>>13955914Where did you get that 140+? I've seen many estimates, buzzfeed ones always give 160+ to people who died before IQ testing was even invented. There was a study on 64 american eminent scientists that calculated their average iq to be 150. Some people got 126 as average for PhDs, and some say that usually average for math heavy subjects is 120+, and below 120 for less math intensive ones. Some also say that 98% of scientists fall into 112-138 range.
> did a bunch of different testsWhat tests? Most are not trust worthy. If you have time you can try your shot at CAIT, r/cognitivetesting people made their own WAIS-IV estimation test with 6 subtests, specifically made to nulify the effect of grinding raven's progressive matrices problems.
Also, there are a lot of contradicting oppinions floating arround in "IQ community". Some say that in top 1% in IQ, top quartile is several times more likely to get PhD or tenure than bottom quartile, i.e. 145 people are more likely to do better than 135 people. Then some say that your chance of being a professor increases up to 118, then falls, at 130 it's 1/3 of what it was at 118 and by 140 it's practically zero. Essentialy, "low iq people" cry that they are too low to succeed while "high iq people" cry that they are systematically excluded and their divine intellects on par with DaVinci are not recognized.
Spare yourself the suffering, don't think about this stuff. Escpecially don't take your scores too seriously. Read Aj. Raymond James Ritchie answers to IQ questions on quora. Science takes character and giant balls of steel
>>13956033Jordan Peterson is a moron
> first video: You have to work hard on yourself bucko! Rescue your divine father from the belly of the beast!> second video: you can't become more hard working, more creative, more intelligent, your trait extraversion, which predicts how content will you be with your life is stable over your entire life. 
