ITT: E-Peen.

lol. Subract like 25-30 and from the score if you want to be close to reality. I have taken real IQ test and scored like 147 (which is like 1 in 1000). I got like 172 on this stupid thing which is like 1 in 1.2 mil. Sorry I know I am not that smart... lolz

in line with your actual IQ? You do realize that a 200 is 1 in 76 billion. right which would pretty much make you the smartest person that has ever lived. Even if you drop it down to 180 that would make you one of the 300 smartest people in the world (1 in 20 million)  

Even freaken Albert Einstein had a 160..... darwin 165.... Galilei was like 185 (so fucking smart)

Just saying anyone over 150 and you are considered a genious (which you may be not saying your not, stupid people dont get hooked a sales forums, well mostly not...)

I would just like to point out that the IQs for historical figures are based on nonsensical extrapolations and hold very little credence. IQ tests have no relevance or applicability for people with that level of intellect.

Although it could be argued that the same is true in the general populous as well.

I got 143. I don't trust this test much, as I think I was tired & slow and no way would've got 143 with that on a proper IQ test.

Patterns and visualizing! I've always been good at math, but those two sectors have always just seemed to slip behind me... 

And of course, the other option (and the option you went with) of simply writing down the answers, and breezing through the test a second time selecting the correct ones, since the test is too basic to use different questions each time.

Full disclosure: we are not idiots.

That would be me then!

This is entirely correct. The very idea that we can somehow take known historical geniuses and quantify their intelligence is completely absurd. And I would make the extension that it applies to the populous as a whole.

I was classified as a savant in spatial skills at a young age, so I tend to break these things. It's always been weird, and I've never given them much credibility as anything more than a test for a specific set of skills. I see that some jackass is accusing me of PhotoShopping or cheating. I wasn't sure I should post at all, given that some idiot would have to come along and be no fun. I've already gotten enough of those people in real life. They're even worse than the Mensa people. It's a silly internet reduction of an already silly test, and I don't take any particular pride in being good at spatial puzzles. :s

Personally, I think critical thinking is the best measure of intelligence, and that is a very difficult one to measure in any quantitative sense.

In fact, I would say that the entire attempt to quantify this subject is characteristic of a massive social and cultural dysfunction. 

Those estimates for historical figures are completely rubbish, you know. :P

As for myself, yeah, I know it's very rare. But I don't think much of it, either. I was classified as a savant in spatial reasoning as a child, so these math and picture problems go by extremely easily for me. That's the reason that people with my unusual syndrome break IQ tests... They test something pretty specific.

And that's also why I don't think they're very good tests at all.