Thursday, January 21, 2016

Estimating IQs Over the Official Ceiling

I just met a fellow who has taken over 100 IQ tests.  He claims IQ scores as high as 180 (D15). Of course, these tests are not properly normed, created by individuals, generally on very restricted developmental budgets.  This fellow, for example, admitted to scores between 135 and 180.  So, obviously, the reliability of these tests is highly suspect.

Tests such as the WAIS do render raw scores above the ceiling, which is 160.  However, they are over the ceiling for a reason.  After extensive analysis, they prove to be unreliable.  The independent tests often cannot undertake such analysis and have no reliable ceiling.

Still, what if you just must have some idea of by how much you exceed the ceiling.  I have developed two methods that may help you.

First, as you will see on my page H. macrocephalus, there seems to be a pretty good fit on cranial volume, for men at least.  We need to expand the study because there are few women at this IQ range and the few I found did not have huge noggins.

Anyway, you can estimate your cranial volume and then use the regression formula, IQ=20%V-181.  So, if you calculate a cranial volume of, say, 1,800 cc, you have a cranial IQ of 179.  That, however, is a ratio IQ, so your D15IQ is 158.  So, with this volume, you have no evidence that your IQ might exceed the ceiling of 160.

However, if your cranial volume is more than 1,850, then it will render a higher score.  Mine, adjusted for height is 1,993 which translates to 215 or a D15IQ of 177.  So, I have a data point suggesing that my IQ may be significantly over the ceiling.

Next, we know that the IQs of children are usually expected to regress to the mean by about 30% to 40% on the assumption that the heritability portion IQ subtracted from 1 equals the environmental portion that would be randomly distributed.  There are two things wrong with that.  First, very high IQs can be expected to be, at least in part, the result of rare recessives that will not perpetuate into the next generation.  In other words, we should expect some genetic regression.  Second, people tend to reproduce the environment in which they, themselves, were reared.  In other words, the assumption that, on average, two 140 IQ people will rear their children in a 50%'ile environment is flawed.  Empirical tests suggest that the regression to the mean is likely more like 25%.

Lastly, while it is controversial, women appear to have a standard deviation of 13.2 and men have 16.8.  Some researchers have found a different mean IQ, but that is still very controversial.  Because of this, for calculation purposes, calculations should be done on a standard deviation basis.  And, as we see in H. macrocephalus, it should all be calculated on a ratio scale.

My three children have a mean IQ of about 3.2 
σ and their mother about 1.8σ.  The implied mean of their mother and me is 3.2/.75=4.3σ.  From this, we can estimate my IQ at 4.3x2-1.8=6.8σ or a ratio IQ of 208.8 or a D15IQ of 170.
So, I could take the three values of 168, 170 and 177, average them and derive an IQ of 172.  It is interesting that when I read biographies, I feel the greatest kinship to Leibniz, who Cox, et alia estimated at 172 D15IQ.

However, when people ask me my IQ I tell them that I exceeded the ceiling on the IQ test that I took, so, over 160.  That leads to an interesting discussion about how come the Internet is so full of IQ scores higher than that.  That's a good discussion to have.

What I don't do is say 172 for the simple reason that I consider these calculations to be fun rather than reliable.  However since there is clearly a large population of high IQ people who want to know how much they exceed the ceiling, I will give you this.

I'm probably going to regret it.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Polymathica Group Administrators

I am searching for Charter Members to Polymathica who are interested in professionally moderating one of our Polymathica Groups.  I am moderator for ‘Remediation of the Inappropriately Excluded’ group and Ivan Shekerev will moderate ‘Increasing Lifespans/Healthspans’.  Ivan and I also moderate a few other groups but we should pass those off to others.  

Each group has an affiliated forum and the moderator should create an off-site (blogger or wordpress) blog or youtube channel.  
They are free to monetize this as they see fit, of course, and additionally, they will use it to direct people to the group and, thereby, to Polymathica.  In other words, this will grow both their group AND Polymathica.

The power of this is that every administrator will do this and since Polymathicans will join several groups, the joint activity will multiply their group membership.  My goal is that we have 300 groups and if each administrator brings 720 members (requirement over two years) and the average Polymathican belongs to 10 groups, the average group will have 7,200 members.

The group owner can mass e-mail all the members of their group, something that was once possible for Facebook groups of less than 5,000 but now is not.  They can use this as a weekly group newsletter and include links to their blog.  A typical income from a newsletter is about 35USD CPM.  In the above example that means $252 per week.  And that does not include the income from their blog or the revenue share on the group and forum page views (40% of total ad revenue.)

Also, that is just a start.  With a steady stream of advertising revenue coming to Polymathica, it will be able to begin organizational development campaigns that will bring our total membership over a few years to, perhaps, 4.0 million.  I support this number elsewhere.  That is 40,000,000 group memberships or 133,000 per group.  That works out to 4,655USD per week for the newsletter alone.

