Talk:Adragon De Mello

Untitled
SpuriousQ: I think this text fairly represents the published reports of Adragon's academic experience, without emphasizing the exploitation and emotional abuse he was subjected to:
 * Adragon's academic achievements were due to hard work. Despite his father's desire to believe otherwise, Adragon's IQ is somewhat above average, at about the 85th percentile,[ ] which means that the celebrated "boy genius" is not actually a [[genius]] according to the most common definitions. Much of his childhood was spent with his father teaching him and pushing him through material, particularly in math and sciences. At one point, Adragon was enrolled in an elementary school for highly gifted students, and he remembers the experience positively. However, his father continued to push him and the school for inappropriately impressive accomplishments, and when further testing revealed that he did not meet their entrance requirements, he was withdrawn.

I think you should read this article before you decide that this text is inappropriately judgmental. If you still think so, then perhaps you'll note here exactly who you think is being unfairly judged and how. WhatamIdoing 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Intelligence or Genius
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is the subject of this article?
This article is supposedly about Adragon De Mello but is, in fact, mostly about his father, Agustin Eastwood De Mello. I think it should be retitled and the opening paragraph rewritten, or edited to actually talk about Adragon De Mello in more than a few brief sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.74.7 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Projected 400 IQ?
Many publications say that Adragon De Mello has a projected IQ of 400. He graduated from Santa Cruz with a degree in computational mathematics at age 11. Sense most IQ's after about 160-180 or so are merely projections, I think this is something highly noteworthy to put in the article. As a matter of fact, I think it's the most noteworthy thing about Adragon De Mello. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources now cited showing the 400 I.Q. (no scale indicated, as per usual) derives from his father's own assessment when his son was five years old. So not perhaps that reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.207.33 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When they're estimates about peoples IQ's beyond 160, none of them are reliable. Some IQ's projected at 190-220 and beyond are designed by professors others are derived from mathematical formulas. The latter was the case for Adragon De Mello. The WAIS-IV and the Stanford–Binet only go up to 160 if I recall correctly. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So... if you think that no IQ estimates beyond 160 is reliable, why do you keep trying to put the claim of 400 in this article? You've been citing a source titled "Inflated IQ", by the way, which should give us some reason to not present that estimate as a fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it wasn't his "Father's opinion" it was a metric that was used by his Father to determine a projected IQ based on educational attainment (going to college at say, 11 for example), a Projected IQ ≠ an Actual IQ. The Article you mentioned says no where that his IQ was 115 or that was an IQ test, most IQ tests need to be ministered by a Psychologist. If you look at the Stanford-Binet or the WAIS-IV nether go up beyond 160. The individuals with supposed IQ's above 160 either take proctored tests administered by fringe psychometricians or professors.(Christopher Langan comes to mind) or are using faulty or old metrics. Sense Adragon De Melo's notoriety was based primarily on being a young prodigy and having a projected, inflated, or faulty IQ of 400 (preferably neutral wording is best).
 * I think that's more appropriate than making an assumption that his IQ is 115, sense no where does the article mentioned he took an IQ test that showed him to have IQ of 115. Also, it would be unlikely with his attainment that his IQ is just 115. Saying his dad just "claimed it" is dishonest sense credible sources have picked it up as well. Ainan Cawley is an example as well, based what his achieve at his age (a Chemistry exam) sources claim (on his Father's calculation) him to have a projected IQ of 263 or more. Also with Christopher Langan, he had to have special exams in order to get his widely reported projected IQ of 190-210. Again, in most circles these are not accurate because of how rare they are, but they are notable. Anyone can claim having an excessively high IQ but if it's not sourced and reported it need not mentioned.
 * I'm in favor of keeping the first sentence but striking this out However, standardized tests done by one of his schools suggested an IQ around the 85th percentile (approximately an IQ of 115), which would indicate an above-average IQ, but not close to his father's claims. Because it's not sourced at all and it's relying on conjecture and it's WP:OR
 * I think this would be more netural, Adragon's father claimed that Adragon had a "projected" IQ of 400, based on a test he performed on Adragon when he was young. Or something of that nature.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited source says "Standardized tests placed AD just below the eighty-fifth percentile of students his age". The 85th percentile is approximately an IQ of 115.
 * I really don't think that his father's claim should be presented as anything other than a number determined by a highly partisan relative with zero professional qualifications. His father gave him a test when he was four or five years old.  His father interpreted the test as meaning an IQ of 400.  The fact that low-quality sources are credulous is not evidence that reliable sources agree with this.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Standardized tests placed AD just below the eighty-fifth percentile of students his age". Again standardized tests ≠ IQ tests. If you get 100% on the PSAT it doesn't mean you have an IQ of 160. These are two different things that are sometimes correlated but need not be conflated. You could be a Ph.D in chemical engineering but have an IQ of 100. It reminds me of the presidential IQ hoax . Again most credible IQ tests are administered by psychologists, did the source say that he took an IQ test at Popper-Keizer? If it does not say it, it's WP:OR.
 * Readers Digest, USA Today, and Business Insider (India) are low quality sources? I believe even the 60 Minutes mentions that claim. If you have better sources stating his IQ is 115, then go ahead and reference them. As a matter of fact I think it would better if there was an article in Wikipedia elucidating what inflated or projected IQ's are so people don't get the wrong impression, if that's your angle.
