I don't think Warren Buffet is the last word on this.

The top of the IQ stratosphere is functionally unusual.

Set a room full of 130s on a hard problem. When they get stuck, adding more 130s won't help.

Throw a >160 into the room and see what happens.

>160s don't necessarily think they have it all figured out. But as long as they're functional - not always easy - their raw ability at certain tasks is qualitatively different to those closer the norm.

I've occasionally had dealings with these people. They really do understand things phenomenally quickly, and some of them can turn their insights into gold.

▲

RickJWagner 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s funny you picked 160.

Buffett famously said “You don’t need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ. Rationality is essential”

Buffett said it in the book, “Warren Buffett Speaks.”

He also said if you do have an IQ of 160, you might as well give away 30 points, they’re not going to help you be a better investor.

Maybe he’s wrong, but at this time he’s regarded as one of the most successful investors ever, if not the very best.

	▲	fsckboy 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>It’s funny you picked 160. no, it's not anything like a coincidence or a quote of Buffet. People always say "160" as the example number because the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler series IQ tests are among the most commonly used and they have a maximum score of 160. That alone is not enough, you also need to know the std dev is 15 or 16. Therefore, 160 is 4 sd's above the mean which, regardless of the thing you are measuring, is very difficult to measure without massive numbers of sample points because the population density becomes very sparse. there are other intelligence tests, some top out at 200, but you have to know the SD for that to be useful.