How-to-Know-Your-I-Q-Level-without-Taking-the-Test

HOW TO KNOW YOUR I.Q. LEVEL WITHOUT TAKING THE TEST By Billy J. Burton Copyright 2023 Billy J. Burton Free-Ebooks.net Edition

3 AUDIOBOOK COLLECTIONS 6 BOOK COLLECTIONS

This is a free book meant for personal understanding and educational purposes only, I have received no financial compensation whatsoever for the hundreds of hours invested in putting together such a project. I have, to the best of my ability, cited, in the end notes, the owners of every published book, study, article, website, idea and opinion, I based myself on, or came across while writing this book. However, if I have left anyone out, please let me know and I will gladly add a citation. Sincerely, Billy J. Burton

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: I.Q. AND PERSONALITY 1. I.Q. Tests: Facts and Observations 1.1What’s an I.Q. Score? 1.2The Different Types of Tests 1.2.1 A Little History 1.2.2 Nowadays 1.3 Are Official Tests Accurate? 1.3.1 I.Q. Tests Are Flawed Tools 1.3.2 Why Use an I.Q. Scale at All? 2. Variations in I.Q.Scores 2.1 Genetics: Variations in Brain Structure 2.2 Environment, Society and Healthcare: Variations in Nurture 2.3 I.Q. Scores Discrepancy 2.3.1 Among Countries 2.3.2 Among People 2.4 The Homogeneity of Intelligence Levels in Social Groups 2.5 The Perception of Intelligence 3. I.Q. Understood by Standard Deviations 3.1 The Gaussian Curve 3.2 The Ranges 3.2.1 The Main Communicative Functioning of each Range 3.2.2 The Habitual Brain Functioning of each Range 4. I.Q. and Personality 4.1 Personality Traits Involved in Intelligence 4.2 Intelligence Can also be Noticed in One’s Appearance 4.3 The Advantages and the Drawbacks to a Psychological Approach PART TWO: THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND EACH RANGE CHAPTER 1: The Normies, The Neurotypicals (I.Q.:70 to 129) 95% 1.The Inferior Range [IR] (70 to 85) 14% 2.The Normal Range (85 to 115) 68% 2.1The Lower Normal Range [LNR] (85 to 100) 34% 2.2The Upper Normal Range [UNR] (100 to 115) 34% 3.The Superior Range [SR] (115 to 130)14% CHAPTER 2: The Gifted, The Neuroatypicals (I.Q. above 130) 2.5% 1.What Do All the Gifted Have in Common? 2.The Moderately Gifted Range [MG] or [HIQ] (130 to 144) nearly 2% 3.The Highly Gifted [HG] (145 to 159); The Exceptionally [EG] (160 to 174) and Profoundly Gifted [PG] (175+) Specifications for The Exceptionally [EG] and Profoundly Gifted [PG] (160 to 175; Above 175) 3.1 EG 3.2 PG CONCLUSION 1.I Hope You Were Able to Recognize Yourself in One of Those Groups. 2.How Can You Communicate with Other Ranges? 3.What is Intelligence Exactly? 3.1 It's a Different Level of Consciousness 3.2 Why Did Evolution Create Different Levels of Intelligence? I.Q. GUESSING TOOLS

Why This Book? You must have heard all sorts of things about the Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.). Most psychologists believe this tool to be accurate to determine your cognitive intelligence but nothing else. Some people believe Emotional Intelligence and the Multiple Intelligence theory are better predictors of your life outcomes. Lots of people think it’s just a number or that it simply measures your ability to take the test. Are they right? Well, in a way, but not entirely or I wouldn’t be writing this book. A long time ago I felt like these people, until I took my first I.Q. test out of curiosity. It wasn’t anything fancy and expensive, no; just a regular test crafted by a psychologist who wanted to help his readers discover their I.Q. level, from 50 to 170. Surprisingly, I scored much higher than expected without trying too hard, the score that was looking back at me, was within “the top 2%”. However, there was one caveat; the book specified that if you scored either in the lower or higher 2% then the test was probably not a good measurement of your I.Q.! I was puzzled, not sure what to make of it. I told some friends about it and got slammed, they pretty much said I took it wrong, and I was an idiot. I had taken that test because I had always felt disconnected from most people, sometimes really smarter, other times really dumber, but nevertheless always different. Given my friends’ reactions, I forgot all about this test for many years until I ran into a new book. That second book had been written by another psychologist. It wasn’t an I.Q. test; it was aiming at explaining the difficulties of “The Gifted”. Being unaware of any particular troubles they might have, I perused through it at a bookstore. These so-called “gifted people” actually represent “the top 2%”, I seemed to be a part of, when I took that I.Q. test. Intrigued, I sheepishly bought the book, afraid the checker would think me vain for assuming the label “gifted” might apply to me. I devoured that book over a single weekend. Out of a list of 50 traits, associated with giftedness, I seemed to exhibit every single one of them. I had always thought I was an average person, but suddenly, there, it was staring me in the face. I was convinced to be a gifted person endowed with cognitive prowess, but at the same time, emotional difficulties. So actually, I wasn’t crazy or weird; I was part of this world of high I.Q. people with all of the discrepancies from the norm that it entails. I started looking into the specifics of giftedness. At that level, intelligence isn’t just quantitatively different, it’s also qualitatively diverse. Then, a few years ago, I ran into the third book that would forever alter my outlook on I.Q. and intelligence. It described how there actually was two main types of gifted individuals, essentially those labelled “Moderately Gifted”, who comprise practically the entirety of “the top 2%”, and those above that I.Q. level who exhibit even more unusual emotional and behavioral traits. To my astonishment, I appeared to be part of the stranger realm of the “Highly, Exceptionally and Profoundly Gifted” individuals.

Recently, I was able to confirm that psychological approach with professionally administered I.Q. tests. Still, that awareness incited me to inquire about a potential link between one’s specific emotional, behavioral, and intellectual makeup and one’s I.Q. level. After years of studies and research, I have finally developed a psychological understanding of intelligence. I have devised a way to assess it through the measure of its emotional and behavioral consequences on the tested subject. With this book, I have the desire to help the reader understand what intelligence really is, what it feels or looks like in everyday interactions with diverse types of individuals. Likewise, I wish to assist you in evaluating your own probable I.Q. level, regardless of your difficulties in taking an I.Q. test, may it be because of its cost or because of emotional, psychological, or neurological deficiencies. As I aim to rid the I.Q. concept of any appraisal issue, in this book, I strictly equate an I.Q. score with its corresponding intelligence amount and its dissimilarities from the norm. For, as we will see, a person who took a certified test, then was given a precise score, may really belong to a more elevated I.Q. rank. In the first part of this book, I will present a summary of what I.Q. tests really are, as well as the advantages of resorting to a psychological approach to measure intelligence. In a second part, I will strive to explain the unique psychological aspects of members of most I.Q. ranges. By recognizing yourself in one of the groups presented, you will be able to evaluate which I.Q. range corresponds to you. At the end of this book, I’m including numerical tools, still based on personality traits, enabling you to narrow this bracket down significantly for more precision.

PART ONE: I.Q. and Personality Who hasn’t heard of the intelligence quotient (or I.Q.27)! It is connected to the elusive idea that some people’s brains are more efficient than others, that these people are destined to be more successful, more respected, more admired than their peers. It often elicits jealousy and resentment, sometimes pride when a parent finds out their child is more cognitively endowed than most. People view the concept of I.Q. as purely cerebral, devoid of consequences on awareness, behavior, or relationships. The idea of intelligence being related to psychology is overlooked, or even utterly denied by many practitioners and lay-people alike. However, one can witness evidence of this connection in certain psychology volumes 0 about the emotional issues of “The Gifted266”. This link between degrees of intelligence and personality traits may be taken much further, until one can actually portray the standard personality exhibited by members of each I.Q. range. As you are reading this book, I will attempt to help you detect your level of intelligence in the hope of enhancing the likelihood of your achieving your life goals as well as smoother communication with other cognitive levels. Besides, I wish for gifted people to identify their specificities in order to avoid missed opportunities, heartaches, misunderstandings, and the loneliness that goes with it.

1. I.Q. Tests: Facts and Observations So far, intelligence has only really been assessed, with some precision, by scientifically normed I.Q. tests241 overseen by psychologists. No other method has ever given a better outcome, but the notion, although renowned, remains fuzzy. You may be wondering what those tests truly represent and what they actually measure. You may be unsure whether or not they are accurate. You may have been confused by the results given to you after an assessment. The next paragraphs should enlighten the curious reader. 1.1What’s an I.Q. Score? What exactly is an I.Q. score1 ? It’s not a mark, points, or the total of one’s neurons. It is a relative score comparing one’s mental ability to that of the rest of the general population in one’s country. It doesn’t measure intelligence directly but what one can do with it compared to the reference group. It is akin to measuring your strength by how high you can jump or how far you can throw. I.Q. testing is habitually used as a clue for psychologists to find out if people are capable of unusual mental performance or if they suffer from cognitive disabilities242. It ordinarily has to be completed with a psychological assessment14 to proceed with a diagnosis. 1.2 The Different Types of Tests To measure an Intelligence Quotient27 you need a tool in the form of a test. It resembles an exam with questions, not specifically created to evaluate what you know, but rather whether you are cognitively equipped to find a solution. Several authors have invented their own specific tests for quantifying intelligence over the years. 1.2.1 A Little History In 1905, Alfred Binet was asked, by the French government, to create a test destined to measure children’s intelligence in the hope of evaluating their cognitive disabilities. Its purpose was to avoid sending those youngsters to an asylum by establishing if they were merely slow as opposed to insane: The Binet-Simon test2 .

