Talk:High-IQ society

Add Epimetheus Society

Would it be possible for a skilled editor to add the Epimetheus Society to the list/table of societies? The Epimetheus Society was founded in 2006 by Dr. Robert Hoeflin, PhD, and has no dues.

Here is a link to the homepage:

http://epimetheussociety.com/

The society is for +4SD, ~99.997th and above percentile score, ~164 and above IQ

Entry requirement is any of:

1. Stanford-Binet: older versions 190 IQ; recent: 160 IQ.

2. Terman Concept Mastery Test (form T): 183 raw score.

3. Army General Classification Test: 180 IQ.

4. California Test of Mental Maturity: 164 IQ.

5. Miller Analogies Test: old version: 98 out of 100. Recent versions with new scaling: insufficient information.

6. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: 160 IQ.

7. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: 160 IQ.

8. Scholastic Aptitude Test: To mid-1995: 1550 (V & Q); after mid-1995: insufficient ceiling,

9. Graduate Record Examination: 1600 (V & Q).

10. Cattell Verbal: insufficient ceiling. Cattell Culture Fair: 164 IQ (sufficient ceiling is in doubt)

11. ACT (American College Testing program): 35 out of 36

12. Titan Test: 36 raw score out of 48 (not taken after 2/27/2011)

Thank you for your consideration 107.122.225.102 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer is "no". CAVincent (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Prove its notability by telling us how many members they have. From what I'm seeing on the website, it looks like 25. It probably needs 100 times that many to be notable. DOSGuy (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is an understandable position; however I will point out that both the Prometheus and Mega Society have membership numbers in the double digits and are featured on the page. By the standard that membership numbers need to be at least in the thousands they should be removed. The page would no longer list any +4SD societies but given the extreme exclusivity of Prometheus/Mega/Epimetheus they will always have very low membership. 2600:8804:6F0D:4A00:7D4E:6E30:6D6B:2424 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No, those two societies are not included because of their membership numbers. Rather, they are included because they are presumed notable based on coverage about them in independent reliable sources, which appears to be the consensus standard per this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kinu: Where are these sources? Also, does that "this discussion"-link go to where you intended it to go? Polygnotus (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems the discussion in question has been renamed or removed entirely; I suppose that is my mistake for pointing to a thread and not to a specific diff. Nonetheless, based on several of the discussions as seen on this talk page and its archives, the consensus does appear to be that the existence of an article merits inclusion in the list, which agrees with WP:LISTCRIT in that keeps obviously non-notable entries (e.g., blatant spam) out. That being said, "existence of an article" is not necessarily indicative of notability (hence the use of the word "presumed" above and in my edit summary here), and it is worthwhile to revisit these articles on a per-case basis. Using Prometheus Society as an example, while there appears to be coverage, whether they contribute to notability such that an article is justified is a reasonable matter for discussion, and your approach of opening an AfD (considering the previous one was in 2006) is reasonable here. Perhaps other editors who have taken more time to investigate the sources will weigh in there. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that the Prometheus Society article is now gone, and it is removed from this list. I don't care enough to spend time on an AfD on Mega Society, but that one looks a bit dubious as well. CAVincent (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Including ISPE in the Table

I can't imagine someone making the claim that ISPE is not a notable high IQ society, as it was the first 99.9th percentile high IQ society, and was in many ways the progenitor to TNS. However, due to previous discussion here, I thought I would preempt any efforts of removing ISPE from this list. ISPE is part of the history of the foundation of the High IQ community and simply because it does not publish membership information (an arbitrarily and inappropriately applied qualifier of notability) does not mean it should be excluded from this article. 45,000 people see ISPE every month in the US Mensa Bulletin, I think it's safe to say it's a fully operational and well known society. PJimmy2000 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus per previous discussion (see the talk archives, including this discussion) is to include only those societies with existing Wikipedia articles. If the society is notable per Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject), then feel free to create an article about it and then include it in the list. I've reverted the addition per WP:BRD in the meantime. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I read the archives, there was not consensus on this decision; it's simply the most recent in a long line of decisions. I am challenging this decision now, as many did before. I have provided an argument for why ISPE should be considered a notable high IQ society, as it is by any account of someone familiar with the subject. For it not to be included in this list of notable high IQ societies, one would think that the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable. PJimmy2000 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the notability issue, there are also verifiability issues. Limiting this article to societies that actually have wikipedia articles still strikes me as a reasonable way to address those concerns. I think Kinu is correct that there is long-standing consensus on this. As for the suggestion that "the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable", this is backwards - the burden is on those who want to add to the list to prove notability. Proving non-notability is an absurd proposition. CAVincent (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Vincent,

My apologies and I am new to this, so in reading this thread, I understand why information about the ISPE I entered was deleted, due to the lack of an existing Wikipedia page dedicated towards it.

Unfortunately, the page's use of the term "IQ" is completely wrong. As stated throughout the entire book, "The Neuroscience of Intelligence," written by the world's leading expert in intelligence testing, Dr. Richard Haier, IQ is a term that can only apply to children (technically under the age of 30) who are still experiencing genetic methylation and acetylation and thus the quotient implies they display intelligence of an age level above their own age (precosciousness). If you apply an IQ calculation to a 60 year old man, the quotient would somehow state he is either as intelligent as a 60 year old should be, or that he is more precocious, somehow having the intelligence of a 90 year old?! This is why intelligence quotients do NOT work on adults. An intelligence score, which is issued as standard terminology for all non-child intelligence test absolutely MUST by included in this article. I am an adult and the neuropsychologist who issued my intellgience test strictly labeled my score as an intelligence score. When I was new to this, I asked why it was not called an "IQ score."

