99.4	160
141	99.5	190
142	99.57	230
143	99.64	280
144	99.70	340
145	99.75	400
146	99.80	500
147	99.83	600
148	99.87	700
149	99.89	900
150	99.91	1,100
151	99.93	1,400
152	99.94	1,700
153	99.95	2,200
154	99.96	2,700
155	99.97	3,400
156	99.977	4,000
157	99.982	5,000
158	99.986	7,000
159	99.989	9,000
160	99.991	11,000
161	99.993	15,000
162	99.995	19,000
163	99.996	24,000
164	99.997	30,000
165	99.997 6	40,000
166	99.998 1	50,000
167	99.998 6	70,000
168	99.998 9	90,000
169	99.999 2	120,000
170	99.999 4	160,000
171	99.999 5	220,000
172	99.999 66	300,000
173	99.999 75	400,000
174	99.999 81	500,000
175	99.999 86	700,000
176	99.999 90	1,000,000
177	99.999 93	1,300,000
178	99.999 95	1,800,000
179	99.999 96	2,500,000
180	99.999 97	3,500,000
181	99.999 98	5,000,000
182	99.999 985	7,000,000
183	99.999 989	9,000,000
184	99.999 992	13,000,000
185	99.999 995	20,000,000
186	99.999 996	30,000,000
187	99.999 997	40,000,000
188	99.999 998	50,000,000
189	99.999 998 7	80,000,000
190	99.999 999 1	110,000,000
191	99.999 999 4	150,000,000
192	99.999 999 6	220,000,000
193	99.999 999 7	300,000,000
194	99.999 999 8	500,000,000
195	99.999 999 85	700,000,000
196	99.999 999 90	1,000,000,000
197	99.999 999 93	1,500,000,000
198	99.999 999 95	2,000,000,000
199	99.999 999 97	3,000,000,000
200	99.999 999 98	5,000,000,000
201	99.999 999 986	7,000,000,000
202	99.999 999 991	11,000,000,000

[*crikey*mate*]

ok, where's that from though? what's the norm? why isn't it a recognized standard?

that suggests that 1% of the population has an IQ over 137, whereas Mensa and Australian G&T associations pitch that figure at .15 of a percent.

and I can't work out how to read the chart.

What percentage does it say acheive 130 or higher, and the same for 145?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

ok, where's that from though? what's the norm? why isn't it a recognized standard?

that suggests that 1% of the population has an IQ over 137, whereas Mensa and Australian G&T associations pitch that figure at .15 of a percent.

and I can't work out how to read the chart.

What percentage does it say acheive 130 or higher, and the same for 145?

---

130 = 1 in33 or 3.03%

145 = 1 in 400 or 0.25%

I think ???

[rabbitearbandicoot]

and there's only 1 person on earth that has an IQ of 201. I wonder if he/she comes on these boards or whether he/she is a native in an uncontacted tribe somewhere?

[*crikey*mate*]

I just googled Rabbit and found about 10 of em over 200 - I think it depends on where you look and whose doing the reporting

[rabbitearbandicoot]

would a person with a photographic memory have a high IQ according to the available tests?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I just googled Rabbit and found about 10 of em over 200 - I think it depends on where you look and whose doing the reporting

---

que? you googled Rabbit and found 10 of them with IQ over 200 ??? I'll never eat rabbit stew again.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

ok, where's that from though? what's the norm? why isn't it a recognized standard?

that suggests that 1% of the population has an IQ over 137, whereas Mensa and Australian G&T associations pitch that figure at .15 of a percent.

and I can't work out how to read the chart.

What percentage does it say acheive 130 or higher, and the same for 145?

---

130 = 1 in33 or 3.03%

145 = 1 in 400 or 0.25%

I think ???

---

ok, ta

couldn't be 1 in 33 cos that is 1/3 of the population, but the 3% is close to the figures of abut 5 years ago which is 3 in 100 - but they now reckon it's 2.1%

and the .25% one is double of what the recognized scores are

so my conclusion of that chart is that it is a simplistic leagues table and has it's own norms that don't correlate with accepted standards.

Maybe a Math Genius could work out what score that chart attributes to the top .15 and top 2.1%?

Then we will be comparing apples with apples.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

would a person with a photographic memory have a high IQ according to the available tests?

---

possible, but not necessarily as the tests test both your verbal and non verbal skills.

For example, two of the questions were

how are ice and steam related (sic)

if you find a wallet in the street, what do you do with it.

There are also sections where they read out a sequence of numbers and you repeat them back - getting longer and longer.