A few years later, in 1912, a German psychologist named William Stern4 invented the term Intelligence Quotient3 or I.Q. in short. It represented the ratio between a child’s mental age and his or her real age for comparison purposes. Then, in 1916, Alfred Binet inspired Lewis Terman, a psychologist from the Stanford Graduate School of Education, to create the first intelligence scale along with his Stanford-Binet11 test. In 1939 the calculating method was changed, namely by David Wechsler5 , an American psychologist, to a relative score15 comparing itself to other test-taker’s score, of the same age group, in the same country. He thought intelligence was constituted of several elements which could be measured by several large subtests representing a particular aspect of cognitive ability6 . His tests, each aimed at one age group, are still the most famous and widely used ones in the world (WPPSI, WISC, and WAIS243). To him, intelligence was the faculty to be logical, reach one’s goals, and be in control of one’s life outcomes. 7 Wechsler’s tests, in the USA, rival with James McKeen Cattell’s8 who wasthe first American psychology professor, and author for the Science Journal. He eventually designed his own test, based on a wider scale than Wechsler’s. 1.2.2 Nowadays Nowadays, standardized tests involving several types of puzzles are used to rank a person's intelligence in the main cognitive areas. The resulting score is compared to the average intelligence of the test-taker’s countrymen by converting it to a rank positioned on the normal distribution function9 . This rank corresponds to the proportion of people who share the same intelligence degree in the same age-group. There have been several legitimate I.Q. tests used by psychologists for decades ; some are aimed at children whereas others are for adults. They differ by author, scale, standard deviation, subtests19 , main cognitive skills focus, but their mean (or Esperance) is usually set at 100. Most tests assess the main intelligence categories, albeit in different groupings of reaction time, verbal, numerical, spatial, abstract, or logical etc.… subtests. Abstract reasoning is particularly interesting as it impacts every other skill36 and can be perceived as a kind of core fluid intelligence79 influencing cognitive abilities and their related psychological traits. Points are, at that moment, attributed to all subtests, and afterwards, a rank in the form of a global score, or a percentile29, is calculated and given to the “patient”. A percentile is the percentage of people who did worse than the test-taker on the assessment. The most famous tests, available nowadays, are the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale10 (or WAIS), the Stanford-Binet11, the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test12, the Raven Progressive Matrices13 and a few others. Each of them employs a particular scale. The scale I resort to, in this book, is the most widely used in the world (except in the USA): the Wechsler scale22 . The average of most modern tests is set at 100 by default. It is considered mean intelligence. On the Wechsler Scale, the scores follow a bell curve with a fat hump of 68% of people who fall within the average range: between 85 and 115; 16% are above 115, 16% are below 85. On the Cattell Scale the ranges boundaries are distinct. Untimed tests for high-range244 intelligence exist as well. Sadly, due to the limited number of people with such high cognitive abilities, they are normed with smaller groups and frequently developed outside of official structures. As a result, they are considered fairly unreliable.

Two main scales: To explain the table22 above, a person with an I.Q. score of 120 on the Wechsler Scale does better than 90.53% of the population of his or her country and such a level (or above) is found in 1 person out of 11. Similarly, a person with an I.Q. score of 90, does better than 25.25% of people and such a score (or higher) can be found in 100 people out of 133 (1/1.33). 1.3 Are Official Tests Accurate? Every so often, I meet people who distrust I.Q. tests assuming they cannot measure intelligence properly. Is there any basis to that assumption, or are tests really trustworthy? 1.3.1 I.Q. Tests are Flawed Tools. A handful of flaws have been observed, over the years, which put a damper on the notion of the all-powerful, unquestionable I.Q. test score. These defects are to be attributed to the configuration of the test itself, but also, to the emotional state of the test-taker. Test Issues I.Q. tests are imperfect tools, yet, so far, nothing else has been able to measure intelligence comprehensively, with some degree of certainty, in a scientific way. I.Q. measuring occasions several significant concerns: - The tests measure “The g factor”16-17 (the general intelligence factor), a component directly correlated to efficient cognitive functioning. This factor, involved in cerebral performance also characterizes the perception of what intelligence represents. But these I.Q. assessments only account for about 70% of “g”18; consequently 30% of intelligence is never considered. A WAIS result, for example, is often given with an accuracy of 95% by providing a confidence interval19 , hence the range sometimes given to the patient (ex: 123-133) instead of a single number (ex: 130), the confidence level of which, would be much lower. In short, only part of your intelligence is considered in an I.Q. test and the result is a little uncertain. - An I.Q. score somewhat depends on the type of test used. Some tests give a slight advantage248- 249 to people who are good at 3D puzzles, others to people who work better with letters or who

are highly logical. Some tests items involuntarily measure knowledge245 instead of inference; others possess more than one possible answer246-247 , in this way, quantifying mainstream thinking instead of cleverness. So, if you take 3 different assessments you will get 3 dissimilar I.Q. scores for the same “volume” of intelligence. - Since these tests aim at quantifying one’s ability to find solutions to problems one has never met before250, one cannot become excessively familiar with these types of questions for fear of invalidating the accuracy of the calculated score. Therefore, having taken a previous I.Q. test may potentially alter the result of a future one. - The most troublesome test feature for very clever individuals is the existence of test ceilings20- 21. Because putting together normative groups of superior intelligence is arduous, I.Q. tests are particularly designed for people of average intelligence41 (I.Q. score from 85 to 115). For others, the score is merely an approximation to be confirmed by further I.Q. test-taking, which, as we have just seen, may actually prevent precision. The WAIS’ maximum score is 160, but its real upper limit is undoubtedly closer to 135-140 due to additional ceilings in all subtests251. As a result, the higher the total, the more artificially lowered it gets. People in the upper realms of intelligence typically hit every ceiling and end up with official scores around 135-140 unless specific extended subtests 252 are added. In addition, the higher one ranks on the curve, the stronger one’s aptitude in pattern-detection when presented with a great deal of seemingly unrelated information253. This is never considered in regular I.Q. tests, in which simple patterns are employed. So, the less average your intelligence, the less accurately assessed by I.Q. tests it is. - In psychometrics254 (psychological measurements), a global I.Q. score is valid if all the subtests’ indexes are homogeneous. When subtests scatter23 is too great, the psychologist is not able to calculate a meaningful average. The test-taker may feel cheated for not receiving a concrete result, even if subtests can be interpreted individually. Besides, when subtest averaging is possible, a global I.Q. score doesn’t necessarily hold much meaning on its own. Indeed, discrepancies between subtests highlight dissimilar functioning at the same intelligence level. It is especially interesting, to Neuro-atypicals255-256 (cognitively nonconforming people) for selfawareness reasons, as well as clever individuals as, the further removed from the average, the more spread out the subtests84 . In any case, abstract reasoning, having an impact on every subtest36; it is undoubtedly the most trustworthy beacon to gauge somebody’s intelligence. Consequently, a global I.Q. score may be meaningless if subtests are too uneven. - I.Q. tests largely estimate male reasoning proficiency 37-38 in spatial and numerical logic. Consequently, the higher the score is, the greater the gap between the genders in the number of persons represented at each increment. This is confirmed by the enhanced variability of male brains’ I.Q. scores24-25 compared to females. I’m referring to the brain structure here and not necessarily the sex of its owner. Still, men’s scores are naturally more spread out, being more present at both ends of the curve257 (in the lower and higher ranges), than women’s scores which are primarily found in the middle. In a nutshell, I.Q. tests may be less suited to account for women’s intelligence. - The average I.Q. score varies from country to country27. Since it is a comparison to the rest of a given population, a score appraised with a test aimed at a specific country is only valid in that country258-259-260. Similarly, taking a test in a foreign language, even for fluent people, artificially lowers one’s verbal I.Q261. score as well as the whole evaluation. So, if you take an I.Q. test devised for foreigners or in a foreign language you may be at a disadvantage.

The Flynn Effect: The Flynn effect28 (noticed by James R. Flynn) is an apparent score increase, attributed, for the most part, to greater life complexity65 and heightened guessing habits64 , which, in some measure, improve pattern recognition to favor higher scores. That gain is merely statistical and doesn’t reflect actual betterment in cognitive ability. To make up for that artificial progression, I.Q. tests are overhauled every ten years262 , so that, the same scores calculated decades ago and nowadays remain equivalent. The hidden decline in intelligence: For environmental reasons263 , to some extent, the tendency to become parents later in life43 and the higher percentage of childlessness among high I.Q. people40-43, intelligence has been declining, mainly in first world countries28-43 , for over a century. Yet, that decline, which has been masked by the Flynn effect, has commonly been ignored. Undeniably, in spite of the everrising ceiling of tests, we don’t seem that much smarter than our ancestors. Actually, a deterioration in I.Q. scores42 as well as an important decrease in intellectual capacity43 has been noticed in the impoverishment of vocabulary, hue differentiation, reflexes, memory, and attention span. That slow drop in intelligence, by nearly three points per decade264- 265 , is worrisome, as it causes an alteration of the distribution, primarily at its extremities. To illustrate296 , a drop of 3 points can be estimated to lower the proportion of people with a score above 120 by over 30% and that of gifted people by roughly 40%; at the same time scores under 80 increase by about 40%. People’s Issues An I.Q. test-taker is classically given a score or a range (sometimes a percentile29) by a psychometrician. Such a test can be sought, out of curiosity, or to ascertain that everything is normal in the cognitive area, but if one is looking to establish the presence of giftedness266 (I.Q. in the top 2% of a given population), the result provided merely helps the practitioner who also requires a psychological evaluation to establish such a diagnosis0 . Why is it so? Most importantly because one’s state of mind impacts psychometric results! Under most circumstances, in spite of life ups and downs, the intelligence of adults78 remains stable. One’s I.Q. level as measured by tests, however, is bound to vary, fluctuating according to one’s emotional balance267 . A test score can be rendered inaccurate because of personal impairment, may it be, fleeting or permanent: - I.Q. results fluctuate according to one’s level of confidence 271 , health, anxiety267, or energy level during the test. Therefore, someone’s I.Q. could amount to 145 on a good day, but only to 120 on a bad day, or even as low as 100 on an even worse day. - Dyslexia30, dyscalculia31, depression35-104-267, social anxiety disorder32, bilingualism33, and ADHD 34 add extra hurdles to a correct I.Q. measurement: - Dyslexia269, dyscalculia270 and ADHD268 increase reflection time. - Social anxiety347 makes it harder to concentrate when one is being watched. -Depression impairs 104 memory, attention span, cognitive processing, and decision-making abilities thus, reduces scores significantly. Since giftedness frequently entails existential depression105 , it also goes hand in hand with unreliability in I.Q. scores. Being bilingual reduces the quantity of words one knows in either language (compared to monolingual speakers, on average272), whereas total vocabulary in both languages is larger. As a

