British 2 year old maxes out IQ test...

Kid tested as high as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

Fuck. I dunno if I'd wanna be that smart at my age, let alone at two. It'll be an interesting life, to be sure.

Mensa's IQ cutoff is z = +2, 132 on the most commonly used scales (the 98th percentile), not 148, which would be z = +3. That's aside from the point, however, as Mensa never, ever releases the results of their tests: All they tell you after testing is whether you "passed" or "failed" to hit +2. If Oscar actually did score 160, which is suspect, the release of that information is a violation of club rules.

Einstein never took an IQ test.

I'd say the same thing I said when the 2 year old girl was reported for the same reason a few months ago: I smell media sensationalism. AFAIK, IQ tests are not given to children that young. Even if they are prodigies, at 2 they're too variable or unreliable (because they're fucking toddlers!) to take a set-out IQ test and provide any meaningful score.

Clearly I don't qualify for Mensa, since I have no freaking clue what all that shit you just said means, and it makes me want to run you over with my car for making my head hurt.

1) It is possible that the tyke took the Mensa test to get admitted and took another IQ test that was reported in the story.

2) I forget what 2 was.

What does an IQ test for a two-year-old entail? Object permanence?

I smell bullshit.

They've probably "adjusted for age" or some shit like that.

^All IQ tests are adjusted for age these days. He's just at the 99.99th percentile against his peers, not the general population.

As for Mensa not telling you your score, they told me mine.

When and where? That's certainly against International Mensa regulations now.

A test administered to a two-year-old cannot possibly say a lot about that person's development as an adult.

I think it is, quite frankly, intensely immoral to brand a child like this with this type of score. This comes from a person who has had two IQ tests, neither one of which was by choice. I was a "special person" and the "people in charge" obviously thought it important to get me tested, in all kinds of ways, emotionally, intellectually, etc, when I was 9 and 12. I was never asked if I wanted to take part in these tests or if I consented to having my IQ measured. I seriously doubt the child in the report was, either.

Let's just say, when I found out the results of these two tests I found it intensely uncomfortable, and I think it's safe to say it's been a contributing factor to the panic anxiety syndrome that I developed at age 17.

You must have really done bad...

Quite the opposite, and that's the reason I psyched out. Long story.

If you are branded with this type of score, this puts enormous amount of pressure on you. Even if the pressure isn't coming from anyone else, it's coming from within. You start to question your development, your place in life. You start to feel that "I should be so much more", "I should've achieved so much more by now", despite the fact that everyone who knows anything about these things, knows that there isn't a very strong correlation between IQ and success in life.

In a sense, I guess it can be a confidence boost to find out you're quite talented. Being stamped in the ass with a "superhuman IQ tag" at age 2... horrifying.

All those brains and you can't see a little bit of simple sarcasm...

IQ doesn't equal actual smarts, I got tested at 11 and it was in excess of 180.

I don't have a degree, I haven't cured cancer, and I'm unlikely to be studied by the next generation as a scientific luminary of the first water.

So yeah, get back to me when kid genius wins a Nobel. A proper one, not a here-Mr-President-have-a-new-paperweight one

I'm emotionally challenged

I'd gladly give up 15 IQ points it it made me more persuasive. A genius* who can't interact with people or convince anyone his ideas are good is more frustrating than being a dumb guy, mopping the floors at McDonald's.









*Not that I'm saying I'm a genius.

From another article on the same kid, explaining why he interests Volpone so much despite the uselessness of I.Q. testing two year olds for anything other than identifying learning disabilities:

I kid, I kid.



More seriously, 160 is a very low cutoff. It's used in part because it's so difficult to accurately differentiate between bright 2 year olds. Lots of people have IQs measured at 160 and higher. It's genius level, but not super genius level. All we really know is that this is a very bright kid.

BEWARE of this Young Skywalker: Cross to the dark side he will

I'd like to know more about this. We already know you've got unusual talents in playing Tetris. What I didn't know was that it was because you were a gifted kid.

It sort of makes it unfair in a way. No one can beat you here, and all you had to do was be born with the talent.

That happens to every father of a boy, when his son turns roughly 12-14years-old. And the father remains an idiot until the son reaches 18-25 years of age.

I am at z=+2.

Aren't you missing a "beyond a certain IQ" here? Cut-off point roughly around 121 or so?

I rather doubt that. Yes, some high-IQ individuals are failures and some low-IQ individuals are great successes; but these aren't the usual outcomes.

And on a national level, it's definitely not true. Here's a scatter plot from the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' that shows GDP vs. average IQ.

He's talking about Emotional intelligence.
Daniel Goleman.

Hmm... Apparently once you get above a 110 IQ (which isn't all that high, IMO) you either make so much more than $100,000 that it doesn't even show up on the charts or you don't have any income whatsoever.

[Bah. This is some funky nationally aggregated IQ chart. ]

The real reason I'm good at Tetris is that I've been playing a lot of Tetris

But, yes, my spatial intelligence is pretty good. At least it was 10 years ago, I might've gotten more stupid lately. Alcohol and drugs could do that to you, I guess.

As for knowing more about it, I'm not sure what to tell. When I tell anyone my IQ scores they immediately tell me I'm lying, but what the hell, I tested 185 (when I was 9) and 200+ (when I was 12; that's the same as "maxing out the scale") on a test designed for adults that didn't require any "former knowledge". Those were extensive tests, each one taking more than one day to complete. I don't take it very seriously anymore, but when I found out, I was 16, and that sort of shook me up, badly.

I think the implication was "between a high IQ and unusual success in life," since people with high IQs are usually the ones whining about it.

How, and do you, apply your intelligence?
What do you find easier than most people?

Extremely hard to answer that. It's not only that I have a very high IQ. I've also got an autistic streak, though it does not show very much. I think most people that do score very high on IQ tests have some type of mental illness. An "unbalanced brain", if you will.

I learn faster and easier than almost anyone. I understand logical principles pretty much instantly. For example, in math class, I used to skip the lessons, come to the tests 15 minutes early, read through the formulas and the summaries of each chapter, and write the test with a full score. If I'm talking about this, it obviously just sounds like bragging, and I guess it is, but well, that's an example.

I guess it does help in games like Tetris, too. I see every possible fit for every block I place, as well as the created formation caused by this block's placement, and the created formation by placing the preview block. This takes a fraction of a second. I could probably play at 400 blocks per minute if my hands weren't so bloody slow