A reader asked:

What are the real-world implications of an exceptional score (say, 170 – 190) on tests of the Mega Test type?

While conventional IQ tests are administered in a single sitting, and supervised so that you can’t rely on books or calculators to “cheat”, Mega Type tests include problems so complex, they’re solved over dozens of unsupervised hours in many sittings, with the use of reference books and other aids.

Chris Langan stated:

…by virtue of their difficulty, these problems take longer to solve… sometimes days or even weeks. Accordingly,
power tests are untimed and unsupervised. This opens the door to factors like motivation and persistence, which are not
among the factors primarily measured by standard IQ tests. On the other hand, virtually every significant intellectual
achievement of mankind has involved these factors in great measure.

From Discussions on Genius and Intelligence Mega Foundation Interview with Arthur Jensen pg 23

Arthur Jensen stated:

…Such tests would have little practical use, although they could be of scientific interest in studying the nature of high-level problem solving. But people even capable of taking such tests could be identified with some conventional tests, such as a combination of the Advanced Raven Matrices and Terman’s Concept Mastery Test. People with high scores on such tests can demonstrate their problem solving ability in their careers. What is the need for prior selection? They can make it into college and graduate school if they’ve got high IQs, and it will be their virtually unique constellation of traits (g + special abilities + motivation + character, etc.) that will determine whether they will, first of all, identify important problems, and secondly, be able to solve them or at least materially contribute to their eventual solution.

From Discussions on Genius and Intelligence Mega Foundation Interview with Arthur Jensen pg 24

So Langan and Jensen seems to feel that Mega type tests measure a combination of traits useful for high level intellectual achievement. Cognitive traits (g, special abilities) + personality variables (persistence + motivation). Jensen seems to feel that the cognitive component can be sufficiently measured by combining conventional psychometric tests (eg RAPM + CMT), but what about the non-cognitive component?

Jensen writes about a trait called Typical Intellectual Engagement (or TIE) :

Most people perform at near their maximum level while taking a cognitive test. However, even among persons who show exactly the same level of g, there is great variation in TIE, which is assessed with a fifty-nine-item self-report questionnaire. The TIE inventory assesses the degree to which the individual typically engages in g-demanding activities, vocationally and especially avocationally, and has what would ordinarily be regarded as intellectual interests (reading, learning, thinking, a wide range of interests, particularly in literature, science, and mentally challenging activities, such as chess, being absorbed by the subjects of one’s interests and delving into them in depth).

The g Factor by Arthur Jensen pg 574

Jensen continues:

TIE is much more a personality factor than an ability factor. It does not correlate at all with G f (or a third-order factor g), but has significant but small correlations (r = + .3 to +.4) with verbal IQ and Gc. (Tests for IQ and Gc involve specific knowledge content and hence reflect intellectual achievement as well as the information-processing capacity that is measured more purely by Gf.) For a given level of g, a higher level of TIE in adulthood leads to somewhat higher levels of real-world intellectual achievement. But TIE itself clearly belongs in the personality domain, as shown by its correlations of about + .60 with
two of the “ Big Five” personality factors (“ Openness” and “ Conscientiousness” ), as well as with another personality factor, “ self-directed activity,” which reflects energy level, absorption, and lack of distractibility.

The g Factor by Arthur Jensen pg 574

Given the 0.57 correlation between IQ and academic success, I’d expect someone with about + 5 sigma score on a conventional IQ test (top one in 3.48 million) to on average, have real world intellectual achievements of about +5(0.57) = + 2.85 (top one in 482). In other words, an adjunct professor who never gets tenure. That’s not to deny that some +5 sigmas achieve far more academically, perhaps even winning the Nobel Prize, but the overall average would be dragged down by all the +5 sigmas who don’t even graduate from college, either because they have more lucrative options, or because they don’t have the luxury.

I would expect, if we could get a representative (rather than self-selected) sample of people with +5 sigma Mega scores, they would be about as academically successful as their counterparts on conventional IQ tests. Because the Mega Test likely loads more on personality variables than conventional tests do (in particular TIE because you have to stay intellectually engaged with a problem for days or weeks), it likely has a lower g loading, but because TIE correlates with academic success independently of g, it’s correlation with real-world intellectual achievement is probably about the same.