result, test-measured verbal I.Q., typically evaluated in only one language, gets artificially truncated. Therefore, although having become fluent, as an adult, in at least one additional language, compared to your peers in the same cultural background (for example, being an American who speaks Spanish fluently if you’re not of Hispanic decent) is a sign of high intelligence 44-45-46 , your verbal subtest score gets artificially reduced. 1.3.2 Why use an I.Q. scale at all? Why bother employing an I.Q. scale10 , at all, if I.Q. tests are somewhat unreliable? In spite of the aforementioned flaws, I.Q. tests allow the assessment of human cognitive abilities, at a specific time, and under well-defined circumstances, even though emotional and psychological impairments remain unheeded. Besides, the Intelligence Quotient is a well-known concept that has been capturing people’s imagination. Who hasn’t heard of the I.Q. score of various scientists and authors, rumored to be through the roof, even if its consequences on aptitude or psychology remain unclear? Einstein’s I.Q. score of 16047 is quite famous, although it appears to be a meaningless oversimplification of what his intelligence, in physics, represented. Moreover, it’s an easy way to discern the degree of intelligence involved, as well as its frequency. The Intelligence Quotient theory, by itself, is already pretty comprehensive. Contrary to what the uninitiated may think, the concept of I.Q. is not in competition with “Emotional Intelligence” 49-50 (also known as E.Q.) or with the “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” 51-52. Even if I.Q. tests do not directly measure social intelligence, creativity, imagination, learning ability or long-term memory, these notions are all highly positively correlated to “g” 53-54-55 . In a nutshell, the Intelligence Quotient theory works, scientifically speaking, even if its implementation is not entirely trustworthy because of the human factor. The integration of psychology, in my opinion, is paramount to avoid misestimating the subject’s level. My goal, in this book, is to do away with any kind of emotional, learning, health issues which weaken the assessment’s precision and to observe the direct consequences of “g”18 , characterized by our inner emotional mechanisms and noticeable behaviors. This approach offers a good approximation of the extent of one’s intelligence throughout one’s life, in a global, holistic way, regardless of ups and downs, impairments, subtests ceilings, and lack of access to a sometimes pricey, psychometric test.

2. Variations in I.Q. Scores Many studies about identical twins suggest intelligence is largely genetic48-86 the rest being attributed to environmental67 (food quality, pollution), social67 (lack of brain stimulation) or even medical reasons67-68 . 2.1 Genetics: Variations in Brain Structure The differences in I.Q. levels essentially originate in the brain structure56 . As seen earlier, the tests evaluate “g”, the general fluid intelligence18: problem-solving and learning skills. Because half of “g” relates to how rapidly the nervous influx is propagated through the brain69 via its neurons, the more efficient the brain is: 1- the lower the dendrite density60 , permitting a greater brain plasticity. 2- the higher the density of Glial Cells58 , for a more direct transfer of information. 3- the higher the myelination of the axons57 , increasing the swiftness of neurological signals. Similarly, the greater the brain performance is: 1- the higher the curvature of the Corpus Callosum58, determining the efficiency with which both hemispheres interact. 2- the lower the need for glucose consumption59 , decreasing fatigue resulting from the same task. Besides, as intelligence rises, the electrical signal speed in the brain increases. When this signal is strong enough, instead of naturally fading rapidly, it eventually reaches brain areas unsolicited by the current task. This situation known as low latent inhibition61-62-63 increases creativity in people with elevated I.Q. scores. 2.2 Environment, Society and Healthcare: Variations in Nurture Other differences in intelligence stem from various other issues. A child growing up in a low intellectually stimulating milieu or with poor schooling67 will undoubtedly have difficulties evolving harmoniously and will lose potential brain power. Malnutrition67, disease and lack of access to medical care68 are also factors leading to a decrease in potential intelligence. At the same time, head injury (permanently) or depression70 (transiently) can alter proper brain functioning and artificially lower an I.Q. score.

2.3 I.Q. Scores Discrepancy Since intelligence is both impacted by nature and nurture, it isn’t uniformly scattered throughout the world, but rather, typically exists in clusters of similar levels71-72-73 in countries, social and professional groups, families etc… However, this is a controversial27 topic as many claim that I.Q. tests, which were originally designed for flourishing countries of the Western world, are not a good measure of intelligence for certain cultures. Furthermore, in no way do I subscribe to the idea of entire races being less intelligent than others. On the other hand, being aware of these discrepancies permits the reader, living outside of the USA, to use, with some accuracy, the I.Q. tests aimed at US residents provided at the end of this book. 2.3.1 Among Countries According to some studies, the world mean I.Q. score, on the Wechsler Scale, is around 8573 , with countries ranging from the high 50’s to almost72-73 110. Since different countries have different average I.Q. scores, in order to compare them, the test scores have to be adjusted to the Greenwich I.Q. standard73 which mean is set at 100. On the next page, here are a few examples of mean I.Q. scores by country in 2020-202172:

For simplicity’s sake, suppose you are British, and your I.Q. score is 100 (in the U.K. the mean is 100). If you are travelling to Greece (where the mean is 92) then it’s as if your I.Q. score had been measured as 108 there, putting you in the Upper Normal range (I.Q. 100-114) of the Greek intellectual sphere. Likewise, if you are vacationing in Japan (where the mean is 105) there, your I.Q. score will only be equivalent to 95, so in the Lower Normal range (I.Q. 85-99). 2.3.2 Among People The difference in I.Q. ranks between individuals is far greater; scores range from well under 50, for people with cognitive disabilities, to a little above74 175. I.Q. scores beyond 200 are either dubious273-274 or calculated from a totally different scale (the Cattell scale or ratio scales76-77 for instance). However, even if intelligence is largely innate48-86 , not all gifted people (I.Q. above 130) originate from the union of two gifted individuals85-86 . This highlights the small, but objective influence of one’s environment on one's intelligence, especially during the first years of life. After a brief adjustment during the teenage years78, intelligence remains pretty constant throughout adult life. Fluid intelligence (reasoning skills unrelated to knowledge) seems to plateau at approximately 30 years of age79 only to decrease steadily with agedness while crystallized intelligence (knowledge related aptitudes) increases slowly79 . Examples of elevated I.Q. scores associated to various illustrious names; (while some have been officially evaluated others are merely estimates based on accomplishments): Albert Einstein47: From 160 to 190. Actually, this must be a misleading oversimplification of the physicist’s intelligence for, suffering from high-functioning autism47 (which results in unbalanced intelligence: very high in one area and average or low in others80), the subtype of intelligence that permitted him to create the Theory of Relativity was, in all likelihood, closer to 190 or 200 on the Wechsler Scale. Sheldon Cooper: 187 . The beloved character’s I.Q. score, in “The Big Bang Theory”66 , is undoubtedly calculated on the Wechsler Scale which places him in the profoundly gifted category. On the show Leonard is presumed to have scored 173, Raj 170, Amy 180, Bernadette 160, Howard 150, and Penny 110. It is needless to point out the imperfect portrayal of those characters, many not even being within communication range81-83 (15 to 30 points) of each other. Garry Kasparov39: over 190. This score is rumored to be accurate for the chess master. Terence Tao39: From 210 to 230 . The mathematician’s I.Q. score is a ratio assessment taken during his childhood. On the Wechsler Scale, he would score much lower, but definitely in the profoundly gifted range (above 175). William Sidis39: From 200 to 300. The man portrayed in “Good Will Hunting” boasts an I.Q. level certainly south of 200, on the Wechsler Scale, for few official tests reach beyond 200 and none show accuracy at that level. Leonardo Da Vinci39: From 180 to 220. The famous painter and inventor’s I.Q. score was definitely in the profoundly gifted range. Marilyn Vos Savant39: 228. The columnist's I.Q. level was calculated from the Stanford-Binet test, it could actually be the highest ever recorded, but was deemed unreliable and taken down by the “Guinness Book of Records”. Evangelos Katsioulis39: 198. A Greek psychiatrist boasting the highest officially tested I.Q. score in the world.

