According to [1]'s self-described "pessimistic" view,

>The results [of a 1950s study of 64 eminent scientists] strongly suggest that high IQ provides a significant advantage in science. Some have claimed that IQ is irrelevant beyond some threshold: more precisely, that the advantage conferred by IQ above some threshold (e.g., 120) decreases significantly as other factors like drive or creativity take precedence. But, if that were the case it would be unlikely to have found such high scores in this group. The average IQ of a science PhD is roughly 130, and individuals with IQs in the higher range described above constitute a tiny fraction of all scientists. If IQ were irrelevant above 130 we would expect the most eminent group to have an average similar to the overall population of scientists.

[1] http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals-of-psychometry-i...

Probably the main observable difference is the number of times they mention their IQ score.

30

I once did an IQ test. The result was 138. The test was online, selling something, back in the late 1990s. I've refused to do one again - what's the point? - that test made me feel sufficiently happy.

There are more tangible 'qualifications / achievements' I'd prefer to focus on personally than what combination of squares and circles follows in the sequence (this did remind me of 1st year Analysis - is the series converging or is it not; dum-de-dum, drum roll). And if I was presented with an IQ test on a CV (never have been) it would be instantly dismissed (the 'qualification / achievement', not the candidate).

They administered an IQ test on me when I was in first grade and said I was gifted. It was great for me because I received special placement and got to participate in an "enrichment" class throughout grade school. I have a feeling that the special treatment may have contributed a lot to my scholastic success. It may have been a bit unfair to other kids who didn't get the special treatment.

About 30 IQ points ;).

Some studies showed that beyond 130 the benefits of a high IQ plateaued and that's assuming you put much faith in IQ scores which I don't since I know roughly where I fall on the spectrum and I know my score and my score says I'm considerably smarter than I actually am :).

Some studies can't demonstrate differences beyond 130 (which is different from showing that they don't exist).

Most studies, however, show that these differences still matter. Look for papers from the "Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth" dataset, in particular "Ability Differences Among People Who Have Commensurate Degrees Matter for Scientific Creativity" by Park, Lubinski, and Benbow. It shows a very strong correlation [1] between IQ/SAT scores and numbers of patents/PhD/science publications even among people in the top 1 percentile of the SAT-M - i.e. roughly IQ 135 or more. (This is even more significant given how imprecise the SAT is as a measurement tool at the edges of the bell curve.)

[1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/10/957/F1.large.jpg

I'm not a gambling man, but perhaps I should be. Even though there should only be about 2000 of you IQ 160+ people in the world, by pure chance I seem to have bumped into at least 100 of them. Incredible, what are the odds?

The obvious answer would be that there is a global conspiracy of IQ 160+ people (the Intelligati) and you are a member!

I have no idea what my IQ is, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a member

You would say that, wouldn't you ;-)

You're on to us eh? That's clever. Maybe a bit too... clever? I'm on to you, brother Intelligati

Drat and double drat!

But you just said:

> So what about 160? It's in 0.0031%

0.0031 / 100 * 7e7 = 2170.0