Estimating the IQ of Chris Lagnan
Summary:
Perfect score on the SAT
scores of 42 and 47 on the mega test. The 1st corresponds to a z-score of 2.62 when compared to readers (M = 15, SD = 8.24) who submitted scores to the Omni magazine. Apparently the same magazine claims that the average IQ of the readers is 140 - as if I’m going to believe that. Given that there is going to be a non-zero amount of cheating/overreporting/nonrep sample issues, I think it’s fair to say that Chris would score above all of these test takers - corresponding to a z-score of 3.4.
hit the ceiling (I believe) on the WAIS-III
I’ll assume for now that the 1st corresponds to a z-score of above 4.24, the mega test corresponds to a z-score above 2.62, and the third corresponds to a z-score above 4. Normally I would just give the test taker a z-score of about 4 because I am skeptical of the reliability of ceilings on IQ tests besides the old SAT, but since Chris Lagnan has hit the ceiling on two different tests, that is much less of a concern to me.
Currently assuming the IQ test has a g-loading of 0.9, the SAT has a g-loading of 0.84, and the mega test has a g-loading of 0.58.
The simulation ended with an estimate of 168 and SE of 6.6 (53 individuals).
g <- rnorm(90000000)
iq <- 0.9*g + rnorm(90000000)*sqrt(1-0.9^2)
mega <- 0.58*g + rnorm(90000000)*sqrt(1-0.58^2)
sat <- 0.84*g + rnorm(90000000)*sqrt(1-0.84^2)
subby1 <- data.frame(iq, g)
subby1$mega = mega
subby1$sat = sat
subby2 <- subset(subby1, (subby1$iq > 4) & (subby1$sat > 4.24) & (subby1$mega > 3.4))
mean(subby2$g)
sd(subby2$g)
Kinda skeptical—the guy's "CMU" is, as far as I can determine, not really very useful.
I could suppose that maybe I merely failed to understand it, but a) nothing has come of it for 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦—AFAIK—and b) in watching him argue (in the comments of Good Math/Bad Math) many years ago, I recall thinking that I wasn't sure which was more charitable: "he knows he's making bad arguments, but needs to keep his fans on side"... or "he genuinely cannot tell that he's making no substantive replies."
Having this fellow at the head of your list makes the entire thing seem iffy, t'me.
You don't have to convince me of the validity of IQ 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳, of course; nor that even the most well-validated construct in all of the soft sciences can sometimes have exceptions; it's just— odd.
If you're interested in reading the comments I mentioned, I can dig up the link for you. (BTW: I believe it is actually "Chris 𝙇𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙣".)
-------------
If the scores reported for Langan are, in fact, valid, then this reminds me of a colleague of my father's—who lost an eye due to falling for some woo-woo "colloidal silver" remedy, instead of getting it checked it by an actual opthalmologist or whatever. (I mean, he did eventually go, but it was too late... too much time wasted on colloidal silver...*)
-------------------------
*(I'm tempted to say it was homeopathic to boot, but I don't 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 that—hard to believe a PhD physicist could be THAT foolish. I'm guessing he reasoned out something about silver's anti-microbial activity and thus convinced himself it would work... or, well—that's just about my only guess, anyway.)