What would you guess Saras Palins IQ?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Yeah, now that you mention it, SAT scores go by 10's. Or, at least they used to. 1032 doesn't make sense under the old system.
Good point... that means the scores for both Bush and Clinton are wrong.

The strange thing is that those scores are all over the net on all kinds of sites. Makes you wonder.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
I LOL'ed.

Under the old 'SAT' you got 400 points for signing your name correctly.

Then 10 points for each correct answer on 120 questions.

For a potential perfect score of 1600.


So, by my convoluted logic, any person who uses Shrub SAT scores from the internets with any last digit other than " zero " is either:

1) Lying and trolling;

OR

2) Completely ignorant of the SAT process and scoring.

--
It's ironic that you claim others are ignorant about the SAT-scoring process, as a lot of what you've written shows a great deal of ignorance.

Back when Clinton and Bush took the SAT (the 1960s), the normalization curve for each part of the test (Verbal and Quantitative) typically consisted of TWO joined line segments with different slopes, not the single, fixed 10-point-per-question curve you claim. And those curves were different from one version of the test to the next, since the difficulty levels varied slightly.

So (for example), 57/60 correct on one version (= "form") of the Quantitative section would be 800, whereas 59/60 would be 800 on another form (that's right - back then, you typically did NOT have to get a perfect raw score to get an 800 on a section). Even today, the conversion formula is not fixed, even with improved quality-control.

And back then, last digits other than 0 were entirely possible. I still remember my Verbal score from the 1970s: 788. The use of 0-only last digits was (I believe) implemented as part of the 1980 changes to the test.

It should also be remembered that starting in 1995, SAT scores were "re-centered:" The normalization curves were increased by about 70 points for the Verbal scale and about 30 points for the Quantitative scale. So when you see a SAT score from before 1995, you should mentally add 100 points to "equate" it modern scores on those two sections.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Good point... that means the scores for both Bush and Clinton are wrong.

The strange thing is that those scores are all over the net on all kinds of sites. Makes you wonder.

Make you wonder about what? Viral idiocy?

I'll ask again, what is the likelihood that anyone with a 1032 SAT could ever get a full ride to Georgetown? Keep in mind that the SAT average for a freshman class at Georgetown is around 1400.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Make you wonder about what? Viral idiocy?

I'll ask again, what is the likelihood that anyone with a 1032 SAT could ever get a full ride to Georgetown? Keep in mind that the SAT average for a freshman class at Georgetown is around 1400.

Depends. Was the applicant's family composed of well-connected politicians with past involvement and sponsorship with the school?

Lemme guess, Clinton's great grandfather, great grand-uncle, grandfather and father were both in Georgetown's equiv. of the Skull and Bones. Both were massively politically and economically connected. However, that, of course, had *NOTHING* to do with his entrance to Georgetown.

Ohh, wait, who are we talking about again?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Laugh all you want, but Z is one of the most well read, well traveled, most reasoned and measured posters you'll find in this sewer.

IQ of 160 is a 1 in 100,000. 165 is probably 1 in 500,000. The odds of any one person posting at AT being that high is very low, even if you assume that AT posters are on average high-average. There are lots of claims made of extraordinarily high IQ's (i.e. over 150) by people on the internet and elsewhere. Some may be basing it on a single testing that is actually an outlier, or on a single test that is poorly constructed. Still others are engaging in puffery. Still others may be telling the truth. There is no way to tell in an individual case.

- wolf
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Obama, May 2008

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” Obama, May 2007 BTW only 12 people died.

"Everybody knows that it makes no sense, and, you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs… when… if you… they just give… you gave ‘em treatment early, and they got some treatment, and, uh… a Breathalyzer… or, uh, an inhalator — not a Breathalyzer. I haven’t had much sleep in the last 48 hours, so you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs… when… if you… they just give… you gave ‘em treatment early, and they got some treatment…" Obama, not sure of date.

The guy doesn't know the difference between an inhaler and a breathalyzer, what an idiot :rolleyes:

LOL! Still trying to bring Obama down to the Bush/Palin level I see... what was that you said previously? Something about passing judgment due to a few comments you personally consider stupid? Seems to apply here, finally, atta boy.

I can understand someone not speaking coherently if deprived for sleep for that period of time. It has happening to me personally, and I've seen what sleep deprivation does to others as well. I'm not sure if Obama has ever previously used either a inhaler or a breathalyzer, so I can't hold that curiously undocumented quote up to the same level of WTF as a president who doesn't know what the State of The Union address is.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess...
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,067
1,550
126
42, not only is it the answer to life, the universe, everything ... . It's also the answer to the OP's quesiton. What is Sarah Palin's IQ.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
IQ of 160 is a 1 in 100,000. 165 is probably 1 in 500,000. The odds of any one person posting at AT being that high is very low, even if you assume that AT posters are on average high-average. There are lots of claims made of extraordinarily high IQ's (i.e. over 150) by people on the internet and elsewhere. Some may be basing it on a single testing that is actually an outlier, or on a single test that is poorly constructed. Still others are engaging in puffery. Still others may be telling the truth. There is no way to tell in an individual case.

- wolf

Um, no.

Assuming a standard deviation of 15 points, approximately 1 in 30,000 data points is 4+ sigma above the mean on a Gaussian distribution. So, in theory, 1/30,000 people have IQs of 160 or more.

However, the IQ distribution doesn't form a perfect Gaussian: In fact, there are more extremely high (and extremely low) IQs in the male population than would be expected for a Gaussian (the so-called "high end skew"). So the actual incidence of 160+ IQs is somewhat higher (perhaps 1/20,000).

If the standard deviation is 16 points (which is true of several IQ scales), an IQ of 160 is only 3.75 sigma, with a Gaussian probability of about 1/11,000 (and, again, an even higher incidence in practice).

A 165 IQ (= 4.33 sigma) has a Gaussian probability of approximately 1/50,000.

I've computed the above values using the Taylor expansion (to 30 terms) for the cumulative distribution function for the Gaussian.

Edit: Oops. Turns out I needed more terms for the 165 case: I re-ran everything with 50 terms, and get Gaussian odds of approximately:

3.75 (160 on 16-point scale) sigma: 1/11,000
4.0 sigma (160 on 15-point scale): 1/32,000
4.333333333 sigma: 1/134,000

The values change very little with even more terms.
 
Last edited: