this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
400 points (97.4% liked)
Greentext
8382 readers
293 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wikipedia
i mean, iq is a normal distribution. it caps at 200. 160 represents the 99.996th percentile, and above that the error bars are so large that the result is uneless.
It's not capped, really. But the claimed 250 IQ would be 10 standard deviations from the mean, so he'd be the most intelligent person in a population of ~10^24^ people.
~10^11^ humans have ever lived on earth.
The most likely explanation is that he was from outer space
Smells like von neumann
It's capped in practical terms by the highest score a test can be given. Unless getting a perfect just means you have another harder round.
so what you are saying is that it has a cap, which is based on the number of people he is compared against?
No, but without people to compare against, there is a limit to how high the scale can stay accurate. This is different from it actually having a cap, though.
After 30 years on the internet, this might be the absolute nerdiest conversation I have ever seen. I'm impressed.
I'm honored
Strictly speaking, a normal distribution doesn't cap, neither at 0 nor at 200. Maybe the scores achievable by standardized tests do, of course.
they usually cap at 150. but yeah it's not a hard cap, it's an asymptotic curve. statistically the chance of getting 201 or higher is the same as getting -1 or lower.
That’s just how clever he was, silly.
I was going to mention the same thing. Even the "smartest man alive" would be in those useless upper bounds.
To explain that upper bounds issue to others, imagine being the top score on a leaderboard. Some of that's going to be random chance and other factors, even if most of the time you score in the top 1% of scores consistently.
Yuppp, this smelled like bullshit from miles away. Thanks for corroborating!
IQ is pseudo science nonsense anyway.