Isaac Newton39: From 190 to 200. The physicist’s alleged score also falls in the profoundly gifted classification. Marie Curie39: From 180 to 200. The first woman to win the Nobel prize and the first person to win it twice. William Shakespeare39: 210. The English playwright and actor’s I.Q. score is believed to be off the charts. 2.4. The Homogeneity of Intelligence Levels in Social Groups Social circles are very homogeneous along I.Q. lines. In a group of friends, or between spouses, I.Q. score disparity must not be greater than 20 points82 , from one individual to the next, for the group to be harmonious. This law applies to sentimental, but also, to professional groupings. Failure to comply has dire consequences on long-term support and cooperation. Similarly, successful leaders need I.Q. scores closer than 20 points83 from those of their audience, lest their ideas fail to be followed, due to a lack of understanding. Because the average person’s score is 100, leaders display an average I.Q. score of 120. Anyone above that point won’t be fully comprehended and will confuse his or her target audience. As a result, for instance, typical college entrants (averaging an I.Q. score of 115) will not be taught well by someone whose level is superior to 135. Besides, for any meaningful exchange to take place, between two persons, the divergence in I.Q. scores must remain under 30 points according to Grady Towers 81 or, I think more accurately, 15 points as stated by Simonton83; this is known as the “communication range”. Above that threshold, people communicate within a set of rules that is alien to each other. They don’t interact on the same bases, aren’t interested in the same topics, don’t share the same values and frames of reference; in short, they don’t understand each other. The “optimal social adjustment I.Q.87 bracket” which favors the harmonious development of successful individuals, socially and professionally, lies between 120 and 140. Under that range, people won’t show remarkably high rate of professional success. Above that range, people will have difficulty adapting to regular social environments and will undergo some type of rejection. According to Ferguson, every hierarchy is composed of several types of individuals: The Followers 88 (employees with an I.Q. score between 98 and 125) who are being directed by The Leaders88 (112-138) who are being guided by The Advisors88 (125-155). As outliers, we find The Clueless88 (I.Q. score under 98) and The Excluded88 (I.Q. score above 150) who are respectively not bright enough to really follow instructions or too bright to be convincing and, therefore, regarded as trusted leaders. Thus, the probability of landing and remaining in an intellectual occupation such as physician, lawyer, college teacher, manager, scientist, engineer increases, up to an I.Q. score of 13388 , then declines by a third on the 14088 mark and likewise, sinks by 97% above a score of 15088 . Consequently, intellectual professions sport an average score of 12588 and 95%88 of people, in an intellectual elite occupation, boast a level ranging from 112 to 138.

The numbers from the previous table26-89-90 showing the mean I.Q. score by activity have been rounded up to give a better equivalence idea to the reader. The relative homogeneity of intelligence, in professional groups, also holds true in politics. The general public largely regards conflicting with their worldviews as a form of stupidity, while these disagreements are commonly based on personal values and chosen goals, but not on cognitive weakness. Politician’s I.Q. rankings are nearly always at least in the “intellectual profession” range (115- 129) or even above that threshold, for, the average score of statesmen or stateswomen is 145. Elected officials are never “idiots” in a strict I.Q. related way, because even initiating such a career, demands being more intellectually endowed than average. 2.5 The Perception of Intelligence The “Dunning-Kruger effect” 91-92 states that people of lower I.Q. levels overestimate their own intelligence and competence. However, more recent studies93 have revealed that everyone does it to some degree, or at least struggles to self-assess objectively. Similarly, one can logically surmise that, the wider the cognitive gap, between two people, the more unlikely they are to accurately gauge each other’s intelligence: the average person is ill-equipped to appraise higher I.Q. rankers’ intelligence with precision. In addition to that issue, the way men’s and women’s intelligence is perceived, differs greatly. When scrutinizing men’s intelligence, the perception94 of I.Q. ranks, by any observer, increases along with men’s scores up to 135-140. At this threshold, the observer no longer notices any increase in intelligence, for each point gained, but rather perceives a decrease, mistaking brainpower for quirkiness or even stupidity. In essence, most observers are unable to notice a variance between an I.Q. score of 120 and one of 140. Equally, men with a score over 160 are considered, by most people, as 110 scorers, or even below average. The intelligence of women, on the other hand, is perceived to be between 100 and 140 whatever their true I.Q. scores. A majority of women are placed at the 110 notch, those under 100 and above 140 being equally mistaken for under average. As a result, I.Q. scorers above 140 require first-rate accomplishments205 , so as to be recognized, for who they truly are, in term of intelligence. The intelligence of individuals with particular cognitive issues is also frequently misestimated. According to the latest studies, autism, which is generally misguidedly associated to low intelligence80 (except in the case of what was referred to as the “Asperger Syndrome”), involves imbalanced aptitudes more than lack thereof. People “on the Spectrum” are, in reality, extraordinary intelligent in certain fields but perform poorly in others275 , this leads to a misleading global I.Q. score. For instance, while Einstein’s global score is reported as 160, the I.Q. sub scores linked to his revolutionizing physics, are obviously much higher. It is worth noting, how little, the concept of intelligence is understood by the general public. Most people equate it with factual knowledge, wealth, education, or high-level status. As we’ll see, in part-two of this book, even if correlations do exist, intelligence is characterized by much deeper notions.

3. I.Q. Understood by Standard Deviations I.Q. scores are to be found on a continuous curve, but certain clusters of dots reflect the psychological and cognitive proximity of the subjects they represent more than points positioned very far apart. Therefore, scores are more meaningful if gathered in sets95 of a particular extent. 3.1 The Gaussian Curve In statistics, natural phenomena are modeled by what is called the Normal Distribution95 conceived by a mathematician named Carl Friedrich Gauss95 . This is a continuous law of probability which depends on its expectation95 (the mean) and its variance95 (the span of the distribution values) which also amounts to the standard deviation95 squared. The Standard Deviation (SD) value provides the extent of the range to consider. It’s a statistical quantity which corresponds, to points on the curve, showing a tangible difference from the average population of the set, in short, the variability in the population. The higher the SD, the more removed the set is from the mean. The scores are distributed along the “Gaussian Curve95 ” which concentrates most points in the middle while diminishing rapidly at both ends. In that way, this curve resembles a bell. This schematic96 represents the I.Q. scores’ dispersion in the general population. It essentially follows a “Normal Distribution”, although some researchers have noticed more people on the far right end97 than expected. The scores, grouped in ranges, are arranged horizontally while the

percentage of the population scoring at a particular level is viewed vertically (surface under the curve). On the 100-point mark, the distribution on the left mirrors that on the right side: for each increment, just as many people are present above the mean (100) than under it. To emphasize that effect, I have employed the same labels for the Gifted as for the Disabled. Psychologists are in the habit of using slightly different designations for the intellectually challenged ranges (with “exceptionally” being customarily replaced with “Severe”276 for example). Throughout this book I use the Wechsler’s scale22 (the most widely used for I.Q. scores). On that particular scale the SD is equal to 15 points. Other scales have different SDs, the standard deviation of the Cattell scale is 24 for example. This statistical number matters because a distinct emotional and behavioral pattern, as well as an innate type of brain functioning and layout, is associated to each specific 15-point wide I.Q. range. So, unique personality traits are linked to each I.Q. range. 3.2 The Ranges Distinct range labels start at the left end of the curve with “The Intellectually Disabled”. Next, they capture 96% of the entire population with the Inferior, Normal (Lower and Upper) and Superior ranges. Then, on the right-hand side rest “The Gifted266”, people with an unusual brain structure allowing a broader and deeper understanding of their environment. Members of each particular range possess a set of personality traits98-99-100 in common. Of course, character doesn’t change exactly on the limits of a level, it’s a gradual process. For instance, someone whose I.Q. score is close to 130 typically shows traits from the Superior and Moderately Gifted ranges. In the subsequent chapters, I will strive to present the specific traits pertaining to each range, so the reader may guess where, he or she fits and, likewise, acquire an enhanced understanding of the other levels. From lack of specific knowledge, I will not address the intellectually disabled276 ranges, whose members, would probably not be interested in that book anyway. 3.2.1 The Main Communicative Functioning of each Range Here, I will give a brief overlook of the main I.Q. ranges which will be developed further down this book. Regular people’s I.Q. level is found within the 85-114 points cluster; they amount to about 68% of the population. The Lower Normal and the Upper Normal Ranges are part of this group. These are the people you regularly meet in most environments. They act like humans are supposed to act with their mainstream qualities and faults; they tend to enjoy what a person is supposed to enjoy; their goals are very commonplace. Their speech primarily conveys their feelings101-385: happy/sad. People in the Inferior Range show an I.Q. score extending from 70 to 84, so at -1SD (standard deviation), making up nearly 14% of humans. They are “cruder” than the regular population,

interested mainly in fulfilling elementary needs. Often underachievers126-127 , they content themselves with a simple life while generally not realizing they are of inferior intellect. Their speech primarily conveys categories101-385: good/bad. People in the Superior Range stand at +1SD which corresponds to scores between 115-129 (about 14 % of mankind). They appreciate intellectual activities149-155-158 and displaying their education as well as their knowledge348 in their areas of expertise. They value logic and scientific evidence373 provided by knowledgeable people but are still conventional349 in their behavior, likes and dislikes, as well as personal goals. Their speech primarily conveys definition focused logic101-385: true/false. Moderately Gifted people, also known as High I.Q. people (HIQ), who rest at the first level of what is referred to as “giftedness266 ” (a brain wired differently: Neuro-atypicals), stand at +2SD: an I.Q. score between 130-144 (roughly 2% of society). These individuals already exhibit unusual psychological traits resulting from their bewildering neural network307. At the same time, endearing and irksome, they are a bit lost, both able to be extremely competent in a field and very average in another178-181-186 . Their speech primarily conveys meaning focused reasoning101-385: if X is true, then Y is also true. Highly, Exceptionally, and Profoundly Gifted people or, taken globally, Very High I.Q. people (VHIQ) are outlandish creatures. With an I.Q. score above 145, they amount to only 0.13% of the human race. They are, at the same time, tormented, anxious180 , eager138-180-190 and candid people, unable to understand what stimulates the average person yet very empathetic 180 . They can be awkward321 in social situations but understand187 “issues” most others didn’t know existed. They shed light on reality and discuss patterns 187 invisible to the rest of humankind. Their speech primarily conveys patterns101-385: if X, Y and Z can all be put into the same set, then W, which is related to X could also be part of that set. 3.2.2 The Habitual Brain Functioning of Each Range. I.Q. scores nowadays, represent a frequency102 , a rarity. Remarkably, the higher the ranking on the aforementioned bell curve is, the more significant the difference106 between scorers who are only a standard deviation, of 15 points, apart. For example, the difference between 100 and 115 is far less than the different between 130 and 145 in terms of behavior, inner feelings, intellectual depth. Thus, people in the Superior Range (115-129) are closer to the norm than people in the Highly Gifted Range (145-159) are to the Moderately Gifted (130-144). Besides, at each additional standard deviation, a brain treats the same amount of data (cognitive, emotional, visual, auditive …) at an increased speed107 : it processes more data in the same time frame. Consequently, the higher the I.Q. score, the greater the distance between each cognitive step taken when reflecting. These discrepancies in brain power entail 3 main types of brain functioning or thinking types: Analytical, Synthetic and Integrated103 . The “Normies” (Inferior, Normal and Superior ranges: 70-129) are analytical300-303: Analytical thinking103 is creating understanding from the mainstream concepts one is taught: From the world to the thinker. Analytical thinking is equated to taking small logical steps to reach understanding.