 * As far as questioning Agustin De Mello's claim, you'd have to actually find the test that Adragon took at a young age, and a source of someone reputable in that field to refute that claim. I know the test he took is mentioned somewhere online.
 * As far as I know his actual IQ is unknown, but this also the case for historical figures whom many try to ascribe certain IQ's too, da Vinci and Issac Newton come to mind.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk): 71.9.141.71 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's straighten out our terminology: All valid IQ tests are standardized tests.  Otherwise, their results are meaningless.  Second, some education-focused standardized tests, including the PSAT before 1993, correlate strongly with IQ.  Before they re-wrote the test in 1993, if you got the top score on the PSAT, you likely did have an IQ around 160.  The test you're talking about would have been taken in the 1980s (early or mid), since it would have been done after he was old enough to attend school at all (~1980) but before he enrolled at the university in 1987.
 * Yes, Reader's Digest and Business Insider are low-quality sources. See WP:BUSINESSINSIDER.  AFAICT you haven't cited USA Today.  But the bigger problem isn't them "mentioning" it; it's how we present it.  IMO it's fine to say that Daddy believed his baby boy was the most important super genius to ever walk the face of the Earth.  But it should be presented as Daddy's personal, biased, uncorroborated belief, on par with every grandparent declaring their grandbaby the most beautiful, and not as if it were a fact, or even as a true "projected" IQ (a subtlety that will be lost on nearly every reader). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * IQ tests are standardized tests, Adragon took a standardized test, therefore, he took an IQ test.
 * See something wrong there?
 * Just because a high PSAT score corelates strongly with a higher IQ doesn't give us any reason to infer a persons IQ. There are individuals who score very low on the PSAT who have very high IQ's and I'm sure the reverse (although probably much rarer) is also true (GPA could also be a much more tentative example). What also correlates strongly with high IQ is profession and line of work. But even here we need to be careful as there is also cases of lawyers with very average IQ's and say, elementary school teachers with very high IQs.
 * It's also interesting to note that many high IQ individuals lead unremarkable lives, and many average or slightly above average IQ individuals have made extraordinary achievements. Chris Langan was a bar bouncer, Rick Rosner was a television writer, Michael Kearney works in an Improvisational Theater, et-cetera.
 * Business Insider is listed as reliable when it comes to culture, but no consensus has been reached when it comes it's syndicated content. I'm not sure if I'd call it low-quality, but that's neither here nor there. I didn't cite USA Today  (which is a high-quality source, according to your metric) but it does exist, the point being there are many websites which all state the same thing, Adragon De Mello has or had a projected IQ of 400.
 * Daddy believed his baby boy was the most important super genius to ever walk the face of the Earth. You see the problem here, journalists are not going cover a story of any father claiming their son to be a genius because they passed an Algebra exam. According to the sources here he was accepted into Mensa and also was a member of Internel, he also graduated at 11 with a degree in computational mathematics, and at the time was the youngest college graduate in U.S history, which strongly suggests it's unlikely his IQ is 115. What his actual IQ is I have no idea, but at the very least I don't think it's charitable to say his IQ is 115.
 * If you want to downplay him being a genius, if that's your angle, there are interviews where he is dismissive of this claim to fame. He even stated once, "Genius?... I don't think so", in an interview.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the sources you cited said he was a forced prodigy. Do you know what that means?  It means that you're pushed to behave and achieve like a prodigy – when you aren't a prodigy.
 * Yes, he graduated with a degree in mathematics. Did you read the sources about what his profs said later, once his bullying father was out of the picture?  They said that he struggled with advanced mathematics, and the father put a lot of pressure on them to give him passing grades.
 * See also the newspaper article that describes him as "Adragon has seemingly turned out well, not a genius". This is a consistent theme:  "father thought he was a genius", his efforts to make his son famous as a nationally publicized “genius” (scare quotes in the original), alleged genius, touted by his father as a genius.  The reliable sources do not accept the claim that he is a genius. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know what that means? It means that you're pushed to behave and achieve like a prodigy – when you aren't a prodigy.
 * If he wasn't a prodigy, he wouldn't be in Mensa (They don't accept everyone), he wouldn't be in Internel. He would have not got accepted at such a young age to a college.
 * I highly doubt anyone is going to go around self-proclaiming themselves a genius or ask that that label be given to them.
 * If publications go around saying he is a genius or he is not a genius it's inconsequential to what he managed to achieve.
 * Sense genius is a loaded term for some, and oftentimes vague,I won't use it anymore. A prodigy would be more apt, and that he certainly is - whether it's forced or not is immaterial to the discussion. Graduating at 11 from a college is a feat in and of itself(and being the first to do so in the U.S). Being a member of not one, but two, high IQ organizations is also highly notable.
 *  Did you read the sources about what his profs said later, once his bullying father was out of the picture? They said that he struggled with advanced mathematics, and the father put a lot of pressure on them to give him passing grades.