I do wonder though whether personality traits like TIE are the only difference between people who perform better on Mega type tests than conventional tests. Could there be cognitive differences too? Conventional IQ tests break big problems down into digestible mini-problems but perhaps the ability to break big problems into small ones is an important cognitive ability in its own right. When faced with big problem in real life, even something as trivial as writing a blog post on a big topic, I’m sometimes overwhelmed with a sense of where do I even begin? Perhaps Mega type tests better assess this kind of big picture planning and hierarchical organizing. It would be interesting to see whether neuro-psychological tests of executive functioning predict Mega test performance independently of both conventional IQ and TIE.

This is the third and final article in a series ordered for $3.50 USD by 150 IQ Ganzir (the market has since driven the price up to $15). Here, I focus on a 1958 paper on 64 Yeshiva men (age 16 to 31; mean age 21.43). Author Boris M. Levinson states:

Our sample finally consisted of 64 subjects, classified as follows : (a) six senior Yeshiva High School students, (b) 31 Yeshiva College students, (c) 27 graduate students. Among them were four ordained rabbis. Every graduate student was an alumnus of Yeshiva College. The writer believes that the sample secured was fairly representative of the Yeshiva population…

Below are the scores of the sample on the original Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The 11 subtest scores are expressed on a scale where the average American scores 10 (SD = 3), and the verbal, performance, and full-scale IQs are expressed on a scale where the average American scores 100 (SD = 15). To convert scaled scores to IQ equivalents, just multiply by 5 and then add 50. Because the study, was submitted for publication in 1957 and the WAIS was standardized in 1953.5, there was a trivial Flynn effect I adjusted for.

After correcting for slightly inflated norms, not a single mean score on the verbal subtests fell below the “Bright Normal range” and not a single performance subtest fell above the Average range. This complete lack of overlap shows the validity of the original verbal vs performance dichotomy that the Wechsler scales have since abandoned but which reflects the likely original reasons human intelligence evolved: To talk (verbal IQ) and to make and use tools (performance IQ).

Even Wechsler himself, who was also a Jewish New Yorker, likely showed this verbal > performance gap, as he became concerned that he could not solve his own Block Design items quickly.

The mean verbal > performance gap in this study is 21 points (22 after I adjust for norm inflation) but Levinson notes that for the graduate student sub-sample (n = 27), the mean gap was about 26 points and for rabbis (n = 4) it was about 34, which he interpreted as evidence that exposure to traditional Jewish culture was causing the gaps.

Levinson writes:

The students stated that the performance items appeared childish and unimportant. While they tried to achieve a good score whenever possible, the verbal items were more of a challenge...They said that an inferior score on a performance test was not as damaging to their self-esteem as a poor mark on the verbal tests.

I had the opposite attitude when I was tested on the Wechsler children’s scale at age 12. I thought the verbal items were mostly measuring what I learned in school and thus not knowing an answer didn’t damage my self-esteem. By contrast I saw the performance items as measuring my real intelligence.

Levinson writes:

In discussing the digit span test, quite a few of them indicated that they had visualized the digits. This is similar to the experience of some of these students who, in studying the Talmud, remember page location of a passage.

On the other hand, practice on one cognitive task seldom transfer to another unless they’re all but identical. In one study people who practiced their memory span for digits managed to increase it from seven to in some case over 100, but when faced with a memory span for letters task. They were right back down to seven. But perhaps that study was too brief to fully capture the effects of practice.

Levinson writes:

The subjects have been subjected, since their early school days, to a curriculum which greatly emphasized verbal knowledge, rote memory, verbal concept formation, abstract ideas, to the general neglect of performance arts. Examinations in the Talmud, for example, are oral and emphasize the detailed memorization and understanding of tracts. A differentiation of intellectual abilities has thus occurred. These cultural forces have also brought about different attitudes and self concepts regarding various intellectual tasks. Failure on a performance item does not carry the same ego deflating connotations as failures on a verbal task. It thus appears that the greater the premium placed on verbal ability in a subculture, the greater will be the disparity between verbal and performance WAIS scores.

