>>10464236is it impossible to have an IQ of <200?
maybe not impossible in the most absolute sense, but even so, it wouldn't be 100% accurate at that level anyway, since, like I said, the measurement is based off of a population distribution, so saying someone with an IQ of 200 is conclusively smarter than someone with an IQ of 160-180 would be foolish
is highly unlikely that any human has or has ever had an IQ of <200 (like 99.99(10^32 more9s)99% unlikely)?
yes
I mean, look at minds like Leonardo Da Vinci: unquenchable curiosity, unbound imagination, unseen technological ingenuity for his time, he was practically the King Midas of the intellectual world at that time.
Then look at Chris Langan. Was a bouncer once, college dropout, awful bodybuilder (if you even want to call him a bodybuilder), owns a ranch, and defends his pseudo-intellectual 52 page proof he claims encapsulates the entire framework behind all human knowledge ruthlessly on Quora and various other forums like some middle age housewife with nothing better to do. Oh, and also, """"""IQ of 190-210""""""
If this is what the pinnacle of the human mind is supposed to look like based on IQ, then IQ is a crock of shit.