 * Yes I did, but you have to put things in perspective, this is an 11 year old, and unless Adragon's degree was pulled out of a Cracker Jack Box, he still had to earn it through hard work, it doesn't diminish the significance of an 11 year old earning a degree in computational mathematics. Unless you can prove that he didn't deserve any of those grades, or his degree was fraudulent, then this is just hearsay. His childhood aside, you can't just take any 11 year old and expect them have a degree even with rigorous schooling.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that he did work hard – extremely, unreasonably, abusively hard – but hard work is not the only way to get a degree. Consider this allegation of outright cheating:  "Questions have also been raised about Adragon's academic record. The boy's mother told the police that she and his father did much of his community college homework.
 * And how about just threatening to shoot instructors who didn't want to give him a passing grade?
 * "And several teachers at Santa Cruz said Adragon performed poorly in class and suggested that Mr. De Mello harassed teachers who balked at giving the boy passing grades...on April 29, according to a report filed by a professor with the university police, the father stormed into the mathematics office and confronted a department aide. The report said that Mr. De Mello reminded the aide of a 1978 murder committed by a Stanford University mathematics student who bludgeoned his faculty adviser in the belief that the teacher had prevented him from obtaining his Ph.D.The aide told the police that Mr. De Mello told her, That could happen here. "
 * (Mensa did not require much paperwork in the 1980s; they probably just took his father's claims at face value.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Questions have also been raised about Adragon's academic record. The boy's mother told the police that she and his father did much of his community college homework.
 * This happens right now, in most colleges, rich students have other people do their course work and only show up for exams or when necessary. While it's a good point, and could be included in the article, I don't think it deters from an 11 year old earning a degree.
 * As far as the second quote, no one is denying that is father was abusive, and took things to the extreme, but again, if you had an average or dull child they wouldn't even be in that position to start with. UC Santa Cruz didn't have to accept Adragon, this wasn't like a CSU. The acceptance rate in UC Santa Cruz is little over half.
 * Can you provide me a source that states Mensa didn't require much paperwork in the 1980s? As I recall the opposite is true, it's easier to get into Mensa now than it was back then. If you want to discredit his Mensa membership, I think an easier way to go about it is to ask what kind of test he took, or how exactly did he qualify for Mensa (I don't think he would have got in with his father's recommendation alone). Supposedly they even have some 2 year olds in Mensa now, which I think is a bit preposterous.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have said nothing about detracting from him earning a degree. (Moving the goalposts?)  I have said that we should not present his father's claims about him having an impossibly high IQ, "projected" or otherwise, as being anything other than his father's claims.  None of the high-quality sources present that as being true, and many of the ones that mention it are openly skeptical about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you where inferring that because his father threatened to bludgeon administrators and because he had help with assignments the degree he earned was illegitimate.None of the high-quality sources you present mention his projected 400 IQ as being not true either, however several credible, mainstream sources present that as being true.   If you want someone to refute that claim, why not bring a quote from a credible expert in the field or someone with understanding? Or why not find the test he took, present it to an expert in the field, and have him/her explain why that's preposterous.
 * For the record I think a lot of these entries about High-IQ individuals are subject to a lot of aggrandizement. Whether that be through unverified or dated IQ tests, records that don't exist anymore (Like Guinness World Records with Marylin Vos Savant). In many cases individuals try to become "expert" test-takers, which I think also invalidates a lot of claims to exceptionally high IQs (IQs above 200 for example, -Again that's an opinion though). Because there are so many different methods used to calculate exceptionally high IQ (Educational attainment, Advanced Placement, PSAT Score, Occupation, Historical relevance), It's difficult to come to consensus on the issue of IQ.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be okay to say that his father claimed that his son had an IQ of 400, and contrast that with the fact that his measured IQ was not that high when he enrolled into the gifted school. The emphasis of course being on the claim of an enormous and necessarily false estimation, with no regard for it as being true. I would even suggest, if any source repeating the claim says it as well, to mention the fact that IQs simply don't go that high. That would be appropriate if a related source does mention it, otherwise it would be OR. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dawkin Verbier, he didn't have a measured IQ test. He scored on the 85th percentile on a test designed for gifted children who normally score in the 95th percentile. Again reread the discussion about PSAT's or occupational correlation with IQ. It tells us nothing about his actual IQ, we can only infer which is WP:OR. As a soft quantifier, generally you are correct, IQ scores usually don't go up that high. Talking about IQ's above 160 usually leads us into no-man's land, see that discussion in this thread, or the eoht.info source. Which is seen as unreliable by my interlocutor (WhatamIdoing) in this discussion.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it perhaps would be better for one of us to be more accepting of compromise, as this discussion has went on to the extent that the talk page is now almost three times the length (!) of the article's subject. This is, I feel, quite a minor thing. I mean, obviously he doesn't have an IQ of 400. At this point, the discussion is so extensive that I'm having difficulty understanding what either of the positions here are... Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why it's helpful to read the discussion Dawkin Verbier. :). Your mentioning several things that have already been addressed. To summarize, I am of the position the following sentence is sufficient, Adragon's father claimed that Adragon had a projected IQ of 400, based on a test administered to him at 4 years old. That actually already is a compromise. Originally I just wanted to follow sources, "Adragon has a projected IQ of 400", which there are many many sources which state that emphatically. (Including but not limited to, Yahoo News!, CNBC (Indonesia), Business Insider (India), USA Today.) Several of which are considered "high-quality" by my interlocutor. WhatIAmDoing stated several things about Adragon, many of which where WP:OR. For example, that his IQ is 115 based on a test he took at Popper-Keizer, which we can't infer his IQ from a test he took at a gifted institution, as it was not an IQ test.
