I suppose that if you mean that it is possible to make an invalid extrapolation based on age adjustment, then you are right, it is indeed possible, if meaningless.

It is possible, and they've done it. Whether it is meaningless is outside the scope of our particular debate as, if I remember correctly, we started arguing after Gwern said that claiming an IQ of 220+ is proof that a person is "either a lying or from the future".

So, this supports my point that such a claim is not proof that a person is lying. I'll just disregard the "from the future" comment for now. ;)

It is not, however, how IQ is measured (by comparing how well you did vs other people who took the same test).

Not sure if you're saying "IQ test scores aren't generated based on how you compare." or, within the context of the previous sentence "IQ tests are not scored using age adjustment."

For the former, you're partly right and partly wrong. The ratio tests were scored using a bell curve. If your IQ was relatively close to normal, you'd get a score that would tell you how you compare to average. If your IQ was super high like 160, it was likely to be inaccurate, because those people are rare.

As for age adjustments - of course they make age adjustments. Otherwise, how would they test children of different ages on the same test? If a child of the age of 3 gets the same questions right as children who are 10 years old, do you give the ten year olds a toddler's score or do you give the toddler a score closer to that of a ten year old? It would be inappropriate to imply that the ten year olds and the toddler have the same amount of intelligence.

I imagine this is fairly meaningful at least when it concerns testing average children of different ages, since it's not too difficult to find lots of children to make the test more accurate with. When it comes to testing child prodigies, the exact score (say "exactly 223" or something) would be meaningless, but the fact that, say, a 7 year old got a perfect score on an IQ test suitable for adults, we'll say, that would be very meaningful - though their score should be taken as more of a ballpark figure than an exact measurement.

Saying a person can't get an IQ score that high is not the same thing as saying they can't get an IQ that high. It is exactly the same thing, because IQ is not intelligence, it's one (not very accurate) way to measure it. Thus there is no such thing as person's IQ, only person's IQ score. Just because IQ is commonly confused with intelligence, does not mean it is the same thing.

It depends on how you use the word in the sentence. You make a distinction between IQ and intelligence which is good, but I am making a different distinction. Even if I haven't measured the number of degrees Fahrenheit in a particular igloo near the North pole, that does not mean it has no temperature or that it's temperature does not correspond to a specific number of degrees Fahrenheit. This is more like the debate "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" - my answer is yes because I'm using a definition that involves physics, disrupted air waves and decibels. Just because you didn't measure the number of decibels doesn't mean they weren't there.

the point

Anyway, your point is "it's physically impossible to measure an IQ score that high" but that does nothing to refute my point that "this claim is not proof the person is a liar."

It's a red herring.

William Sidis

Maybe I should verify my info on him then.