There’s no doubt that cultural exposure affects verbal IQ score. Excellent research in the 1920s showed that canal boat children who lived a nomadic existence where they were virtually deprived of schooling, showed massive declines in IQ as they got older. Because IQ tests are normed for age, and because these kids were kept out of school they fell further and further behind their chronological age-mates on the type of knowledge that IQ tests measure. Young canal boat kids would have an IQ around 90, but older canal boat kids would have an IQ of 60. However when their performance IQs were tested, there was no such decline.

Perhaps the opposite is occurring with Yeshiva kids. Instead of their verbal IQs falling further and further behind as the effects of missed schooling accumulate, they grow further and further ahead, as the effects of enhanced schooling multiply.

On the other hand schooling likely has diminishing returns on verbal IQ once we get a basic amount. A study in Japan (where schooling is more intense) found older kids scored only slightly higher on verbal IQ.

This is part two of a series of articles ordered by 150 IQ Ganzir for $3.50 (he was smart enough to order early before the free market realizes my true value :-)).

In the comment section it was claimed that Jews have a math, verbal, memory and spatial IQ of 113, 109, 96, and 93 respectively. The source for this claim was likely an article I wrote back in 2016. My source was journalist Daniel Seligman who had expressed the test score differences between Jewish & Gentile Caucasians in SD units, which I converted to IQ by assuming an SD of 15 and assuming the Gentile mean was 100.

However Seligman neglected to mention that the groups were equated for socio-economic status (SES). Richard Lynn writes:

These differences were calculated on Jews and Gentiles matched for socioeconomic status. Because Jews have a higher average socioeconomic status than Gentiles, the reported differences are not an accurate measure of the true differences, and there is no way of estimating the Jewish IQ from this study.

Although sociologists commonly control for SES as a way of equating environment, they don’t understand that controlling for SES may also indirectly control for genetic intelligence and thus minimize group differences. This mistake occurs so frequently Jensen coined the term “sociologist’s fallacy” to describe it.

Because altruism is positively correlated with IQ, it was predictable that 150 IQ Ganzir was generous enough to order an article for $3.50. The topic he ordered was “spatial IQ deficits (relative to overall IQ) in people of normal or higher IQ”. but rather than writing one long article on such a heterogenous topic, I thought I would do a series of relatively brief articles. In this first part we will explore Turner’s Syndrome.

Wikipedia states:

Turner syndrome (TS), also known 45,X, or 45,X0, is a genetic condition in which a female is partly or completely missing an X chromosome.^[2] Signs and symptoms vary among those affected.^[1] Often, a short and webbed neck, low-set ears, low hairline at the back of the neck, short stature, and swollen hands and feet are seen at birth.^[1] Typically, they develop menstrual periods and breasts only with hormone treatment, and are unable to have children without reproductive technology.^[1]Heart defects, diabetes, and low thyroid hormone occur more frequently.^[1] Most people with TS have normal intelligence, however many have troubles with spatial visualization that may be needed for mathematics.^[1] Vision and hearing problems occur more often.^[5]

Arthur Jensen stated:

Provided no spatial visualization tests are included in the IQ battery, the IQs of these women (and presumably their level of g) are normally distributed and virtually indistinguishable from that of the general population. Yet their performance on all tests that are highly loaded on the spatial-visualization factor is extremely low, typically borderline retarded, even in Turner’s syndrome women with verbal IQs above 130. It is as if their level of g is almost totally unreflected in their level of performance on spatial tasks.

If the typical Turner syndrome woman’s (verbal) IQ is normal (IQ 100 in the U.S.) but her spatial IQ is borderline (IQ 75), that’s a 25 point gap. Thus one might expect Turner syndrome women with (verbal) IQs of 130+ to have spatial IQs of 105+, but apparently their spatial IQs are about 75 too. This suggests a near-zero correlation between verbal and spatial among Turner syndrome women (which make wonder if g even exists in these women) or their distribution of spatial IQ is extremely narrow. Unfortunately Jensen didn’t cite his source.