 * WhatIamDoing also brought up the fact that he may be a forced prodigy, not a real prodigy by the fact his father threatened administrators, and he was pressured to succeed academically. I brought up the fact that's unlikely an 11 year old would be accepted into Mensa, Internel, and graduate from college with a degree in computational mathematics without being a prodigy (or gifted in some way) of some sort.
 * I also brought up the fact that a projected IQ ≠ an actual IQ. Ainan Cawley is also a good example of this, passing a chemistry exam at a young age he was assumed to have a projected IQ of 263. I brought up the fact that, as is the case with many historical figures we can't know their actual IQ, so many are just projections. (da Vinci and Issac Newton come to mind).
 * I also state if you want to dispute the claim of a projected IQ of 400, why not bring an expert psychometrician in the field, rather than relying on WP:OR. Again we have to follow credible sources in Wikipedia and not rely on hearsay.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the statement is good, so long as it is followed by the next statement which talks about the school test. I would also add perhaps the nature of the projected IQ test that was administered, if the sources explain it as such. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What's inadequate about the sentence is that "based on a test administered to him at 4 years old" does not indicate that the test was administered, scored, and interpreted by his own father, rather than by any sort of professional, or even an impartial amateur. We don't even know if it was any sort of typical IQ test.
 * EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim to have the highest-ever IQ ("projected" or otherwise) in the history of the world counts as extraordinary by any standard. We don't need an expert psychometrician to disprove his father's claims; we would need an expert psychometrician to accept them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh, we already went over this, a sighting of the Jersey Devil is also an extraordinary claim, but no Journalist worth their beans is going refute such a claim unless the witness in question is found to be Insane. or another plausible explanation is offered (Hallucinogenics maybe?). In which case it's up the reader to make up their mind. Instead you need to bring in someone with relevant knowledge of the test administered, and the nature of projected IQ's, which we do not have at the present moment. Simply claiming his father has always been "claiming" his son to have a 400 IQ sense he was 4 is WP:OR, just like stating his IQ is 115. It's clear the claim came from a test administered, now if you think that test is bogus or your incredulous about the father's claim  then bring someone qualified to dispute that. The fact that the Projected IQ of 400 claim was picked up by several high-quality sources is enough to include it.
 * Again it's a claim by his father, it's not some de-facto canonical text. There's plenty of claims that are likely bogus or can be called into disrepute. Appearance of the blessed Virgin Mary, may be seen as one, Our Lady of Medjugorje as an example. No where are they going a dispute a claim from "visionaries" even though clairvoyance is largely accepted as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. (There many individuals who disagree for example). For the record one of Christopher Langan "projected" IQs came from a test from Omni Magazine. It was highly reported that he had a projected IQ of 190-210. Now does he? I don't know, I didn't review the test administered from Omni Magazine, nor did I get weighted opinions from psychometricians. I know his IQ (Chris Langan's) is likely very high, but I'm not going dispute it or say "no, that's impossible his IQ is only 115, sense he never graduated college". Instead you seem to want to conduct WP:OR because your not satisfied that someone claimed a prodigy to have a projected IQ of 400. Again IQ's going above 160 are always on shaky ground according to a lot experts in the field. In a lot of cases your talking about people in the category of 1 to 7 billion plus, meaning such a small proportion of the population, that shouldn't even statistically exist. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You: no Journalist worth their beans is going refute such a claim
 * Quoted source: "tests showed the boy was less gifted than his father believed".
 * You: it's up the reader to make up their mind.
 * Policy: Neutral point of view.  It's up to us to provide the expert view – which, according to you, says that IQ's going above 160 are always on shaky ground.
 * You: bring someone qualified to dispute that
 * Cited sources have already done that.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I have to reiterate the same point, but alas here we go again
 * Tests show the boy was less gifted than the father believed
 * Ok he's less gifted than the father believed according to Lewis Keizer, no where does that mention his projected IQ of 400, and besides look at your same source, (Which was referenced incorrectly), it goes on to say the following ".... tests show the boy was less gifted than his father believed... While Adragon clearly was bright instructors believed he was pushed far beyond his natural abilities." "... Adragon parted academic paths with his age peers in the third grade. By age 8 he enrolled in the Cabrillo College and two years later was at UCSC". "Adragon still holds the title of the youngest world's graduate"(this is 1993) Seems a lot like WP:Cherrypicking.
 * Policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance.  It's up to us to provide the expert view – which, according to you, says that IQ's going above 160 are always on shaky ground.
 * No it's not up to us to be psychometricians. It's up to us to follow sources and weighted opinions WP:WEIGHT. which we don't have(neither you nor I is likely qualified to confirm or disprove an IQ above 160, we can question the claimants intergity or the source of the claim, like the presidential IQ hoax ), but Ok, there's plenty of information on this-
 * ''Prof. Lewis M. Terman labeled IQ rating scale as "Intelligent Quotient" while publishing "The Measurement of Intelligence,"  in 1916 to revise and enlarge the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. He was working on students' intelligence, so he calculated that the average child of any age has an IQ of 100.