Clearly, with time, the monetizing options are enormous and, potentially, this can evolve into Information Age income for just a part-time commitment for administrators.  Some will choose to make this a full time commitment by operating two or even three groups.  Of course, while the icome potential is high, it will require a significant and sustained commitment to success.

Of course, they can use other social media platforms to recruit their group members.  If they are already running a group on Facebook or other social media platform, they can use that to build their Polymathica group.  I used the Polymathica group on Facebook to very quickly get 78 members, so it works well.  I expect, without much effort, I will get a few hundred from the group.

I can't emphasize this enough.  Curating and moderating a group is a lot of work.  On facebook, administrators do it and Mark Zuckerberg and his investors keep 100% of the ad revenue.  Also, they design the groups to thwart any effort you may undertake to some compensation.  That is not fair and in the end, because the groups are run by volunteers, it results in a poorer group.

In Polymathica, as a group administrator, you will receive 40% of the ad revenue generated and 100% of a facilitated newsletter.  That is fair and because you are being paid to create the best group possible, it will benefit group members, not Facebook stockholders.

If you are interested in curating and professionally moderating a Polymathica group/forum, join and apply for membership in the group administrator candidates group.

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Polymathica Charter Membership

I have a plan to build Polymathica by recruiting and deploying 300 Charter Members to The Polymathic Institute and P.E.N.  Each will be required to acquire 720 Polymathicans over a two year period.  I have already done this, so I know it is doable.  Of late my subscribers have not come from the proximate Facebook environment but rather from virality and key words.  To acquire 720 Polymathicans a blog will need, depending upon the quality, about 100,000 pageviews or about 4,000 per month.  So, it does not require a high volume blog.

At the end of this process, Polymathica will have gotten 210,000 members from the Charter Members and about 90,000 from organic growth for a total of 300,000.  However, this is just the beginning and over the next thirty months, it will grow three-fold per year (average of successful Internet enterprises) to around market saturation of 4.0 to 6.0 million Polymathicans.  At this level, Charter Members will be able to build a part time enterprise that will provide Information Age income and thereby finance their finely crafted life.

In 2008, Kevin Kelley wrote a seminal article, ‘1,000 True Fans’ in which he suggested that microniche creatives could make a livable income by finding 1,000 ‘true fans’ who would provide them with 100 USD each for a total of 100,000 USD.  However, because finding 1,000 true fans among the billion or so Internet users in the developed world is nearly impossible, the article was more inspiring than enabling.  Polymathica charter membership will change that for 300 people.

First, the 1,000 true fan model is overly constraining.  In reality the number of fans needed, how ‘true’ they must be and the amount received from each will vary from one creative to the next.  A median, however, will likely be 100,000 @ 10USD each.  For example, a singer/songwriter can produce one download album per year for 10 USD and the 100,000 ‘true fans’ don’t need to be all that true, since the expenditure is minimal.  On the other hand, an artist who produces limited run lithographs for $200 each may need only 5,000 ‘true fans’ but, because of the price point, they will need truer fans.

A novelist will be similar to a musician at 100,000x10USD.  Another common creative will be an audio ‘talk show’ host a la Rush Limbaugh.  The going rate for a premium subscription is about 50USD, so the business model is 20,000x50USD.  Premium newsletters are another option which have a going rate of about 25USD for a business model of 40,000x25USD.

In each case, I am using a 1,000,000USD total revenue model which, in most cases, will generate a personal income between 500,000USD and 750,000USD.  Of course, the model is a median and some Charter Members will realize more and some may realize less.  The most important takeaway is that the Charter Membership strategy will enable the ‘1,000 True Fan’ model which is essentially not feasible for an individual attempting it alone.

As a Charter Member, you will lead 720 Polymathicans to a subscription to the free newsletter, ‘The Polymath’.  You will have a unique referral code that will designate the subscriber as one of yours and will be counted toward your 720 requirement.  You will have direct access to not only your referral code signups, through you will have a group that will attract members from the Polymathicans brought in by the other 299 Charter Members.  This is the actual power of this strategy.  You are multiplying your access to potential ‘true fans’ by nearly 300 fold at no additional cost and very little additional work.

If your model is 30,000x35USD, you can get there by getting 30,000/300=100 from each Charter Member.  As Polymathica starts internally financing membership growth, this will become far easier.  If saturation is five million and the average Polymathican belongs to six groups, average group membership will be 5 million x 6 / 300 = 100,000 which supports a model of 100,000x10USD.

If your business model requires funding, the base Membership will be available for crowdfunding.  If you need collaborators or strategic partners, the Polymathica membership will be available for recruiting.  And, of course, group members can be e-mailed directly, since the group is essentially a web based, formatted e-mail list.  Lastly, the ad revenue created by site based page views (group and forum) will carry a 40% share for the group owner.

While Charter Membership gives you direct access to funders, collaborators and customers, it will still be up to the Charter Member to design a group and a business model that will be successful given the Polymathican profile. 

If you are interested in becoming a Charter Member, please join  This will require registration in Polymathica.