The Moderately Gifted (HIQ: 130-144) are synthetic300-303: Synthetic thinking103is expanding already known mainstream concepts as one acquires new information: From the thinker to the world. Synthetic thinking signifies taking large logical steps with a more global approach. It leads to more creativity than for “Analyticals”. The Very High I.Q. people (VHIQ: above 145) are both analytical and synthetic, they are “integrated” thinkers316: Integrated thinking103 is creating the concept yourself from an early age and comparing it to mainstream concepts when that knowledge is available: From the world to the thinker, but at the same time, from the thinker to the world. Integrated thinking means taking giant leaps of comprehensive reasoning. That mental capacity leads to very intuitive and totally “outside of the box” thinking. Brain functioning types 103-300-303-316

Thinking types and main brain functionning101-103-300-303-316-385

4. I.Q. and Personality How can one measure intelligence all the while circumventing imperfect tools such as standardized I.Q. tests? One way is to consider how intelligence consistently impacts one’s behavior, emotions, needs…, as well as the type of deep-seated personality one exhibits. In a nutshell, your intellectual aptitude affects your personality, and your personality represents a specific intellectual profile. In this book, I aim to establish the correlation between intelligence and the psychological idiosyncrasies of each group of individuals from the Inferior Range to the Profoundly Gifted Range. The deepest differences between I.Q. ranges are connected to the magnitude of, structure or concepts, one borrows from the world103, in a particular field of intelligence, as opposed to innovative and self-reliant, reasoning. The highest subtype of intelligence influences all others and is paramount in defining one's typical level of performance. That difference in I.Q. levels bears consequences in the sorts of matters one is interested in, who one surrounds oneself with, how sensitive or anxious one is164 , how one relates to other people, etc. Not only is that approach reasonably accurate, at least as much as a standardized I.Q. test would be19 , but it also gives the same result throughout one’s life, regardless of anxiety, fatigue, learning disabilities, social phobia, depression, cognitive decline due to aging, etc. On the other hand, I haven’t been able to evaluate it widely with people with autism, but while the first results seem encouraging (the intellectual forces counterbalancing the lack of emotional strong points) they are not as satisfying. 4.1 Personality Traits Involved in Intelligence According to my observations, and those of cited researchers, the more intelligent a person is, the more, at least to some extent, he, or she, is inclined to be: 1- Utilizing a different mental strategy103: - A person whose intellectual functioning is more synthetic than analytic, and even more integrated than synthetic. - A person with an ability to detect and understand patterns. 2- Independent116-118 : - Independent in their opinions and worldviews - Uninfluenced by habitual outlooks forced upon by family or friends, not likely to follow into other’s footsteps without adding a persistent individualized touch.

- Able to create their own concepts for understanding reality without relying on existing structures or models. 3- A truth-seeker118: Looking for truth in all matters, regardless of what the consensus may be among the intellectual elite. 4- Intense in their behavior and predisposed to “overexcitabilities” 108-109: - Always mentally, physically, and emotionally excited. - Attached to details. - Often anxious and stressed-out for seemingly pointless reasons. - Moved to tears by situations or art that would barely get the attention of most people. - Highly organized to try to alleviate those “overexcitabilities”. 5- Highly intuitive 118: - Able to guess likely consequences of acts and decisions (one’s own or other’s). - Able to understand situations and concepts, apparently out of nowhere, by using abilities beyond the five senses. 6- Introspective119: - Often wondering if one’s attitude is acceptable, if one's opinions hold ground - Questioning if one should be more flexible, intelligent, open-minded, giving… - Being prone to self-criticism. 7- Sympathetic/Empathetic118: - Able to sense other people’s feelings or a slight difference in the atmosphere. - Capable of identifying liars, knowing who is trustworthy or reading non-verbal cues. - Tolerant of innocuous differences between people. - Able to realize that someone may think, or act differently and still be respectable. - Unwilling to force one’s opinion or views on other people. 8- Interested in or willing to learn118 : - Willing to study, mostly by oneself, cutting-edge, difficult, brainy topics that might solve existential questions or important problems (such as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, medicine, math, engineering, data-processing, etc.): - Interested in several challenging subjects. - Ready to invest time to acquire many aptitudes and knowledge across the board. 9- Introverted118-119:

- Socially awkward. - Needing time to oneself. - Never bored when alone. - Not at ease in social situations because one’s interests and emotions don’t match others’. - Not fully understood by one’s peers and family, feeling only a superficial connection with everyone else. - Insensitive to praise and flattery. 10- Resilient117-119 : Resistant to life’s hardships because one’s strength originates from an inner vitality. 11- Creative119: - Inventive. - Interested in arts of many kinds. - Moved by beauty. - Feeling an inner urge to create, draw, paint, dance, play, cook, compose, and write in a very personal and unique way. Besides, it is believed that 3 thresholds of creativity quality111 can be noticed. They correspond to the 85, 100 and 120 I.Q. marks. 12- Adventurous117-119: - Interested in discovering new concepts, in taking part in new experiences. - Willing to adapt to new chosen situations. - Having the need to explore, discover, or absorb knowledge through all senses. - Ingenuous or naïve at times. Note that anxiety can get in the way of adventurousness. 13- Goal 118-119 oriented: - Ready to pursue one’s goals even if poles apart from what society values such as finding a spouse or a decent job. - Prone to try to change the world (not only as an idealistic teenager but throughout the course of one's life). - Ready to take steps to pursue one’s passions or dreams. - A tad provoking, willing to push people beyond what they want to achieve for their own good. - A willing or unwilling leader in one’s strong domains. - An Architect of many projects. - Organized and inclined to long-term planning to reach one’s goals. 14- Following moral118 and ethical codes: - Endowed with strong personal values.

- Honest and candid. - Law-abiding (unless law appears unjust). - Hardworking. - Finding it hard to lie or to fool someone on purpose. - Feeling the need to improve the world and people’s behavior by leading them towards a greater good. 15- Showing robust memory118: - Having a powerful long-term, and short-term memory. - Able to recall tiny details of importance years later. - Able to retrieve data or trivia everybody else has forgotten. - Good at remembering numbers, faces, patterns, scents, tastes. However, memory can be deficient from lack of interest or impeded by anxiety. 16- Cultured118: - Showing interest and even competence in multiple fields. - Aware of facts, retained over the years, even in domains one doesn’t especially enjoy (titles, names, quantity, dates …) in history, literature, cinema, music, geography, popular culture, etc. - Interested in arts and knowledge across many fields. - Often passionate and knowledgeable about delicacies (fine cuisine, tea, fine wine, chocolate, coffee, scents…). - Fan of complex musical harmonies and melodies (classical, jazz, blues, folk) but also powerful music (alternative, progressive, rock, heavy metal).

4.2 Intelligence Can Also Be Noticed in One’s Appearance The higher the I.Q. rank the more androgynous111-112 the features, the behavior, and the psychology with a heightened rate of sexual and gender ambiguity113. While people of average intellect tend to be hyper-gendered, people on the far-right of the Gaussian Curve tend to have more androgynous faces. Likewise, the higher the intelligence the more focused the attention and the larger the pupil114-115 for the same age and the same lightning conditions. 4.3 The Advantages and the Drawbacks to a Psychological Approach As uncovered in the preceding chapter, there is a progression of a selection of identifiable personality traits in conjunction with the rise of intelligence. Therefore, assessing intelligence by measuring the intensity of these comportments appears both conceivable and effective. If two individuals, with the same acumen, display a different array of these traits, albeit with various intensities, these characteristics will counterbalance one another so as to all merge into a result resembling a global I.Q. score. The more wide-ranging and extended the assessment, the more precise this result will be. Apart from the complexity of explaining with precision, to the reader, the intuitive data, I have collected over the years, regarding all the specifics I use to evaluate someone’s intelligence, the drawbacks to this method are few and mostly related to an outsider’s viewpoint. First off, the reader won’t be aware of his or her cognitive strengths and weaknesses among abstract logic, verbal ability, mental rotation, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence79 , etc. Second of all, with this book, the reader, who scores him or herself, might misunderstand my logic and estimate an incorrect score (guidelines are supplied to minimize this likelihood). There will exist no tangible evidence of that score, except maybe in the inner sensation of having finally discovered yourself. Therefore, entering high I.Q. societies or “gifted education” programs, is out of the question, for, valid proof is required. Last but not least, psychometricians will undoubtedly judge this approach to be worthless and urge you to take a “real” official test. The advantages in my opinion are many. I have already reviewed them a few paragraphs back but would like to remind the reader with a quick summary. The score found here will remain stable even if the test-taker is tired, anxious, stressed out, or depressed. It will be accurate even in cases of bilingualism, cognitive impairments, or emotional disorders. It takes all of the test-taker’s intelligence into account (not merely 70% of “g”). Unlike regular tests, which are unreliable above 140, the score, provided at the end of this book, is reasonably accurate from 90 to 160 (+/- 8 points for the 1st assessment; +/- 5 points for the 2nd one, +/- 3 points for the 3rd one) and still gives a fairly good idea from 70 to 180. This test can be taken many times without any loss of precision. You can assess yourself from all over the world, provided your English is fluent and you’re an adult (younger personalities will obtain unreliable results). Last but not least, it won’t cost you a dime, only time and patience.