 * The classical IQ rating scale is somewhat different from the modern day psychometrics. However, it laid a foundation for all fantasies related to the romantic side of the IQ tests. A lot of water has gone through the bridges, yet the influence of Terman on IQ rating scales can't be ignored. His original IQ scale shows the following categories
 * IQ Ratings of Over 140 --Genius or near genius
 * IQ Ratings of 120 to 140--Highly intelligent
 * IQ Ratings of 110 to 119 --Very intelligent
 * IQ Rating of 90 to 109 --Normal or average intelligence
 * IQ Ratings of 80 to 89 -- Dullness
 * IQ Rating of 70-79 --Borderline deficiency
 * IQ Ratings below 70 --Mentally underdeveloped''
 * From an answer from Psychology Stack exchange, "''Intelligence tests are poor at measuring any range of intelligences they are not intended to measure. Most intelligence tests have items that discriminate among people from -1 SD to +2 SD (maybe +3).  If someone falls outside that range, it won't measure them accurately.  But that doesn't mean they can't.  An intelligence test could certainly be developed to discriminate among people from +2 SD to +5 SD.  It's just that there are relatively few people high enough to justify extensive effort at doing so- Richard'
 * The WAIS-V, WISC-V and the Stanford Binet only go up to 160, (4 Standard deviations). Some tests, designed for children like the Stanford Binet Form LM the ceiling may be higher. "Because the highly gifted are not of central interest to test constructors, .... In contrast, the gifted and highly gifted were definitely important to Lewis Terman, who constructed the original Stanford-Binet"-Dr. Linda Silverman.
 * The Wood-Cock Johnson test of Cognitive abilities doesn't go up that high either.
 * Most of these tests are what is needed to get accepted into Mensa. I don't see many (or any) that I'm aware of that go up to these absurd ranges. The Original Stanford-Binet, if I recall correctly could, but it's not considered very credible by most High-IQ societies.
 * Again this is based on averages, and in order to get accurate information you need a big enough sample size, and sense the population at large hasn't taken that many IQ tests, it's hard to verify extremely high adult IQs. Projections and child IQs are based on different metrics, oftentimes seen as inaccurate in some circles, for example this from a Child Psychologist from Quora, . Generally speaking, however, in order to assess one’s present level of functioning, their actual performance (mental age or MA) scores are compared to their expected level of performance (chronological age or CA) scores. The question is if the individual is performing at, above, or below the expected performance (CA) of a person their approximate age as established through a testing sample of at least 2000 examinees, with approximately 100 at each age level. So, to calculate an IQ Standard Score, the formula is MA/CA x 100 = IQ. - The Old Biddy 
 * IQ's are often based on ranking, and if we assume the average person has an IQ of 100, then we can rank above or below that number. Once you get too high or too low, it automatically becomes "shaky" because the metric can't accurately calculate such a number, and it's often due to sampling. Take for example the Flynn Effect, individuals who take older tests generally score higher, which suggests that the average shifts. It can actually shift lower or higher in certain populations based on a lot of factors.A 100 IQ today, generally doesn't mean the same thing as a 100 IQ 50 years ago.
 * In both cases with extremely high Adult IQ's(like taken from a unique psychometrician who's methods may be unreliable), and high projected childhood IQ's (taken from tests that evaluate a Projected IQ based on chronological age) there's not a consensus
 * "You: bring someone qualified to dispute that
 * Cited sources have already done that."''
 * No, cited sources have not done that, in none of those articles is a seasoned psychometrician questioned or given their weighted opinion on the matter, all I can do is point you to information in the IQ-test taking community. And yes, absurdly high childhood projected IQ's have been recorded, the validity of such IQ's can be called into question in a case-by-case basis through the methodology used.
 * 68.189.2.14 (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In none of those articles does a psychometrician say that he has an IQ of 400. Why is it that you're willing to accept Daddy's personal calculation for this extraordinary result, as uncritically repeated in a low-quality magazine, but you insist upon following an extremely high standard for sources that disagree with it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, no one is saying he has an IQ of 400, that's a Straw Man. There's tons of sometimes maligned "child prodigy's" with high projected IQs. Kim Ung-yong, Ainan Celeste Cawley, Michael Kearney, Sho Yano. No where do those articles say, "Said prodigy had an estimated IQ of 200, but that's largely bogus." Again because those are usually projections, estimations, approximations often based on faulty or partial methodologies. If you want to question their "projected IQ" why not question the methodology used, or get an opinion from someone qualified to speak on those matters?
 * No sources "disagreed" with it as you say. I don't know why you fail to understand this distinction, some sources question Adragon being a prodigy or being gifted, (And yet those same sources also disclose he was the youngest person to graduate college in the U.S at the time) none of the sources question his projected IQ.
 * And why don't they question his projected IQ of 400? Because they are not qualified to speak on such things! They are not familiar with the test, or how the projection was calculated. Again see, the following-
 * Sho Yano projected IQ of 200-210 (Based on the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale, Form L-M)
 * Ainan Cawley projected IQ of 263 (Based on O-level chemistry exam)
 * Michael Kearney projected IQ of 325 (Based on a score of 168 on the Stanford-Binet, designed for children age 6 and above)
 * Notice a pattern here? Every projected IQ used different metrics to assesses said prodigies IQ.
