[maceurt]

Furthermore, most IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence past a certain point. A person with an IQ of 160 is not inherently smarter than someone who has an IQ of 150 in the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is inherently smarter than someone with an IQ of 90.

[toasterlovin]

There can be measurement errors, like with any metric, but statistically speaking, a person with an IQ score of 160 will be more intelligent than somebody with a score of 150. And significantly so. 10 IQ points is a big deal (2/3rds of a standard deviation). Increasing the average IQ of any population by 10 points would be a total game changer.

[mercutio2]

Are you really arguing that most IQ tests have replicable sensitivity above 130-140?

Because that is very different than what I’ve heard. My impression is that most (perhaps not all) IQ tests are stable and highly replicable for results up to that range (assuming consistently motivated test takers, a very big assumption, particularly for bored smart people), but test scores above that range are mostly noise.

[toasterlovin]

In another part of this thread[0], Bartweiss says that Raven's Advanced Matrices is valid up until about 150 IQ. So I was close. And my bigger point is that, though the measurement lacks precision at that level, if you lined up a bunch of 150 IQ people and a bunch of 160 IQ people, there are probably some aggregate group differences. Anecdotally, I've spent a lot of time around really smart people. There are gradations even at the top (just as there are in all other areas of talent; there's only one Lebron James, after all)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18142638