Best Answer

Einstein never took an IQ test, so NOBODY KNOWS. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of website entries claiming that his IQ was (only) about 160, but the source of this number is unknown. Someone apparently pulled it out of a hat, and the idea that Einstein's IQ was relatively unimpressive, among geniuses, intrigued people. (Marilyn vos Savant's was tested at 228.) Thus, the well-known 160 IQ figure has become a part of contemporary urban folklore. Even if Einstein had taken an IQ test, however, the resulting score would not be meaningful. IQ tests are designed to measure intellectual aptitudes that are statistically common (mathematical, verbal, spatial, etc.) Since the genius of a Mozart, Picasso, Shakespeare or Einstein is so incredibly unique, the faculties that comprise that genius are much too rare to be factored into a standardized IQ test. Additionally, although IQ tests are intended to measure intellectual ability, they are lacking any sort of concrete empirical foundation that has any degree of detail or specificity. To put it another way, what real-world, physical evidence justifies the assignment of a particular (specific) score, such as 163 or 215? Nothing except correlations with other IQ tests, and these themselves have nothing (specific) to validate them other than correlations to earlier IQ tests. Ultimately, the problem is that-- just as different tests of athletic ability measure different factors (strength, agility, endurance, speed)-- tests of intellectual ability measure different intellectual aptitudes. IQ tests which measure different balances or proportions of some of these aptitudes will naturally produce different scores for the same individual. That's why they are correlated against each other-- to keep things standardized. Suppose, though, that all accepted tests of athletic ability were standardized against an (arbitrarily selected) format such as: strength=45%, speed=15%, stamina=30%, coordination=10%, leaving out abilities such as balance, proprioception (the ability to intuitively sense the spacial position of one's body parts), jumping abiity, aesthetic movement aptitude, aquatic movement ability, muscle recovery time, etc. In this case, all accepted tests would accurately measure the same aptitudes, with a considerable degree of accuracy. But who's to say that that particular standardized set of aptitudes is any more valid than any other? Ultimately, at some point, an IQ test needs to be associated with some sort of concrete physical evidence of intellectual ability-- such as academic achievement, career success, scientific discovery, etc. But such empirical measurements involve so many extraneous and unpredictable variables, so many irrelevant factors-- like luck and wealth and upbringing and support systems, etc. that such an empirical validation of the tests is impossible. Even if one could rule out all of the arbitrary factors, you're still comparing apples to watermelons. Each mind is unique, and includes all of a person's unique personality and character as well as their pure intellectual aptitudes. Furthermore, standardized tests may have some relevance to the population as a whole, in statistical terms, but those geniuses that shape the course of human history tend to be quite unique, not falling into the most common statistical populations. So why have IQ tests enjoyed so much popularity and success. Well, their accuracy is very immediately apparent (empirically) in the most general sense. Anyone can tell an idiot from an average-minded person from a brilliant person, from a genius. And if we're told that Ben has an IQ of 123 and Tom has an IQ of 138, we will have no problem rationalizing that appraisal with subjectively assigned (biased) evidence. Furthermore, the tests are incredibly useful, if one believes in their validity. They can be used to select employees, college applicants, etc. and, let's be honest with ourselves. Since these tests greatly simplify the task of hiring people and choosing university candidates, we really don't give a fig whether or not they're as accurate as they are claimed to be. Astrology and phrenology are just as practical and useful for basing decisions on as scientific data, and they're a whole lot simpler to work with.

Einstein IQ was actually know to be 160 or 165

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is the estimated IQ of Albert Einstein?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass