Slop.

Reading through the provided paper provides even more comedy

This paper takes up that challenge through an examination of the contemporary case of YoungHoon Kim, a South Korean polymath in psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics, who has been credited with an IQ of 276 on a scale with a standard deviation (SD) of 24 (corresponding to an equivalent IQ of 210 on the more common SD=15 scale).

My man is literally using a modified IQ scale that inflates iq scores because ...

This score, if recalculated on the standard deviation scale used by modern tests (Mean=100, SD=15), would represent a deviation of approximately 7.33 standard deviations above the population mean—a level of rarity so profound as to be statistically indistinguishable from infinity.

I think this kind of understates how rare a 7.33 standard deviation event is. It's a 1 in 10 trillion probability. You would need to multiply the human population by 1000 to have about a 2/3rds chance that an individual with such a high iq exists (at some given time)

This shift was a monumental advance for psychometrics, creating a stable, meaningful scale for comparing intellectual ability across the entire lifespan. Yet, it created an unintended paradox. While making IQ measurement more rigorous for the 99% of the population within ±3 SD of the mean, it simultaneously made the measurement of the extreme "tails" of the distribution exponentially more difficult. A ratio IQ could, in theory, generate an arbitrarily high number for a sufficiently precocious child. A deviation IQ, however, is directly tied to population rarity.

Is ... is this guy literally trying to redefine intelligence measurements so he can get a higher number?

However, there is a maximum possible raw score for each subtest, which corresponds to a maximum scaled score (typically 19 on WISC-V subtests) and a maximum FSIQ (typically 160 on the WAIS-IV and SB5) (Wechsler, 2014; Roid, 2003). A person with a "true" intellectual ability of IQ 165 and another with a "true" ability of IQ 185 may both achieve perfect raw scores on several subtests. The test will assign them both the same ceiling-level FSIQ of160. The score no longer reflects their ability; it merely reflects the limit of the instrument. This inability to discriminate among individuals at the top end of the scale renders standard IQ tests invalid for the assessment of profound giftedness.

The whole justification of this paper is that people with "profound giftedness" are undeserved by society. And yet, getting an iq scores of 160 is already enough to measure such "profound giftedness"! What is the use of distinguishing iq scores higher than that? How does it even massage your ego to have an iq higher than that? Do your actual achievements mean nothing in front of a test score?