The difference in I.Q. ranks between individuals is far greater; scores range from well under 50,
for people with cognitive disabilities, to a little above74175. I.Q. scores beyond 200 are either
dubious273-274 or calculated from a totally different scale (the Cattell scale or ratio scales76-77 for
instance).
However, even if intelligence is largely innate48-86, not all gifted people (I.Q. above 130)
originate from the union of two gifted individuals85-86. This highlights the small, but objective
influence of one’s environment on one's intelligence, especially during the first years of life.
After a brief adjustment during the teenage years78, intelligence remains pretty constant
throughout adult life. Fluid intelligence (reasoning skills unrelated to knowledge) seems to
plateau at approximately 30 years of age79 only to decrease steadily with agedness while
crystallized intelligence (knowledge related aptitudes) increases slowly79.
Examples of elevated I.Q. scores associated to various illustrious names; (while some have been
officially evaluated others are merely estimates based on accomplishments):
Albert Einstein47: From 160 to 190. Actually, this must be a misleading oversimplification of the
physicist’s intelligence for, suffering from high-functioning autism47 (which results in
unbalanced intelligence: very high in one area and average or low in others80), the subtype of
intelligence that permitted him to create the Theory of Relativity was, in all likelihood, closer to
190 or 200 on the Wechsler Scale.
Sheldon Cooper: 187. The beloved character’s I.Q. score, in “The Big Bang Theory”66, is
undoubtedly calculated on the Wechsler Scale which places him in the profoundly gifted
category. On the show Leonard is presumed to have scored 173, Raj 170, Amy 180, Bernadette
160, Howard 150, and Penny 110. It is needless to point out the imperfect portrayal of those
characters, many not even being within communication range81-83 (15 to 30 points) of each other.
Garry Kasparov39: over 190. This score is rumored to be accurate for the chess master.
Terence Tao39: From 210 to 230 . The mathematician’s I.Q. score is a ratio assessment taken
during his childhood. On the Wechsler Scale, he would score much lower, but definitely in the
profoundly gifted range (above 175).
William Sidis39: From 200 to 300. The man portrayed in “Good Will Hunting” boasts an I.Q.
level certainly south of 200, on the Wechsler Scale, for few official tests reach beyond 200 and
none show accuracy at that level.
Leonardo Da Vinci39: From 180 to 220. The famous painter and inventor’s I.Q. score was
definitely in the profoundly gifted range.
Marilyn Vos Savant39: 228. The columnist's I.Q. level was calculated from the Stanford-Binet
test, it could actually be the highest ever recorded, but was deemed unreliable and taken down by
the “Guinness Book of Records”.
Evangelos Katsioulis39: 198. A Greek psychiatrist boasting the highest officially tested I.Q. score
in the world.
Isaac Newton39: From 190 to 200. The physicist’s alleged score also falls in the profoundly
gifted classification.
Marie Curie39: From 180 to 200. The first woman to win the Nobel prize and the first person to
win it twice.
William Shakespeare39: 210. The English playwright and actor’s I.Q. score is believed to be off
the charts.
2.4. The Homogeneity of Intelligence Levels in Social Groups
Social circles are very homogeneous along I.Q. lines. In a group of friends, or between spouses,
I.Q. score disparity must not be greater than 20 points82, from one individual to the next, for the
group to be harmonious. This law applies to sentimental, but also, to professional groupings.
Failure to comply has dire consequences on long-term support and cooperation.
Similarly, successful leaders need I.Q. scores closer than 20 points83 from those of their audience,
lest their ideas fail to be followed, due to a lack of understanding. Because the average person’s
score is 100, leaders display an average I.Q. score of 120. Anyone above that point won’t be
fully comprehended and will confuse his or her target audience. As a result, for instance, typical
college entrants (averaging an I.Q. score of 115) will not be taught well by someone whose level
is superior to 135.
Besides, for any meaningful exchange to take place, between two persons, the divergence in I.Q.
scores must remain under 30 points according to Grady Towers81 or, I think more accurately, 15
points as stated by Simonton83; this is known as the “communication range”. Above that
threshold, people communicate within a set of rules that is alien to each other. They don’t
interact on the same bases, aren’t interested in the same topics, don’t share the same values and
frames of reference; in short, they don’t understand each other.
The “optimal social adjustment I.Q.87 bracket” which favors the harmonious development of
successful individuals, socially and professionally, lies between 120 and 140. Under that range,
people won’t show remarkably high rate of professional success. Above that range, people will
have difficulty adapting to regular social environments and will undergo some type of rejection.
According to Ferguson, every hierarchy is composed of several types of individuals: The
Followers88 (employees with an I.Q. score between 98 and 125) who are being directed by The
Leaders88 (112-138) who are being guided by The Advisors88 (125-155). As outliers, we find The
Clueless88 (I.Q. score under 98) and The Excluded88 (I.Q. score above 150) who are respectively
not bright enough to really follow instructions or too bright to be convincing and, therefore,
regarded as trusted leaders.
Thus, the probability of landing and remaining in an intellectual occupation such as physician,
lawyer, college teacher, manager, scientist, engineer increases, up to an I.Q. score of 13388, then
declines by a third on the 14088 mark and likewise, sinks by 97% above a score of 15088.
Consequently, intellectual professions sport an average score of 12588 and 95%88 of people, in an
intellectual elite occupation, boast a level ranging from 112 to 138.
The numbers from the previous table26-89-90 showing the mean I.Q. score by activity have been rounded up to give a better equivalence idea to the reader.
The relative homogeneity of intelligence, in professional groups, also holds true in politics. The
general public largely regards conflicting with their worldviews as a form of stupidity, while
these disagreements are commonly based on personal values and chosen goals, but not on
cognitive weakness.
Politician’s I.Q. rankings are nearly always at least in the “intellectual profession” range (115-
129) or even above that threshold, for, the average score of statesmen or stateswomen is 145.
Elected officials are never “idiots” in a strict I.Q. related way, because even initiating such a
career, demands being more intellectually endowed than average.