The second part of this book is based on the observation, verbal exchanges, and interactions with many people from first-world countries, both in person and online over many years. It is not, however, a statistically based scientific study with a fixed panel of subjects. The people portrayed thereafter are merely aggregates of several existing individuals, members of a particular range, whose names and life situations have been modified so as to be rendered anonymous. PLEASE READ: I have compiled my observations about the psychology of people in every major range. While I strive to remain as objective as possible, keep in mind that this outlook comes from a person whose I.Q. belongs to the higher ranges and consequently regards lower and average ranges as puzzling. I apologize in advance for any remark that might seem a tad condescending or judgmental. I totally think that everyone, in this world, is important, in their own way, regardless of intelligence.

PART TWO: THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND EACH RANGE This section aims at helping the reader understand where, he or she, stands compared to others in the intelligence continuum. The first segment of each subdivision is dedicated to the observation of the natural characteristics of the members of each range, seen from an observer’s standpoint. You might recognize these behaviors or functioning modes in people you know. The second part (the quiz) is the inner vision, someone in that range, has of him or herself or how, he or she, usually feels. It’s what one needs to focus on to discover, whether or not, one belongs to that range. In every chapter, you’ll give yourself a point for each time you agree with one of its 20 statements. The higher mark will correspond to the range you most likely belong to. In case you find almost the same number of points for two consecutive ranges, your score will presumably be close to the boundary separating those two ranges (If, for example, you’ve given yourself nearly the same number of points in the Superior Range (115-129) and the Moderately Gifted Range (130-144), chances are, your score is close to 130). I will strive to present each range with its own habitual characteristics. They are obviously simply strong behavioral tendencies. Of course, some people may have, or appear to have, a few dissimilar qualities that vary from the typical conduct or the classic inner feelings that I’m describing. Furthermore, the more an individual is on the autism spectrum279 or suffers from serious mental illness 280 the less accurate this portrayal. Events, taken from the lives of people, I have had the honor to repeatedly converse with, will illustrate the particularities I’m commenting upon. I will predominantly focus on the “above average” intelligence ranges, for most people who are genuinely interested in that matter, are commonly under the impression they exceed the intellectual norm, and that, with good reason. Throughout this book, I equate an I.Q. score with its corresponding intelligence quantity and quality, it doesn’t merely represent a rarity rank without substance. You will notice a gradual shift in the abilities and personalities or the Neurotypicals255, “The Normies”, whereas the Neuro-atypicals255-256, “The Gifted”, show divergent traits and skills. If you're looking for an easy estimate of someone's cleverness, notice which I.Q. range his or her friends belong to. A person almost always navigates willingly around peers sporting an I.Q. score less than 20 points 82, from him- or herself.

Chapter 1: The “Normies”, The Neurotypicals (IQ: 70 to 129) 95% The “Normies”, as opposed to the “Gifted”, are regular people. You will meet them almost everywhere since they amount to 95% of a given population. They are considered neurotypical255 for their brains are “wired” in the conventional way and their cognitive abilities are average or nearly average in all subtests120-122 . They naturally show an analytical103, step by step, thinking process and, being more detail oriented 125 , can’t see the big picture. As a result, they mostly shun away from concepts. Except for members of the Superior Range, the “Normies” are, on average, not particularly interested in intellectual or cultural matters123-137 . They embody the concept of “ordinariness”. Because they are social creatures138 who display strong tendencies to pattern themselves after those they interact with, they appreciate being around other neurotypicals with whom they share many likings and values. They tend to partake the general opinions and ethics of the majority124-153 , not second-guessing themselves much, feeling strong in the certainty they are respectable regular people and regarded as such. Not being very creative or adventurous110-123, they never stray far away from their peers, doing many conventional activities together, enjoying simple pleasures. They exemplify the concept of group-thinking. The “Normies" possess decent336 memory, essentially in what draws their attention, and are fond of popular culture350 . They don’t project themselves into loads of potential consequences123-124-137 that could shake their resolve; they’d rather bask in the present and work towards realistic ordinary goals: a nice life, good friends, a family, health, money, and a lot of leisure time. They symbolize the concept of conventionality. Provided everything is fine with them and their loved ones, they are inclined to temperate emotions121 , serenity and nonchalance for they customarily feel accepted and understood by the general population. They personify the concept of belonging. The whole entertainment industry, as well as the school system and many other structures have been conceived for these people. Their likes, dislikes, ideals, and their aptitudes have shaped our world. They characterize the concept of “normality”.

The “Normies” comprise the Inferior Range, the Lower and Upper Normal Ranges, and the Superior range, which serves as the link between Neurotypicals and Neuro-atypicals255-256 by presenting qualities from both realms.

1. The Inferior Range (IQ: 70 to 84) 14% People in the Inferior Range represent about 14% of the general population; their I.Q. score is found between 70 and 84. Even if they exhibit difficulties123-142 with everyday life situations, they are, in no way, considered mentally handicapped. I will illustrate the matter at hand with situations taken from the lives of Kate, Kevin, Tom, Sherman, Gian-Carlo and Chester, all members of that particular range. Of course, all the names have been changed and these situations have been somewhat modified for privacy reasons. Limited Thinking and Learning Abilities at the Inferior Range: Inferior Rangers are not fans of intellectual efforts123 , their brains being more sluggish than average. They bask in total certainties 123-124 rather than shades of gray and are very adamant124 about topics they know very little about, for they overestimate their capacities124 in addition to having trouble understanding another’s viewpoint 123 . Their thinking remains superficial and simplistic124 given that, they are not really aware of obvious connections125 between different events, and they struggle with thought malleability123 . They are slow142 and reluctant123 learners, school being challenging for them, they seldom fare much beyond junior high 126-127 . Kate has trouble doing anything on her own; she makes the same mistakes over and over again, taking a long time to learn from them, always asking how to do certain tasks. Gian-Carlo was adamant his bike was broken until a co-worker let him know he had assembled the handlebar backwards. Lack of Independence of Mind at the Inferior Range: Dependent upon others for opinions, Inferior Rangers commonly think like their peers124 or family; every notion acquired at an early age is set in stone278 and remains valid for life regardless of new information. Having a tough time distancing themselves from what’s happening around them, they are unable to put anything in perspective enough to have actual personal opinions 277 . They regularly exhibit a sort of hive mentality124 . Kate tends to wait for her peers to have an opinion before she ventures to speak, then she agrees with what they just said. Since these people very much depend on the opinions of others, they need to feel respected. To reach that goal, they very much insist on being treated as politely351 as their culture allows. Kate gets offended when she only gets a regular “Hello" instead of a “Hello M'am".

Lack of Intuition at the Inferior Range: People at the Inferior Range are unable to infer277 anything from observation, parts of a same occurrence being considered separate125 . Consequently, they demonstrate no particular intuition skill. They absorb everything in a simplistic manner, never looking for answers123 or doubting what they are told142 . Inferior Rangers are sadly inclined to be gullible and easily deceived. Besides, their innate sense of how to sustain a health-conscious and harmonious life is limited, often prompting them to make the wrong interpersonal123 or diet-related decisions342. Kevin buys sneakers and phones to show-off to his friends but lacks money to buy healthy food; consequently, after a few years of pizzas and burgers, he is on the brink of having type-two diabetes. Sherman, who can go heavy on the bottle, fathered an unwanted child during a one-night stand. People in that range are also impervious to sarcasm125 and higher forms of humor278 . Kevin only laughs at graphic humor and misses all the puns and witty remarks. Lack of Empathy at the Inferior Range: Unable to put themselves in other people’s shoes123 , or to make sense of their own feelings125 , the individuals pertaining to that range, lack empathy123 and typically exhibit a vindictive personality277, sometimes, coupled with a victim mentality. They hate criticism123 but are frequently intolerant124 of those who think or act differently from the values or customs of the social groups they belong to. They consider the world to revolve around them278 and their kin, so, politeness and civility are pretty much alien to them. Kevin listens to music really loudly on the bus, oblivious to the discomfort of the other passengers. Nervous Issues at the Inferior Range: The members of that range are very instinctive278 and impatient 124 , incapable of appreciating the greater reward, one can reap, when taking the time to hone a skill, investing in a career, or simply behaving responsibly. Unable to curb their impulses124 they may come off as domineering and aggressive. Often putting themselves first124, they don’t care much about others except their immediate family. They are often heard quarreling with their relatives or innocent bystanders as they tend to make rash choices 123 . Tom loves his son but doesn’t seem to tolerate anyone else, he keeps shouting at neighbors and passers-by for no obvious reason. A sad consequence to their poor decision making123, their sometimes-rough behavior and tense relationships125, is a higher risk of personality disorders128-129 ,schizophrenia128-129 and depression129 than in the average population. Tom and his wife suffer from depression and schizo-affective disorders, their place is a pigsty but, having little energy to keep everything clean, they don’t seem to mind.

