This is intended to be the largest and most rigorous source of IQ estimations available, with estimates generated for both groups and people. These include both mathematical estimations and arbitrary judgements. Mathematical estimations are informed by quantitative methods which use variables such as wealth, years of education, and standardized test scores to estimate how intelligent an individual is.
My impression is that using Hoeflin test data in a regression model will always prove quite fruitless.
It's patently absurd to assume that the Mega Test, for example, matches the general population distribution of intelligence. Any claim on behalf of Omni that its readers have an average IQ of 140 SD16 is immaterial (and a distortion of evidence). Omni's total circulation substantially exceeded 700000 copies per month, of which only a miniscule and self-selected fraction bothered with sending in answers for these tests. What that number actually represents is data reported to Ronald Hoeflin regarding prior scores of those who did. There are of course plentiful reasons to doubt the validity of the official norm. Redvaldsen reanalyzed this data and concluded that officially issued scores were inflated by around ten points at the highest level. This study is unfortunately not of much higher quality than Hoeflin's own original data -- it downplays the value of the old SAT as a high-range test while instead regressing against antiquated editions of the SB. It is better to use the SAT in norming the Mega, since both are primarily crystallized (as suggested by the low correlations of the Mega with fluid tests). Another issue besides norm inflation comprises the low range-corrected correlations obtained from Dr. Hoeflin's tests against reliable and valid instruments. Correlations to tests such as the WAIS, SB, and CTMM average ~0.3 without correcting for range restriction, but not much higher after doing so.
Untimed hobby tests do not belong in the same regression model as properly standardized ones. I've taken a few. If I were to believe Hoeflin's Power Test, LS60, and SLSE 48, I would be forced to conclude my spatial ability is at least five standard deviations above the mean. This is exceedingly unlikely. Marilyn vos Savant's childhood score was improperly computed. On a deviation scale, I believe I recall the actual value (which her psychologist flubbed the arithmetic on even for ratio IQ) would be about 2 2/3 SDs.
Interesting list but you are wrong about Putin’s IQ estimation.
He plagiarized his PhD and also mentioned that he didn’t study well in university because he drank a lot of bear. Anatoly Karlin was sympathetic to Putin at the time when he wrote this so his judgment is biased. Also he certainly didn’t get all of his wealth because he was very good at business lol. He didn’t make that money. Similarly I wouldn’t say that because Prince Harry has a lot of money his IQ is automatically at 130s. I believe Dutton estimated his IQ at around 105
Correlations are agnostic to the surrounding context.
Correlation between net worth and IQ is like 0.16, probably closer to 0.2 when you adjust for measurement error. Some of the people get their money through luck/investing/inheritance/entrepreneurship. Some of these paths are probably going to be more g-loaded than others, but that isn't stopping you from making a general estimate.
Same for games - I'm sure some games are more g-loaded than others (e.g. Starcraft correlates more with IQ than call of duty), but it's difficult to measure the separate correlations, so the aggregate must be used.
It would be great to see estimation for Einstein and John von Neumann
My impression is that using Hoeflin test data in a regression model will always prove quite fruitless.
It's patently absurd to assume that the Mega Test, for example, matches the general population distribution of intelligence. Any claim on behalf of Omni that its readers have an average IQ of 140 SD16 is immaterial (and a distortion of evidence). Omni's total circulation substantially exceeded 700000 copies per month, of which only a miniscule and self-selected fraction bothered with sending in answers for these tests. What that number actually represents is data reported to Ronald Hoeflin regarding prior scores of those who did. There are of course plentiful reasons to doubt the validity of the official norm. Redvaldsen reanalyzed this data and concluded that officially issued scores were inflated by around ten points at the highest level. This study is unfortunately not of much higher quality than Hoeflin's own original data -- it downplays the value of the old SAT as a high-range test while instead regressing against antiquated editions of the SB. It is better to use the SAT in norming the Mega, since both are primarily crystallized (as suggested by the low correlations of the Mega with fluid tests). Another issue besides norm inflation comprises the low range-corrected correlations obtained from Dr. Hoeflin's tests against reliable and valid instruments. Correlations to tests such as the WAIS, SB, and CTMM average ~0.3 without correcting for range restriction, but not much higher after doing so.
Untimed hobby tests do not belong in the same regression model as properly standardized ones. I've taken a few. If I were to believe Hoeflin's Power Test, LS60, and SLSE 48, I would be forced to conclude my spatial ability is at least five standard deviations above the mean. This is exceedingly unlikely. Marilyn vos Savant's childhood score was improperly computed. On a deviation scale, I believe I recall the actual value (which her psychologist flubbed the arithmetic on even for ratio IQ) would be about 2 2/3 SDs.
Very interesting! Your impressions line up with mine rather well, except for chess grandmasters, whose average IQ should be at least ten points less. Chess ability is poorly g-loaded, particularly among adults: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102241/1/INTELL_2016_117_The_Relationship_between_Cognitive_Ability_and_Chess_Skill_a_Comprehensive_Meta_Analysis.pdf
Post-doc physicists are smarter than grandmasters.
You did bronski like that on purpose didn’t you? lol
Interesting list but you are wrong about Putin’s IQ estimation.
He plagiarized his PhD and also mentioned that he didn’t study well in university because he drank a lot of bear. Anatoly Karlin was sympathetic to Putin at the time when he wrote this so his judgment is biased. Also he certainly didn’t get all of his wealth because he was very good at business lol. He didn’t make that money. Similarly I wouldn’t say that because Prince Harry has a lot of money his IQ is automatically at 130s. I believe Dutton estimated his IQ at around 105
Correlations are agnostic to the surrounding context.
Correlation between net worth and IQ is like 0.16, probably closer to 0.2 when you adjust for measurement error. Some of the people get their money through luck/investing/inheritance/entrepreneurship. Some of these paths are probably going to be more g-loaded than others, but that isn't stopping you from making a general estimate.
Same for games - I'm sure some games are more g-loaded than others (e.g. Starcraft correlates more with IQ than call of duty), but it's difficult to measure the separate correlations, so the aggregate must be used.