 * From Eoht.info, a low-quality source, -
 * "In other cases, specifically, those who score answer all the questions  correctly, at a young age, the resultant value is far skewed. The  over-estimated IQ of 325 for Michael Kearney, for example, was derived  from a score of 168 on a Stanford-Binet test designed for children aged 6  or above. Taken literally, this would correlate to an IQ of 252 =  (6/4)*168. Kearney's parents, however, claim they calculated an IQ of  325 using instructions on how to do the age ratio at their local  library. The only way to arrive at a value such as this would be to  assume a 'mental age' of 7.74-years, which would give an IQ of 325 =  (7.74/4.0)*168, assuming he was exactly four-years old at the time of  the test. This nonsensical IQ value of 325 (115 points higher than the  Cox ceiling genius IQ of 210), however, does not corroborate with  Kearney receiving a 3.6 GPA in a relatively easy subject of anthropology  at a average-ranked college (University of South Alabama) six years  later."
 * There is also the case of Mega, which had been perceived as having credibility issues by some as well-
 * '' To  give a few example IQs derived from Mega test scores, American news   paper columnist Marilyn vos Savant took the test in circa 1985 (age 39),   scoring 46 out of 48, which, supposedly, assigned her with an IQ of   186.
 * American television producer Rick Rosner scored 44 out of  48 (1985) and 47 out of 48 (1991), along with a perfect score on   Hoeflin’s Titan test, which together supposedly gives him an adult   deviation IQ of 195.
 * ''American  bouncer-cosmologist Chris Langan took the Mega Test, using the pseudonym   of Eric Hart, and supposedly obtained a 42 on a first attempt and a 47   on a second attempt. To explain his IQ, in his own words, he says he   ended up “setting a record score” which correlated to an IQ of, in his   own words, "somewhere between 190 and 210".
 * Again projected IQ's are subject to much debate, scrutiny and critcism but to say they are not WP:NOTE is nonsense.
 * You can disagree with the projected IQ, you can criticize the methodology used, but please bring in quotes or someone qualified to dispute such a claim, someone with WP:WEIGHT. What you can't do is simply say his IQ is 115, the test is bogus, or his father simply claimed it for no reason at all, which is nether supported by sources or is likely even valid.
 * From eoht.info it states the following, "by his father Agustin de Mello, who reasoned that since his son, at age five, could pass an intelligence test designed for a twenty-year-old, that his son's IQ was 400:"
 * The actual test is referenced somewhere online though I can't find it.
 * Again recall that most projected IQ's use different metrics, in some cases, MA/CA x 100 = IQ., which are also not used in most IQ scores today. That's why some child prodigies have absurdly high projected IQ's, and people from yesteryear as well.
 * 68.189.2.14 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again recall that most projected IQ's use different metrics, in some cases, MA/CA x 100 = IQ., which are also not used in most IQ scores today. That's why some child prodigies have absurdly high projected IQ's, and people from yesteryear as well.
 * 68.189.2.14 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's go through these in detail, so you can see why they're not good sources.
 * 1) USA Today:  "Adragon De Mello, who had a projected IQ of 400...according to Reader's Digest".  Reader's Digest is a low-quality source for this kind of information, and someone repeating what a low-quality source – but labeling it as RD's statement, so they refuse to take responsibility for the claim themselves – is still not a good source.
 * 2) Business Insider:  "A college graduate at the age of 11, De Mello has a projected IQ of 400."  See WP:BUSINESSINSIDER for why this is not a good source.
 * 3) Business Talk Magazine:  "he was said to have a projected IQ of 400".  I've never heard of this website, but I notice that their entry for De Mello is almost word-for-word the Reader's Digest entry, with only the smallest of changes ("he was said to have a projected IQ of 400" instead of "he was reported to have a projected IQ of 400").
 * 4) Reader's Digest First, RD only claims he was "reported" to have a projected IQ of 400; second, RD is a low-quality source.  They're known for glurge, not for factual reporting.

So basically what you've provided is:
 * a low-quality source (Reader's Digest)
 * two sources that copied the low-quality source (Business Talk Magazine and USA Today), and
 * WP:BUSINESSINSIDER.

These sources are not sufficient to support a claim that he really did have an off-the-charts IQ, projected or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No where does Wikipedia state Reader's Digest is a "Low-Quality Source", those are your words. Neither of those sources "copied" as you say, one references a previous source, USA Today references Readers Digest, and another Business Talk, says the following "Though he was said to have a projected IQ of 400...," which is not the same wording. There are dozens of more "high-quality" sources like this, including CNBC and Yahoo News . From Wikipedia, "Editors have treated the original (Yahoo) reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG... and is reliable[emphasis added]. If you quote someone from a book or a movie, you are not plagiarizing what they say. Again, they are not going to expand on something they are not qualified to talk about, they are just following sources which is what Wikipedia is suppose to do. Journalists are not Psychometricians so they are not going dispute such statements. If you wish to dispute such a statement, bring a quotation from an expert in the study of psychometrics explaining why a projected IQ based on the test he took is nonsense.