Ethics Issues at the Inferior Range: Inferior rangers don’t always abide by the rules and may get themselves into trouble with the law124 as they disregard or even misunderstand the consequences278-288 of their actions. Assuming their sometimes less than satisfying life, is the result of mere bad luck, they may feel entitled352 and, at times, try to get preferential treatment over those who put in the efforts. Chester thinks his neighborhood should help him out even if he’s always been obnoxious to everyone. People whose I.Q. fall in that range tend to be, not only religious, but dogmatic124 and inflexible, scrupulously respecting rites they understand little and especially making sure others follow in their footsteps. Extraversion at the Inferior Range: Just like children, Inferior Rangers are, at the same time, dependent142 upon others, and selfcentered278 . Surprisingly, in spite of that, they are no stranger to self-confidence123 for, having been unable to notice any contradictory facts, they never second-guess themselves. They may be dependent on friends and family for daily chores or tasks, having trouble using appliances, filling out forms or doing anything a little unfamiliar on their own. Consequently, extraversion144 is paramount to their psychological well-being. Seldom, does one see a member of this range alone for a very long time (except in case of mental illness). They are also more fertile130-131 than average, raising many children, sometimes from several partners, regardless of their financial resources. Kate already had trouble raising three children, but nevertheless she had a fourth one. People pertaining to the Inferior Range generally chat about, for example, what they can’t cope with; their problems; who wronged them; their chores; their habits; ready-made simplistic opinions; sex; food; booze; sports … in vague all-encompassing few words, in short sentences sometimes with emotional outbursts142 . Their vocabulary is limited, and their grammar is poor124 . They frequently express words representing the positive or negative categories101-385, in which they mentally put, people, events, items, entertainment etc. Tom and his wife can’t stop talking about who they dislike and what they would do silence those people. Sherman spends most of his life saying how cool or how lame something or somebody is. Lack of Creativity at the Inferior Range: These people are not creative123, nor do they care much about anything that isn’t instinctrelated278 or based on elementary emotions. Their imagination abilities are extremely restricted 278; the notion that someone can conceive a new tool, or an original concept is mostly alien to them. They rely on what they know, what is tangible, what they can see, not what might exist.

Lack of Adventurousness at the Inferior Range: These individuals need their world to remain unchanged123 as much as possible, for adapting to new habits, or an unfamiliar environment, feels challenging. They are deprived of intellectual curiosity123 and may be satisfied with doing the same simple tasks353 , over and over, for extended periods of time: they make suitable and satisfied blue-collar workers. The idea of eating unusual food or going to unfamiliar places fills them with dread and, besides, they don’t see the point. When they yearn for stimulation of the senses, promiscuity354 , and substance abuse124 are their poison of choice, but they won’t be more adventurous than that. Chester doesn’t see the point of leaving his hometown to go abroad because he thinks he has it all where he is. Limited Memory Skills at the Inferior Range: Inferior rangers recall hands-on tasks but, due to weak short-term memory134 , are rarely able to remember anything that hasn’t been shown to them several times. Their limited awareness278 of what’s going on around them, as well as their difficulty in understanding matters globally125 hinders their memory skills. Besides, they regularly count on others to remind them of what to do or to do it for them, in this way, triggering a deficiency in retention training. Kate has a tough time remembering how to use the coffee machine; it has to be explained to her every day again and again. Lack of Knowledge at the Inferior Range: Not interested in anything except basic matters, the members of this range are not curious about the world123 around them. They seldom read and have next to no cultural knowledge278. What they don’t understand or don’t enjoy, they consider valueless or even inappropriate278 . Tom enjoys watching brainless TV shows and sometimes goes hunting but he’s not interested in much else. Kate is only interested in reality TV and soaps in which people fall in love at the end. Life Goals at the Inferior Range: These individuals are usually devoid of the vitality and the desire needed to sustain hobbies295 or mere personal interests; therefore, their goals are mostly sensory278 and sustenance oriented: sex, food, alcohol… Tom enjoys booze, carbs, and telling people off noisily, sometimes he gets into fights. Inferior rangers are overrepresented in unskilled labor, not at all unhappy to be performing simple repetitive tasks353 in a familiar environment.

Since they are impulsive124 , they don’t resort to any type of planning, living mostly in the now, uninterested in the future278 . Circumstances and fate decide their life outcomes, they hardly do. Specific physical characteristics can be observed among these individuals: Their features are often a little crude94 sometimes coupled with a small cranium26; their figure is more asymmetrical26-132 than average, and their gait133 lacks vivacity. Since pupil size is correlated to attention and brainpower, their gaze appears wandering or unfocused139 . If your I.Q. falls in the Inferior Range most of the sentences below feel like something you do or think: (Pay close attention to the wording before answering yes or no, then count the number of times you answered yes) 1-You don’t like learning and had difficulty at school. 2-You are certain to be right all the time. 3-You often think other people are mean to you. 4-You think that what your parents taught you is always true and the right thing to do. 5-You don’t like reading or watching educational TV. 6-You don’t always understand what makes other people laugh. 7-You don’t care about what other people need or what they’d like you to do. 8-You think there’s only one way to do things. 9-You are easily angry or upset. 10-You are very impatient when you want something. 11-You think you are entitled to what other people have, regardless of the efforts put in. 12-You don’t mind doing the same things every day at home or at work. 13-You often rely on other people to fill out paperwork or use a device. 14-You see no point in trying new things or visiting new places. 15-You are not curious about what goes on in the world. 16-You only like a few activities a few types of food, a few people, a few places. 17-You don’t pay attention to your health, weight, appearance … and don’t do sporting activities. 18-You often quarrel with people. 19-You don’t know certain words that people use. 20-You have had trouble understanding what I have written so far.

2.The Normal Range (IQ: 85 to 114) 68% Members of the Normal Range are perfectly regular people, they give an impression of acting, thinking, dreaming, living like everybody else. They constitute most of the people you will ever meet in your life unless you spend it in an intellectual bubble. They amount to 68% of the population. Just like Inferior Rangers, Normal Rangers are analytical thinkers103, albeit with more efficient cognition373. They share many traits123-124 with the previous range along with more flexibility, proficiency, and effectiveness. As a result, they come off as better adjusted and equipped to tackle life struggles. Normal rangers are structures absorbers103: to apprehend matters, they apply whatever concepts they were taught at school or at home, never adding a personal outlook. Consequently, they naturally harbor very mainstream views 281 , in just about any topic, situation, subject, field one can envision. They hardly ever think in abstract terms135-136, nor do they notice recurring patterns between seemingly unrelated domains, leaving them at the mercy of the ideas generally accepted as truth by their mentors, teachers, intellectual elite, parents, friends …. Being unable to get past conventional ideas, any new piece of information that doesn’t fit the concepts and values they have been taught will be disregarded282 as either false, crazy or a lie. A consequence to that analytical cognitive behavior is a tendency to consider all matters in a black or white281 , yes, or no, good, or bad kind of way, with no room for nuanced point of views. This rather inefficient cognitive information processing, compared to synthetic and integrated thinking103, leads individuals, at the Normal Range, towards a life that doesn’t revolve around intellectual prowess. They have to be cajoled into acquiring knowledge and prefer hands-on137 education with a teacher to self-taught learning. Similarly, unless they are pushed by an authority figure at school, at work or within the family, their desire to learn remains low281. However, some of them, especially at the top of the range (I.Q.: 105-114), explore certain domains out of passion. Since, people at the Normal Range, require the structures put in place by others to be fully functioning, it is essential for them to be very social138. They will, generally, surround themselves with lots of friends and family, easily creating lasting bonds over small talk, using white lies or flattery to please, exchanging favors or matter of fact knowledge281 . Not being incredibly interested in the world around them, or the realm of abstract ideas, their topics of conversation are habitually very concrete281, ranging from the necessities of the present to exciting new trends as well as fashion, household matters, events, gossip, sport, the news, and occasional hobbies. Furthermore, they display good-natured conventional humor which facilitates that desirable connection with fellow range members. Their being social animals drives Normal Rangers to feel confident282 about themselves and their intellect, since they mostly meet like-minded people with the same type of neurological functioning.

Their need for structure dictates their submission to those they recognize as figures of authority according to their idea of morality, values, and ethics. They regard traditions and habits highly 282 , are the victims of the fashions and trends of the moment as well as behavioral rules. They feel normal and accepted by society, which they, undeniably, are. Their inner life is not particularly abundant. They are infrequently creative and lack introspection282, never considering themselves as they truly are, but as they believe others view them. They are prone to outbursts of aggressiveness when they disagree281 with somebody else’s opinion. Similarly, they have trouble resisting temptation137 and cannot control emotional and physical impulses137 well. They live in the present, never analyzing their behavior, thinking little before acting309 , consequences be damned. These individuals display unsophisticated299-350 tastes, preferring basic easily attainable pleasures and past-times over brainy ones. They are inclined to prefer rhythm to melody140, pizza to fine cuisine, simple shows and books that don’t involve thinking. They will almost always value physical attractiveness351 over shared values when choosing a mate. They tend to have very gendered features and bodies94-141 , and often show detached uninterested gazes 139 . 2.1 The Lower Normal Range (IQ: 85 to 99) 34% The people scoring at the Lower Normal Range are everything I mentioned in the preceding part, aimed at familiarizing the reader with the Normal Range in its entirety, along with some specifications. They display various characteristics of the Inferior Range in conjunction with more effective reasoning skills and more self-reliance373 . They encompass about 34% of the general population; their I.Q. score is found between 85 and 99. I will clarify their characteristics by means of situations taken from the lives of Jack, Burt, Lily, Olivia, Brian, John, Ludovica, Sadie, Colleen, Vivian, and Annie all members of that range. I remind the reader that all the names have been changed and all the situations have been modified for privacy reasons. The Thinking and Learning Abilities at the Lower Normal Range: People at the Lower Normal Range are not naturally predisposed to enjoy learning123; they will only study what is necessary for school and work. They think very concretely, leaving only little space for abstraction135-136, therefore concepts understanding, and information processing are still somewhat limited288 but less so than at the previous range. Their reasoning is more sluggish than that of the average person, their conclusions simpler351 , and they exhibit mental inflexibility123 about certain matters. However, they are rarely aware of those cognitive limitations, some may even believe they are smarter92-124 than most people they know. Jack thinks that everybody who thinks differently from him is actually stupid, even his physician.

