According to this source , at age 8.3, Terence Tao scored 290 on the verbal section of the pre-1995 SAT(hat-tip to commenter Tenn for finding this data since my google searches for Tao’s verbal SATs turned up nothing) .
According to the book The Bell Curve (pge 694), if all American 17-year-olds took the old SAT in the 1980s (not just the college-bound elite) the mean verbal score would be 376 and the standard deviation (SD) would be 102.
Thus Tao scored 0.84 standard deviations below the average American-17-year-old (IQ 87 U.S. norms; IQ 84 U.S. white norms). But given that he was only 8.83, he deserves a huge age bonus.
On the WISC-R Vocabulary subtest (the subtest most similar to the verbal SAT), an 8.8-year-old who scores about 0.84 SD below American 16.8-year-olds (16-25 percentile), is actually about 2.17 SD above the mean for his own age (98-99 percentile), implying a verbal IQ of 133 (U.S. norms) or 132 (U.S. white norms).
A verbal IQ of 133 is extremely high but it’s still 47 points below Tao’s math IQ of about 180. I don’t know what the correlation between SAT verbal and math would be if the general population (not just the college bound segment) took the SAT, but let’s say it’s 0.67 (like the correlation between the verbal and performance scales on the WISC-R).
We would expect the average person with a math IQ of 180 to have a verbal IQ of 0.67(80) + 100 = 154, with 95% of all cases falling between 132 and 176.
Many people think it impossible that Richard Feynman could have obtained a valid IQ in the mid 120s as a child, but if the test was primarily verbal, we can see how it could have happened.
Pumpkin Person 
Hi !
I read you now for months, and i really enjoy your work.
I dont really understand the Feynman got “only” 120 because of a sp-called verbal test.
I know only the WAIS, but in the WAIS the verbal part has nothing to do with grammar or anything. Most of the heavily “loaded in g” subtests are from this part.
Plus, when you know that some child chess prodigies had <100 IQ, and that some chess masters have average IQ, it doesn't bother me to think about the Feynman's IQ to be around 120-130.
Sorry for grammar mistakes 🙂
Pierre
You’re right that the Wechsler scales don’t measure grammar, indeed in the WISC-R manual there are explicit instructions not to penalize verbal answers for poor grammar and to focus on substance
Nonetheless verbal IQ and grammar are probably highly correlated
Interesting post! However, wouldn’t his verbal SAT score only equate to an IQ of 133 if there were a 1:1 correlation between VIQ and V-SAT? What about regression?
What I calculated is an SAT IQ equivalent. Since most psychometricians consider the SAT (especially the old SAT) a valid measure of ability in its own right, using regression to predict IQ from SAT wouldn’t make anymore sense than using regression to predict SAT from IQ
It does make sense to use regression if
1) the SAT is considered an inferior test of ability. I’ve argued that it is, but in future posts I have evidence that it’s not so I’m conflicted
2) you’re dealing with a group of people that were specifically selected for SAT scores (i.e. Harvard students) and thus should regress on average on every other test they take or ever took, including a second testing on the SAT
And another problem with using regression in this particular case is regression tells the average IQ of a people with a given SAT, but given Tao’s accomplishments, he’s likely to have a higher IQ than his SAT predicts
With someone like Terence Tao, it’s time to throw out the IQ scale, any score IQ score would likely only underestimate their accomplishments.
I guess that’s why I’m so interested in your estimate of Chris Langan/Rick Rosner. Their real-world accomplishments are so miniscule in comparison to their IQ scores. They just seem like nerds who are really obsessedd with external confirmation of their intelligence.