 * It's like a journalist covering a story of a very unlikely event that occurred, sightings of the Jersey Devil, for example, your not going to be able to dispute the claim by simply calling the witness crazy(Unless it is proven that the witness is in fact, insane). Instead if you bring an expert in the field you could provide a countervailing explanation that would be more believable to the public writ large.
 * The sources are sufficient they meet Wikipedia's criteria of WP:NOTE and WP:NOR. The article currently states, Adragon's father claimed that Adragon had a projected IQ of 400, based on a test administered to him at 4 years old. Which ironically doesn't rely on "high-quality" sources but eoht.info. Instead the high-quality sources state, Adragon De Mello had a projected IQ of 400.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The text of the Business Talk Magazine is so close to the text at Reader's Digest that if you posted it here, and cited Reader's Digest, you'd get blocked for Close paraphrasing (a type of copyright violation).
 * Again: Yahoo! News doesn't say that he has an IQ of 400.  Yahoo! News says only that Reader's Digest said that he has an IQ of 400.  "He does" and "Somebody repeated a rumor that claims he does" are not equivalent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, which source(s) are you saying are writing about "something they are not qualified to talk about"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody repeated a rumor that claims he does,
 * It's not a rumor  if it's sourced directly. It didn't say, "people around town heard Adragon had an IQ of 400 according to CNN". It said "...According to Readers Digest".
 * There's only so many ways you can state, "Adragon had a projected IQ of 400", "graduated college at 11", "youngest college graduate in the U.S", and most of the source are clearly attributing Readers Digest.
 * From Yahoo News! - ...Adragon De Mello, who had a projected IQ of 400 and graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz at 11 years old, according to Reader's Digest." They wouldn't publish that article if they didn't vet their sources, that's why Yahoo News! is listed as credible by Wikipedia.''
 * You also have to take into account a lot of the sources are translating from other sources, there's only a limited number of ways in which they can paraphrase someone's life story. From Wikipedia - ''Translation from a foreign language is a form of paraphrase, since all the words or phrases have been replaced with equivalent English-language words or phrases. This may or may not be acceptable, depending on whether any creative expression – anything other than simple statements of fact – has been taken from the foreign-language source.
 * In the case of Business Insider, all that was relied where simple facts.
 * ''Yahoo! News doesn't say that he has an IQ of 400.
 * Yahoo News! is considered credible by Wikipedia. No where does Yahoo news state that Adragon's IQ was a rumor.
 * I'm saying Journalists are not Psychometricians they are not going to state, "Adragon's projected IQ of 400 is bogus!", because they are not qualified to make such pronouncements.
 * 71.9.141.71 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does Yahoo! News state that Adragon actually has an IQ of 400. It only says that he "had a projected IQ of 400...according to Reader's Digest".  The Yahoo! News source could be reliable for the fact that Reader's Digest made this claim, but it is not reliable for a claim that Reader's Digest is correct, because it does not say that Reader's Digest is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do any scientific sources back this up, you know ones with expertise in the topic area? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering how his father appears to have treated him as an eugenics experiment and the concomitant history of psychological abuse and violence that stemmed from this I don't think we can treat his father as a reliable source for any sort of measure of scholastic capability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As this same father seemed to think his child would one-day hold offices that did not (and still do not) exist (and in at least one case is the stuff of bad space opera) no. It is clear he was (being nice about it) a fantasist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstanding.
Where do the sources say misunderstanding? Please for the love everything that is holy just end this discussion already. We don't need more people with partial understandings jumping in. Just strike the sentence out entirely. We've already discussed the difference between a projected IQ of 400 an an actual IQ of 400. You might want to consider editing Sho Yano,Michael Kearney, Kim Ung-yong pages as well. There was no "misunderstanding" involved, an exaggeration? Very likely,but as no one here knows the test taken or the metrics of the test, no one here is qualified to dispute or affirm his projected IQ. Again all i'm saying was that it was claim, made by his father based on a test administered, that should be sufficient. Not that it's the de-facto word of God. ~ 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The other articles are not the same. An IQ of 200 is possible with the current population. It gets exponentially more difficult to justify each additional point the higher you go. Ignoring the fact that norms do not and cannot exist for an IQ of 400, let's do some math to see why an IQ of 400 should be upfront demonstrated to be wrong to readers:
 * An IQ of 400 is 300 points above the mean of 100, or 20 SDs above the mean.
 * z<20 (left-tailed) = 1-2.754×10^-89, which is equivalent to the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997246th percentile. To be clear, you would need a population larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe in order for it to be likely that a single person with an IQ of 400 exists.
