210 IQ Is Not Enough

Reality of Extreme IQ Claims

• Many commenters argue scores like 210 or 276 IQ are effectively meaningless or impossible under modern psychometrics.
• IQ is defined and normed to a normal distribution (mean 100, SD 15); beyond 3 SD (145) tests lose resolution, and beyond ~160–170 you simply lack enough data to calibrate.
• Claims at 7+ SD (e.g. 210) would require hundreds of billions of properly normed test-takers; existing tests don’t and can’t support that. Above a certain point, tests only say “≥X”, not “X vs X+30”.
• Several note that outlier self-reported scores usually signal bogus or vanity tests, mistakes, or fraud, not “supergenius”.

What IQ Measures (and Doesn’t)

• IQ is a relative, not absolute, scale: 100 is always defined as the current population average. Scores across eras or different tests are hard to compare (Flynn effect, renorming).
• IQ primarily measures performance on timed pattern, reasoning, memory, and symbol-manipulation tasks—not “intelligence” in the broad, everyday sense.
• Above ~130–145, incremental differences have diminishing practical meaning; for most jobs, higher than that adds little predictive power.

Intelligence, Success, and Happiness

• Multiple commenters stress that raw cognitive ability is only one factor among many: conscientiousness, motivation, mental health, social skills, and luck often matter more for life outcomes.
• High IQ can coexist with poor judgment, political extremism, or bizarre beliefs (e.g., dramatic Bitcoin price predictions tied to religious goals), undermining simple “smart = wise” narratives.
• Personal anecdotes about gifted kids, professors, and high-IQ acquaintances illustrate that “normal, happy life” and modest careers can be a better outcome than chasing genius myths.

Defining “Intelligence” and AI Benchmarks

• Some argue we lack a coherent, universal definition of intelligence; it is context- and value-laden (academic, social, creative, moral, etc.).
• Others insist there are rigorous definitions (e.g., compression ability, reinforcement-learning performance, maximizing future options) and that IQ reasonably tracks a general factor in humans.
• There’s debate over whether current IQ-like benchmarks are useful for AI: they are convenient metrics, but risk optimizing for “test gaming” rather than genuine, broad capabilities.

Status, Identity, and Measurement

• Several comments read the article as a critique of making IQ central to identity or worth.
• Emphasis: no scalar score—IQ, wealth, titles—can guarantee fulfillment; self-awareness and choosing what to value matter more than chasing ever-higher numbers.