Myths About Intelligence, IQ and Being "Smart"

I'm just here to say that IQ doesn't really has scales. There have been people with higher IQ than 160 (around 190-210) and some of those people are actually alive too. It's true that when IQ is measured above 160 its credibility also lowers down but it isn't the limit of the scale. Might also add that most of these people with such incredible IQ decide to have a normal life for example: William James and Kim Ung-Yong.

Most of those scales we were talking about don't really have a cap. Meaning they can go above 160. The thing is that they just have a different value, kind of like difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.

The scale I'm referring to caps at 160 - Einstein and Hawking both measure at 160 on it, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th edition is what mine is based on.

Yes, I know that. Those IQ surpass both Einstein's and Hawking's. So the limit does not exist neither they have an equivalent. Luna's IQ could be both your interpretation or actually what it is. I truly mean it when I say the scale is just there for comparison not for a limit that can be converted into something else. Others are just personal interpretation. Get my point?

I don't agree with your point but I get exactly what you're trying to get across. I just don't really agree. I've developed a pretty consistent theory about IQ and its relationship to things and I've gotten it down pat.

Well ok, that's for you to decide. I'm just merely giving you true information that's out there. So it's nothing partial.

Its not fact. The Stanford-Binet scale is the primary IQ test used for both MENSA and psychiatric IQ diagnostic tests. It does not measure above 160. End of story. You can't expect to propagate subjective information as fact. The truth is, there's no universal scale, but for Stanford-Binet, the most widely accepted and verified of the tests, it is from 0-160, with most people falling in the 80-115 range.

@Elder Reaper There are actually people at are truely good at muti-tasking. By taking into account the margin of error in a randomized group and taking the average number of errors, the one's who make the least amount of errors would be the people who are better at multitasking. It's also been said that the way tesostrone forms the neural pathways in male babies causes them to be better at performing specific tasks, while the way women's minds are wired they are more prone to develop more social skills. There are jobs where a good level of multi-tasking is heavily required and I would avoid those jobs like the plague. On the issue of multi-tasking skill being tied directly to intelligence, that is debatable. That's what I believe because geniuses are able to balance complex equations in their mind. Never really looked too much into it though.

most guys eather suck at everything or are good at everything. girls are all sorta smart, thats why people say girls are smarter. a lot of guys say guys are smarter.