 * "Claimed" followed with criticism gives the impression "yeah, that's what his father said, but it's probably not true". Instead of this, the reader should understand not only that it is unlikely to be true, but that it certainly can't be true.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the discussion is not about an IQ of 400. It's about a projected IQ of 400. That's a critical difference that you would have understood if you read the previous discussion. Ainan Celeste Cawley had a projected IQ of 263 based on passing an O-level chemistry exam at a young age (I believe 7). Is that accurate? I don't know, I don't have actual weighted opinions from experts on the subject. That's nearly 11 SDs above the mean, you would also need "billions" of people in order for a person with such an IQ to exist. But that's also not quiet how it works sense IQ's are based on averages, and averages are subject to change. If you have 20 people in a room it doesn't guarantee that none of them have an IQ of 160, as you would need, according to you, about 30 thousand people for such a person to "exist". According to some demographers already about 117 billion people have existed and if we account for things like the Flynn Effect it's certainly possible for individuals with high IQ's to exist, measuring them is the problem. It's a rank order of any given population that's subjected themselves to a certain criterion.  We've already went over how measurements for the extremely gifted are tenuous at best, sense there simply isn't enough sampling available we can't know for sure.    68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the projected IQ debate before responding originally and it isn't relevant. The Flynn effect is simply irrelevant, as modern tests are normed to adjust for it, it has an upper bound, and its effect size is much less than over a dozen SDs. Even if a quadrillion people existed, it wouldn't matter. 2.754×10^-89 is many, many, orders of magnitude smaller than one in 117 billion people. This is a fundamental misunderstanding about how the IQ distribution works; it's like saying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means humans can walk through walls.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So? Again, your failing to take into account the metrics used in said IQ test and getting lost in the woods with "IQ Distributions". Of course the Flynn Effect is only "marginal" at best no one is stating that over the course of hundreds of years people are going to have "exponentially" higher IQs. The point being is that average's IQs aren't static and are based on the normative performance of a population. In the case of children, most children aren't "expected" to graduate college with a degree in computational mathematics, how do you go about "calculating" a child's IQ you have to rely on special tests and projections (Like the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale form L-M)?. Most of these tests rely on special methodologies like MA/CA x 100 = IQ which is not "Standard" for most adult IQ tests. Again you don't have enough sampling to accurately measure such things, because there is not millions of 11 year olds walking around college campuses.
 * "2.754×10^-89 is many, many, orders of magnitude smaller than one in 117 billion people"
 * And an IQ of "just" 220 with a SD of 15 will get you a rarity of 1 in 1,501,199,875,790,165, you can go up and up talk about the stars in the sky or the atoms, gluons or quarks of the universe, it's not relevant to the discussion. Again take 100 people in a room you can't infer that only about 1 will have an IQ of 135, you could have 20 people in the room with IQ's of 140 if the "room" was in a college, for example. So Christopher Michael Langan (210 IQ) and Ainan Celeste Cawley (263 IQ), or Marilyn vos Savant (228 IQ) shouldn't exist according to you? Because the rarity of their IQ distribution is larger than the number of galaxies in the known universe, dun duuun duuuuun! (Although these IQs are often viewed as inaccurate by some because the methodology used was questionable) And if they shouldn't why not talk about the nature and metrics of the tests they took rather than getting lost in the woods with IQ distributions? I would agree if you stated most IQ's above 160 are unreliable (as I've repeatedly stated thousands of times), but the discussion needs to be on the methodology used to obtain abnormally high results, and not the rarity of the distribution of IQs.
 * 68.189.2.14 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @68.189.2.14 210 just takes billions to be likely, that's vastly different than 400, which is for all purposes impossible. 210 is just unlikely. But yes, claims of 260+ IQs are almost certainly incorrect. Your point about the college room is not relevant as IQ is standardized on the population mean and is by definition normally distributed. Calculating a child's IQ isn't a problem, even for exceptional children. You simply administer the WISC-IV which will be normed to the child's age group.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 02:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 210 is not "unlikely" according to you, that's 1 in 8 trillion literally impossible according to you.200 takes 1 in 76 billion, also impossible according to you. 195 is 1 in 8-9 billion, (barely) impossible according to you. Of course it's "normally distributed" I'm just simply stating you can't take a random group of people and infer their IQ. Correlation doesn't equal causation and their simply isn't a big enough sample size to accurately measure the extremely intelligent.
 * Yes of course just like the original Stanford-Binet tests, but instead of arguing against the results, argue against the methodology. Explain why Christopher Michael Langan, Ainan Celeste Cawley, Marilyn Vos Savant, Adragon De Mello test's where bogus or legitimate. Don't just say an IQ of 220 is invalid, because clearly the highly-gifted use different metrics. And while I agree that IQ's above 160 are generally unreliable, I want understand why that is, than just a referral to orthodoxy (IQ's don't go that high, the WAIS/Stanford-Bennet/WISC don't go that high).
 * Most people already understand that most IQ ranges are generally 0-160.
 * Because clearly these individuals pass standard IQ tests and use other methods to obtain more notable IQ's. That's why it's helpful to see what test they took and why that test is or is not valid. Which again, would require somebody with relevant expertise in the field. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @68.189.2.14 (MA/CA)*100 has not ever been valid in your lifetime, even if you are old.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 03:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What edit is being susgested. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They've since been removed, which is also a good solution. But they are either of these:   Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 08:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Removal seems best, as its all a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes just remove it -thank God (which is what I posted), sense clearly no one here is qualified to confirm or deny it as they do not have a source with the test involved. Nor do the individuals involved have the expertise to speak on it, and involve themselves with WP:OR, cheers
 * 68.189.2.14 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hard work
An IP (likely the same one, as they're all within a small range) has repeatedly removed references to hard work, most recently this:

"His early achievements may have been more due to endless hard work than to inherent intellectual capabilities."

The cited source is:

I think that this article should explain how he achieved what he did, which was through an extraordinary amount of work. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)