I was dealing only with the upper half of a 200 point bell curve. I figured the lower half to be of no concern, since the point of interest here is not the subject of IQ itself, but rather the demarcation line for "genius". That aside, I got off my lazy butt (figuratively speaking, of course) and did some googeling and quickly found out that my info on IQ classifications was being outdated even as it was being taught to me. LOL! Dang government schooling!
"None of the properly normed IQ tests is sensitive to differences out beyond 4 standard deviations, so reporting IQs above 160 or below 40 is one of those statistics that fits into the sequence 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'."
Aye!
"That said, 130 as a cutoff for 'genius' is a bit low, surely 145 at least.
I would hope so. Mine is 135 and for all the things I've been called over the years, genius ain't one of them.
"(My wife does work in psychometrics, among other things, so I know these things.)"
While surfing, I noticed some classification scales that don't use the term "genius". Has that term fallen out of favor?
They retired the Jeresy after I took my IQ tests.
Yeah, right.
All the old classification names at both ends of the scale have fallen into disuse thanks to political correctness.
(As Mad Dawg said: we now return you to your regularly scheduled theological bickering.)
It's now considered more accurate to think of 7 or so differnt IQ's . . .
mathematical; verbal; spatial; relational; . . . I forget the others at the moment.
Body sense--body movement as in sports & dance is another . . . musical and artistic are others, I think.