The cutoff for what is often considered ”gifted” is an IQ score that is among the top two percent of the population, which is a score of 130 on the Wechsler scales, or 132 on the Stanford-Binet scale. This sole criterion is in stark black and white. The numbers don’t lie. Well they do in a sense because some critics believe they don’t measure intangible factors; metaphysical bursts that alter the dynamic.
The issue of IQ is an extremely sensitive and divisive one and the relationship between high IQ scores and genius is tenuous and not readily apparent. Most of us are grateful to be in reasonable health and have an IQ that scrapes three digits on a good day. Not so for many. Not surprisingly, history is full of geniuses who more than likely had ordinary IQs. And few people likely realize the burden, loneliness and alienation that must be experienced by these highly intelligents; the IQ’s as ET’s. It might be a lot more fun to not make the cut and be on the ”B” team.
Voltaire 190, Spinoza 175, John Stuart Mill 180, Goethe 210, Beethoven 165, Handel 170, Mozart 165, Leibniz 205, Lincoln 155, Lord Byron 180, Kasparov 190, Bobby Fischer 187, Swedenborg 200, Andy Warhol 86,Wittgenstein 190, Britney Spears 100, O.J. Simpson 89, James Woods 184, Arnold Schwartzneggger 135,…..
The word “genius” is derived from the Latin verb “gignere”, which means to beget or produce. Historically, genius referred to one’s ability to accomplish or create something, something that performance on an IQ test does not measure. Consider Einstein, for example: as a child, he was delayed in speech and was a poor student who dropped out of school at one point and failed to pass the entrance examination for admission to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. He was eventually admitted after retaking the examination two years latter, and graduated, but was unable to obtain a university teaching position, and went to work instead as an assistant technical clerk in the patent office in Bern, Germany. Einstein was well on his way to what appeared to be an entirely uneventful and undistinguished career. The issue is divisive, not understood and can lead to this fears of justifying eugenics and a philosophy of justification:
”Indeed. All of these individuals are White and all were major contributors to science and/or humanities. What can Negroes, for instance, boast? That one of their breed ‘invented’ peanut butter? My IQ qualifies me as ‘highly gifted’ on their scale. However, IQ alone isn’t an indicator of whether you will be in some office of importance or contribute in a major way to our culture. I am an educated and trained scientist but I doubt I will be discovering a cure for cancer any day soon.
However, I am more likely to contribute something of some kind of benefit and not to be a drain or any other sort of liability. As are my the large majority of my fellow Whites around the world.But the point is that Negroes and other muds (save Asians, perhaps) are nothing but evolutionary cul-de-sacs who can use guns, spread disease, make caterwauling ‘music’ and breed like cockroaches. Other than that, they are pretty much useless…”
Genius is one of the oldest and yet one of the most elusive concepts in the history of psychology, and also one of the most fascinating. Originally, in Graeco-Roman antiquity, genius referred to a quality that everyone possessed, an animating spirit that represented one’s character and interests as much as one’s ability. Over time, however, it became increasingly associated with one’s natural ability or talent, and eventually with the special ability of a few. Nineteenth century British psychologist Francis Galton, citing British author and lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson as a paragon example, described genius as “a man endowed with superior faculties.” And then, in the early part of the 20th century, as interest in psychometric methods of assessment grew, genius became associated with a quantitative concept known as the Intelligence Quotient or IQ, which further adulterated its original meaning. Expressed as a ratio score, IQ was was the rof an individual’s estimated mental age and chronological age multiplied by 100.
There are many stories of geniuses with extremely high IQs who also had a burning desire to achieve. American chess genius and former world champion, Bobby Fischer, “lived and breathed chess.” No one worked harder at mastering the game than Fischer, even though his reported IQ of 187, was among the highest in history; but, unfortunately, like Sidis, Fischer represented one of the sadder chapters in the annals of American geniuses. Plagued by inner demons, Fischer completely withdrew from competition after winning the world championship in 1972 at the age of 28 and went on accomplished nothing significant since then except accumulate an entire chess box full of pathologies. On the other end of the IQ spectrum was one of America’s greatest inventive geniuses: Thomas Alva Edison. Like Einstein, he was not a very good student, and quite likely would not have scored very high on an IQ test in childhood. But Edison, like all geniuses of great accomplishment, had boundless drive, and understood perfectly the essence of genius when he wrote, “Genius is one percent inspiration and 98 percent perspiration.”
\”Germany\’s greatest man of letters … and the last true polymath to walk the earth.\” “]”The story of Sidis, whose IQ was estimated to be over 250, was, by every account, phenomenally gifted. Grady M. Towers, in an article in Gift of Fire (the journal of the Prometheus Society), wrote that at eighteen months Sidis could read The New York Times, at two he taught himself Latin, and at three he learned Greek. By the time he was an adult, he could speak more than forty languages and dialects. He graduated from Harvard cum laude at sixteen, and became the youngest professor in history at Rice University. Towers wrote, “Of all the prodigies for which there are records, his was probably the most powerful intellect of all. And yet it all came to nothing. He soon gave up his position as a professor, and for the rest of his life wandered from one menial job to another.’ ”
”Bob Dylan is one example. He is (or rather once was) definitely a “genius” but he is not known for doing out of the ordinary academically in any sense of the word. It is highly unlikely that he has a high IQ. Probably about average. In addition, I will repeat what I and others have said: that high IQ may be considered one type of intelligence but is not necessarily to be equated with what I will call “deep” intelligence. Sartre had an extremely high IQ but in many ways was a stupid man. Chris Hitchens the same. Noam Chomsky the same. Ditto many other left wingers.
And that probably is the case with many right wingers too. The likes of David Duke and Kevin Macdonald probably have fairly high IQ’s (I’m guessing here). Ditto Joseph Goebbels (I’m fairly sure about his high IQ). But all are stupid men which many of their views clearly reflect. Deeply intelligent people usually have fairly intelligent views.They may get it wrong sometimes but not TOO wrong so to speak. High IQ people are capable of both intelligent and stupid views. They can and will get things very wrong. These are broad generalisations but I think they broadly hold true.”