The certified psychologist stated exacty what Dr. Richard Haier stated in his book. This is what led me to pursue more information regarding the difference between IQ and Intelligence scores. By you knowingly featuring the term IQ to refer to the intelligence of adults and not children, you are either intentionally or unknowingly providing false information, which is detrimental to any members of society who are looking to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge on the subject of intelligence testing, scores, and societies. I am asking that you immediately investigate this further and find a way to incorporate "high-intelligence" societies, scores, and individuals as terminology into this article. The only way your current article would be acceptable is if you renamed the article to "Children's High-IQ Societies." Please advise. GatewayProcess (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@CAVincent Also Mr. Vincent, you will notice, directly from Pearson's website, one of the administrators of the WAIS-IV intelligence test, all factors, except for the FSIQ, which is "intellect quotient," and not traditional IQ, are based on an intelligence score that pertains to each category. The actual meaningful subtotal score, the GAI, is an index that does not operate at all like the old, antiquated "IG" calculation:

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wais-iv/wais-iv-score-report.pdf

Also an excerpt from Haier's book, that was mentioned before. I will admit I am concerned incumbent editors of this page were not aware of the distinctions of IQ versus inteligence scores/indexes, because most of the world's audience interested in this topic would defer to Wikipedia for a quick fix in terms of answers.

https://www.learningandthebrain.com/blog/intelligence-haier/

I also have worked with Dr. Haier in the past, and would love to make a motion to have him become executive editor of this page, of course if he has the time and were willing. GatewayProcess (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not have "executive editors". As for why the article refers to IQ, reading Intelligence quotient might be a good place to start about the difference between contemporary and past usage. The term IQ has not applied only to children for a while now. CAVincent (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, you are using wikipedia to justify wikipedia content? If you are a self-proclaimed expert on intelligence measurement, do you mind if I get you involved in a conversation with Dr. Haier with Jogns Hopkins to convince him that because wikipedia's article written by several people with no journals published in any credible scientofic journals, he should immediately surrender his decades of research? The same absurd wikipedia page you sent claims that intelligence being hereditary is debated, but as of 2016, with further research on CRISPR and the study of gene NMDH-7, that was completely blown out of the water and it is 50% hereditary and 50% environment until age 12, then 100% hereditary until methykation and acetylation cease. @CAVincent May I ask you what your credentials are? If I am simply a mere plebian, I would love to feature a posted audio debate with you, Dr. Haier, Murray (Bell Curve) and Pinker. I be you would really show them!

@PJimmy2000

@Kinu Mr. Kinu, I will be in your city the first week of October and would like to discuss why uncredentialed people are claiming they know more about scientific subjects than PhDs who have studied these topics for decades. GatewayProcess (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider this part of your comment legitimate, re: "using wikipedia to justify wikipedia content". This page has a history of getting spurious, promotional, hoax, and prank additions to the society list. While it is logically possible that a high-IQ society meets notability and verifiability requirements without having an article, in practice it saves a lot of trouble to just limit this article's list to societies with articles that establish that the society meets these criteria. Beyond that, you may want to tone down the combative tone. CAVincent (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@CAVincent I apologize, Vincent. You make sense here and in reading the thread, it just seemed there was previous resistance by many incumbent constituent editors regarding the content and I couldn't understand why. My question, if you could please help me, is how I can properly convey that verified published sources by leading experts in this field, relatively recently (past 10 years or so) have made distinctions between the concept of the IQ and Intelligence score? While many authors who have conducted research in this field have talked about this, I cite Dr. Haier because his book was the definitive source of study indicating that intelligence measurement has become much more accurate recently and there is a distinction between the quotient and the indexed adult score.

I am also in the process of creating a profile page for the ISPE. The reason being, in researching organizations, I learned that it is the third-oldest intelligence organization. I will give it to you that even their page cites "IQ" as a measurement. I spoke with their editor and they claimed it was because their page is public-facing and it is easier to use the term "IQ" to communicate more easily with the public that visits the cite out of curiosity, but this individual did agree that there is a separation between IQ for youth and intelligence for adults.

I am currently working with one of the wikipedia editors on sources for the page content, but it is difficult for intelligence organizations because often the only source of information about them is their own site/their own leadership. Is there a way I could work with you to help verify the legitimacy of the organization so that it can at least be placed on the table of organizations you have? Normally, I would agree there is no urgency to add another organization, but this one does have historical significance as being the 3rd oldest intelligence organization in existence, but it is also the very first 99.9th percentile organization.

Please let me know, and my apologies again for the tone before. I do appreciate your help and guidance on this. GatewayProcess (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

add International High IQ Society

Why is International High IQ society not listed?? https://www.ihiqs.org/ 2607:FEA8:7C0:2470:BD69:BB9E:6675:6F0B (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

See two discussions immediately above this, as well as archived discussions going back many years, for the answer. CAVincent (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)