# Real IQ

The two "Cox-Platt-Buzan-Thims IQs", namely the 175 IQ of Darwin and the 199 IQ of Newton, the ONLY known un-biased, neutral, reality-based IQs of historical geniuses, which constitutes what is referred to as a "real IQ".[1]

In genius studies, real IQ (TR:30) (LH:10) (TL:40), aka "true IQ" (or actual IQ), as compared to a "non-real IQ", i.e. an overestimated, underestimated, fool's gold IQ, "fake IQ", refers to a meta-analysis (see: IQ ranking methodology) based IQ of a person that matches up with “reality”, as present knowledge affords; which can be compared to less-dependable spurious IQs estimates, such as: theoretical IQs, inflated IQs, paper IQs, or “test IQs”, etc.

## Overview

See main: Thims 32

In 1998 to 2008, Libb Thims began collecting a list of individuals purported to have a calculated, estimated, or stated IQ at or above 200. By Jan 2008, he had found 15 individuals, by 2010, he had found 32 individuals, to which he added the following eight seemingly salient missing "potential" candidates: Maxwell, Clausius, Young, Galileo, Euler, Copernicus, Majorana, and Gauss, and listed them all online, as shown below (and made a YouTube video):[2][3]

As of Oct 2020, in the expanded top 1000 geniuses rankings, only six of the original 40 are still holding in the IQ:200 or above position, namely: Da Vinci, Einstein, Newon, Goethe, Maxwell, and Clausius, as shown boxed above; which can be compared to: Copernicus, Galileo, Young, Gauss, Majorana, and Euler, as shown by dotted boxes, who originally were being ruminated on as "potential" IQ:200 range geniuses, have since fallen, in the bigger picture of things. Here, 85-percent of the original forty "potential" or said-to-be or purported-to-be IQ:200 range geniuses, were over-estimates, i.e. non-real IQ estimates.

In plain speak, if you read about someone who, based on their purported IQ score, is said to be "smarter", or even twice as smart, as Newton or Einstein, then, in by in large, you are being sold a hooked-calculation, a "fake IQ" (or over-estimated), i.e. a non-real IQ. Most of these "over-estimated" genius range IQs, when examined in detail, e.g. the age four 200IQ of Francis Galton (Terman, 1917) or age four IQ:400 calculation of Adragon De Mello (De Mello, 1981), can be exposed per faulty argument, personal bias, "mental age" argument mis-logic, faked ages (at test date), etc.[4]

A visual of the difference between a "genius IQ" (e.g. a real IQ) and a "potential genius IQ" (e.g. a ratio IQ), namely that a potential IQ is like the potential of the rock: it has great gravitational "potential", if it is moved into path B, which thereby becomes transformed into kinetic energy, but less potential if moved into path A. In many cases, similarly, a child who is told that they have great genius potential or a potential "genius IQ", by virtue of their test scores and age "ratio IQ" methods, but in reality, in adulthood, are moved into path A.

### Genius | Work

In terms of equations, to put things mathematically, one has to have done "genius work" in order to have a "real IQ" in the genius range, which is IQ:140+ by standard Lewis Terman (1916) definition. Work, symbol W, using the adjacent "rock vs human" model to illustrate things, is defined by the product of the force F moving a body, mass m, through unit distance d:

${\displaystyle W=Fd}$

The force, according to the second law of motion, is the product of the mass of the object and its acceleration a:

${\displaystyle F=ma}$

Hence, with substitution of this expression into the former, we have measure of the work done, by the force of gravity, when the rock falls, into path B:

${\displaystyle W=mgh}$

where the acceleration a in this case is the g or 9.8 m/s2, which is the unique gravitational acceleration of objects near the surface of the earth, directed towards the center of the earth. If the rock were to roll to the right, path A, then no work, gravitationally-speaking, would be done.

The extrapolation of this model to human “work” and “potentials” is the same: the farther one falls in the potential, the greater the work, the greater the work, the more likely it is to be of a “genius nature”, and hence be representative of a “genius IQ”. The potentials, here, however, are not gravitational potentials, but physico-chemical potentials, defined chemical thermodynamically; an example of which is given in the "chemical peneplanation" model (Blum 1934) or the Gates model (Thims, 2015).[5]

## End matter

### References

1. Cox-Platt-Buzan-Thims IQs (Wikifoundry subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
2. Why does Libb Thims make genius lists? (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
3. IQ:200+ (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
4. IQ miscalculations (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
5. Gates model (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.