[The_Reader_David]

I suspect you're misremembering: IQ tests are normed to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. None of the properly normed IQ tests is sensitive to differences out beyond 4 standard deviations, so reporting IQs above 160 or below 40 is one of those statistics that fits into the sequence 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'.

That said, 130 as a cutoff for 'genius' is a bit low, surely 145 at least.

(My wife does work in psychometrics, among other things, so I know these things.)

[Mad Dawg]

(ON a side note, I would say one of the most terrifying truths of modern life and politics is that a 100 IQ is average.)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled theological bickering.

[monkfan]

"I suspect you're misremembering: IQ tests are normed to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15."

I was dealing only with the upper half of a 200 point bell curve. I figured the lower half to be of no concern, since the point of interest here is not the subject of IQ itself, but rather the demarcation line for "genius". That aside, I got off my lazy butt (figuratively speaking, of course) and did some googeling and quickly found out that my info on IQ classifications was being outdated even as it was being taught to me. LOL! Dang government schooling!

"None of the properly normed IQ tests is sensitive to differences out beyond 4 standard deviations, so reporting IQs above 160 or below 40 is one of those statistics that fits into the sequence 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'."

Aye!

"That said, 130 as a cutoff for 'genius' is a bit low, surely 145 at least.

I would hope so. Mine is 135 and for all the things I've been called over the years, genius ain't one of them.

"(My wife does work in psychometrics, among other things, so I know these things.)"

While surfing, I noticed some classification scales that don't use the term "genius". Has that term fallen out of favor?