Okay my comment did get here…hahaha
ruhroh…did my last comment post? I’m at a new location…
Anyhow…In my last comment I was saying that Terence Tao’s IQ is probably irrelevant in comparison to his amazing accomplishments…whereas someone like Rick Rosner/Chris Langan are probably significantly overstated by their IQ scores.
peepee should investigate so called “nootropics”.
the only one i’ve taken is amphetamine, and it didn’t work.
but i have a theory which peepee could test herself.
lithium salts are used in the treatment of mania.
so it might be that heavier alkalies like caesium and rubidium stimulate the brain in the same way that lithium slows it down.
Bernic Lake, Manitoba has the highest concentration of rubidium and caesium known.
Adderall, phenylpiracetam, noopept are all wonderful.
had no response to Armodafinil, despite having the GG alleles for the COMT V158M Gene (“warrior” so-called.
adderall is just amphetamine. you knew that right?
/
of course amphetamine does WORK…(as david carr said of alcohol)
it just didn’t make me smarter…as far as i could tell.
but it sure did make me “motivated” to do…whatever…read text books i hadn’t read…lift weights…whatever…it does have a PROFOUND effect.
i’ve never taken meth or any illegal drug; except once i smoke some MJ…but it’s now legal where i live.
and believe it or not meth is actually used for ADD in some instances…just at a very small dose.
and amphetamine is a very safe drug at the levels prescribed for ADD. safer than any other psychiatric drug in fact.
the addicts are taking much higher doses.
i got a doctor to prescribe it for me for “depression”. it used to be the primary treatment before the tri-cyclics and SSRIs.
and it wasn’t just david carr. charlie HIV+ sheen said the same thing.
why drugs?
because they WORK.
or as john nash said…there’s a great deal of selling the idea that “mental illness” is suffering…but often it’s an escape…from suffering.
and the “mental illness” of addiction has attractions in addition to the “high”.
as david carr said on charlie rose…
the alcoholic has a very simple life…
his life has CLARITY.
i’m guessing that that interview is behind a pay wall now, i can’t find it, but…//
the point was that the addict has ONE ambition…
every morning…
or whenever he wakes up…
ONE thing he wants…
before EVERYTHING ELSE…
and in comparison to everything else is…
NOTHING.
that’s CLARITY.
A 47 IQ gap between math and verbal is 3 sigma, making it much less likely to be true. Although, since Tao is an exceptional case, it’s more possible that his profile will have extreme characteristics. Yet 3 sigma is so extreme, that I’m doubtful.
The first thing that comes to mind is that we need to know if his parents spoke English in the home growing up and how much that may factor into his scores. I’ve seen incidences of low SAT scores for Asian children whose parents learned English latter in life, and I’m convinced it underestimates their actual ability.
Sailer had a post a couple of years ago, showing the highest gains in SAT scores are verbal scores by Asian children. An 8 year old Tao grew up in a time before wide access to media, so his parents would be the source of most of his access to English.
Excellent point!
ik weet zeker, na slechts een korte overdenking, dat, hoewel niet 100%, de meeste lezers wat ik hier schrijf niet zullen begrijpen, omdat ze geen Nederlands begrijpen en dat als een van de moeilijkste talen wordt beschouwd, vooral voor domme Amerikanen, hetgeen natuurlijk geen afbreuk doet aan hun matige intelligentie van rond de 100, maar wel een sterke indicatie vormt voor mijn taalkundige iq van 200, waarbij dat geleuter van Bill Clinton, laat staan Al Gore, de gore leugenaar, geheel in het niet vallen, ook al ben ik niet naar Harvard geweest. Nou de mazzel en veel geluk met je geouwehoer op deze site.
Excellent, Watson.
PP,
What is your verbal IQ?
When i was tested at age 12 (the age when IQ starts becoming very genetic) my verbal IQ was much much lower than my non-verbal IQ, but still really high: about 120
But the test had old norms at the time i was tested so it might be only 116
I did worst on the general knowledge section. I don’t know anything because i don’t read. Never did.
How someone with a mediocre verbal who knows nothing became the #1 blogger is a mystery, but there’s something about having a high full-scale IQ that allows you to use even weaknesses to your advantage