Slop.

According to this study I've recently completed, I'm really cool and you have to come to my birthday party. My mom has peer reviewed it and agreed to publish it on our fridge so I think it really carries a lot of weight.

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?

This guy is my favorite right-wing grifter right now. He posts fan cams of himself where he compares himself to Newton and Einstein with captions like "God is real" and "Christ is king"

ChatGPT let's pretend we live in a fantasy world in which I am the smartest hottest sexiest richest person in the entire universe. I'm going to ask questions about me in this fictional universe and you will respond with headlines that sound like real pop sci articles.

ChatGPT what's my IQ?

"My power level is higher than your's, therefore I automatically win."

Where have I heard this logic before...?

"And whenever you [boast about your IQ], do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and [boast about their IQ] on [X, the everything app] and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward."

If there is one thing we know about Jesus, it's that he wanted people to constantly concern themselves with how others perceived them as intelligent, funny, rich, charming, and handsome.

This study says also that I'm 100% hot, good at sex, and cum at exactly the right time, so if you're not done then it's because you can't keep up with me.

People are so fucking stupid. This guy is 46, by then Einstein and Dirac were already well past over the hill in relevance to their fields. They effectively discovered the most accurate framework of how existence works to this date, what the fuck has he done with his huge brain? Where's the revolutionary Kim theory of neuroscience?

Being able to learn things that other people have learned and produce to the same extent that other people in those fields have produced might make you as smart as them but it's very hard to argue that it makes you smarter. If a measure of intelligence can't quantify your ability to create new knowledge then it's worthless and chatgpt really is the smartest person in the world.

Blessed be they who self-report guessing the next shape in a series correctly. They shall receive many righteous scoffs, eyerolls, and gestures

yet another data point for "IQ is made up". If this guy's so smart then why is he such a fucking dumbass lol

Amazing bit

Hmm yes in a world where one person out of the entire human population would be 6.4σ, I am 11.6σ above the mean. That's how intelligent I am.

Its Chad Thundercock !

New academic preprint is the self publishing of academia. Pretty much anyone can get in there and the peer review requirements are p much nonexistent.

It is kind of wild that you can still pull this grift in the age where you can just check shit on tbe internet.

Wow a human punchingbag