Sharing a fact as a defence of someone (he has an IQ of 130 but did X) without having any basis for that fact is worth calling out.

Same way they said an active GitHub while the repo is the opposite of that.

If your argument is "This is weird because of X and Y and Z" but Z is false and Y is unsubstantiated then it breaks the argument.

It's in the 98th percentile, lol. Yes, it's very high.

High, but not particularly rare. IF you see a movie, there are probably several people >130 in the audience with you. When you filter by education and other factors, it goes up quickly. Depending on your line of work, a majority of your coworkers might be over 130.

Very few people understand this. It's why it's very hard to understand how normal people think wrt politics.

While "normal people" often have crude political opinions, the stupidest political takes often (usually?) come from high IQ, well educated, people.

And among those are also the ones with real influence and power to promote and/or enforce them.

> Depending on your line of work, a majority of your coworkers might be over 130.

This seems pretty reasonable, but once you start to get to know people a bit...

Then you realise that trying to quantitatively test intelligence only goes so far :D

The road to hell is paved with smart people who think they can become experts in something just by reading some blog posts and thinking about the subject for a few hours. As one example, see successful poker players who become amateur economists, geneticists and virologists.

30 points higher than the average person on HN!

Ha ha. If anything, HN skews quite high.

I don't know that means anything, I score well above 130, yet I will likely make ton of mistakes even if thought it about it and planned for months.

IQ tests are a single dimensional psychometric measurement tool that when if administered correctly only measures some attributes of what would be considered intelligence.

While those skills correlate to your ability to perform as a engineer it doesn't always translate to aptitude towards this sort of crime.

There are plenty of people who will score poorly in IQ tests but are "street smart". the good criminals (i.e. those have a long successful run or never get caught) are of this category.

For example Al Capone never got caught tied to any of his actual crimes, he had intimate understanding of the legal system and how not to get tied to evidence, he wouldn't score over 130 in IQ test probably

> While those skills correlate to your ability to perform as a engineer it doesn't always translate to aptitude towards this sort of crime.

A smart n00b is still a n00b.

Al Capone had the police working for him.

I am sure the various other parts of judiciary too, bribing takes skill, knowing who to bribe, how to make them vulnerable to bribery and so on, all these are important street skills that a criminal of his stature has to have. IQ doesn't teach you those

Well, "very high" according to what comparison group?

The overall general public? Sure.

People with STEM graduate degrees? Maybe not so much.

Not really. Half of people are barely literate. Maybe the top 10% have writing and language skills cogent and coherent enough to hang out on a website like this. So realistically we're talking about maybe 20% of the people you're interacting with. Possibly more, since this is the modern USENET where all the shape rotators hang out. People who can rotate shapes at all probably score at least that on tests.

Shart taters

Unless he went to a tiny high school it's unlikely that he was the smartest person in the school. Possibly in his year.

There are two people that smart in every NYC subway car during rush hour.

And what percentage of the world do you think are engineers/STEM?