Burt believes he can speak Spanish, as well as many other languages, because he knows a handful of words, he keeps asking: “Eres bello?” instead of “Qué tal estas?” even after having been corrected several times. Few people, at that range, go to college206-373 where they would have a hard time graduating. Colleen is immensely proud of never having been to college; for unknown reasons it makes her feel superior. Independence of Mind at the Lower Normal Range: Dependence on analytic103 brain functioning (see 3.2.2) leads to restricted independence of mind. At this range, values and habits acquired, at an early age, last forever282. Besides, these individuals’ beliefs and opinions282 are usually those of their friends and families. The very conventional opinions they harbor, as a consequence, are often coupled with a tendency to feel abused by society 278 at large. Sadie, Vivian, Lily, and Annie believe that any change in their work environment will necessarily be detrimental to them. One day, Annie was so sure of having been handed “the short end of the stick” that she was actually verbally fighting with someone who wanted to give her what she wanted. Lower Normal Rangers show very little introspection288, being unconscious about the, sometimes, lower quality of their job performance or, in any case, their lack of attention to details 288, they tend to overestimate their qualities288 . But, just like the preceding rangers, because the opinions of everyone they know is important to them, these individuals very much care about the signs of respect351 they believe society owes them and expect to be granted the same advantages as everybody else. Lily spends her working days chatting with her coworkers while she pays very little attention to her work, consequently making many errors. But, at the end of the year, she expects to get the same bonus as her hard-working colleagues. Intuition at the Lower Normal Range: Lower Normal Rangers display next to no intuition352, being at the mercy of whomever they put their faith in. Since they have difficulty discerning who they can or cannot trust, they are sadly liable to be taken advantage of142 by unscrupulous and treasonous characters time and again, albeit to a lesser extent than at the previous range. Vivian and Lily keep getting disappointed in the people they befriend who always end up becoming their worst enemies after a few years. If these people have confidence in someone, they tend to believe almost anything they are told until proven wrong. Burt thinks the Germans are the most powerful people in the world and that everything is wonderful there because a friend told him so. He would like to move there, with his family, but his wife has to keep reminding him that it’s not true.

Sympathy at the Lower Normal Range: A form of sympathy can be felt for the unfortunate. It stems from a fear of, one day, being in the same situation as the person being pitied. Burt and Vivian feel sorry for homeless people because they think it could happen to them somehow. Still, not really being able to put themselves into somebody else’s shoes, their compassion remains superficial278-357 . Lily really likes people until she doesn’t understand them anymore which happens pretty fast and leads to recurring conflicts. John takes care of old people for a living, but being devoid of real empathy, he laughs when they are struggling. Colleen wants other people to take care of her but rarely reciprocates, for, disregarding the plight of others, she believes her situation is always worse than that of her friends. On the other hand, being very social350, they generally feel for loved ones who find themselves in a sorry predicament but do not exert genuine empathy278 . Olivia always feels sorry for her friends and family when they are unwell or sad. Nervous Issues at the Lower Normal Range: Being unable to project themselves into the future and imagine what could go wrong, Lower Normal Rangers often go through life as happy-go-lucky people, enjoying what it has to offer, infrequently anxious164. The closer, some of them can get to being disturbed by emotions164 , is by being excited when anticipating a pleasant event. Whatever happens, Olivia is always in a good mood and generally presents a sunny disposition. Because they let their spouses deal with everyday problems, Vivian, Burt, Annie, and Lily are only worried when one of their family members is in trouble or when under pressure at work. However, when life has been hard on them, they are likely to develop personality disorders or depression128-129 . Colleen lost her husband years ago and never quite pulled through, she expects to be helped constantly by her friends and sometimes exhibits manipulative behavior. Ethics Issues at the Lower Normal Range: People at this range exhibit poor emotional restrain123. Their impulsiveness may, on occasion, lead to low morality187-321 or diminished ethics. For example, the average I.Q. score of inmates26 borders on 90, so at the lower end of this range. Jack thinks it’s okay to eat food he’s found in boxes, off supermarket shelves, without paying any of it, he has even shown his toddler son how to do it.

Poor mental health and physical illness383 can be an upshot of this inability to control one’s emotions and cravings. Olivia, regularly, eats between meals without any regards for her health. Lily developed type 2 diabetes from poor nutritional habits. Still, their approach to morals commonly signifies forcing278 themselves and others, to observe social habits and traditions that have been passed down for generations. Dogmatic religiousness 124 is to be found in that group and the previous one as well. Vivian is adamant it is impolite to use somebody’s bathroom when she’s invited over, she spends the entire evening waiting to go home to relieve herself. Burt thinks one is expected to have children and tries to force anyone who wants to make another choice. Extraversion at the Lower Normal Range: While the members of this range are more self-sufficient373 than at the Inferior Range, one may, nevertheless, notice a great propensity for gregariousness350 in this population, given that, their need for the help and support, provided by others, is elevated. They have a knack for bonding with others on virtually nothing and spend a tremendous amount of time in social groups350 . As a result, they naturally marry young and have more children than average130-131 . They communicate verbally, in factual terms, very much, by means of imprecise melodramatic statements288 taken from a restricted vocabulary 288. They love using ready-made phrases, vague trendy words such as “cool”, “swag”, “lame”, “sick” …, showing strong speech habits278 that might give one the impression they keep saying the same things over and over under totally different circumstances. Annie thinks that the act of finding a dime on the floor, getting married or winning the lottery can be expressed with the same word: “rad”; there are no words, in her vocabulary, to convey a higher or lower intensity. The simple sentences of the Lower Normal Rangers are not exempt from the occasional grammar or vocabulary mistake305. Their conversations may be self-centered or revolve around their peer group but aren’t based on concepts. Only tangible materialistic matters282 occupy their minds. Olivia, Lily, and Annie generally talk about their children, what they want to buy and TV programs. Sadie and Brian are in the habit of stating the obvious in conversations. The Limited Creativity of the Lower Normal Rangers: Lower Normal Rangers aren’t really creators110 for they never generate truly personal outlooks. Still, they may enjoy arts to some extent, especially popular arts305 that bring about primary emotions. For instance, they favor rhythm over melodious or elaborate music140, reality TV over brainy cinema.

Olivia enjoys rhythmic music she likes dancing to. She, also, adores reality shows portraying people who yell at one another the entire time. The members of this range will, however, be inclined to learn, to a certain extent, how to copy the artwork created by somebody else. They may enjoy being taught a variety of handicraft, how to draw, sing, dance, or play an instrument at a basic level. Olivia took a few singing and dancing lessons in her youth. Lack of Adventurousness at the Lower Normal Range: These individuals only exhibit restricted proclivity for adventurousness123 due to a dependence on comforting habits. Nevertheless, they may be persuaded to try something original, if part of a group, that enjoys new experiences. Many people, in that range, are very particular352 about what they eat, what they listen to, the places they go to, what they read, what they watch. They are habit oriented278-352, just like the preceding range, but mainly because of a lack of familiarity. Olivia, Brian, and John have difficulty trying food they are not used to eating, they are apprehensive or flat out refuse to taste any. The Memory skills of the Lower Normal Rangers: Because of strong emotional neural associations, Lower Normal Rangers generally display good memory of the life events of their peer groups, as well as what is related to their interests. However, they exhibit poor memory of facts or concepts336 , mainly, if they see no purpose in remembering them. Olivia shows good memory of the life events of the people she loves but cannot, for the life of her, remember anything cultural or academic. Colleen cannot remember how to work the copy-machine, because all she has to do, is ask her coworkers. Brian doesn’t remember what to buy at the store when it's for his wife. The Shallow Erudition of the Lower Normal Rangers: Lower Normal Rangers tend to be interested in superficial282 matters: outfit, appearances, gossip, trendy entertainment, sport, junk food… They don’t read much, rarely go to museums, or do anything deemed brainy or educative for it’s not entertaining or pleasurable to them. Olivia adores reality TV which make her laugh; she’s also fond of junk food. She and Lily love fashion and buying clothes as well as accessories. Lily and Colleen delight in nasty gossips but would resent anyone doing the same thing to them. Vivian ran into co-workers who were talking about mathematics, when she pressed them to know what they were discussing, she assumed they weren’t telling her the truth.

Life Goals at the Lower Normal Range: At this range, due to a shortage of long-term self-projection278 , life goals are few and very conventional: a house, children, vacation in hot weather, watching TV shows, week-ends activities. These people dream about an easy ordinary life but also of striking it rich, sometimes by gambling. Olivia, Lily, and Ludovica simply enjoy weekends and vacations out of principle, even if those times are sometimes not as fun as chatting and laughing with their friends at work. Annie gambles every week even if she is actually losing money in the process, she hopes for a windfall one day. These people's dreams feel unreachable as they are totally devoid of any connection with reality288 . Annie believes she can live on a sunny deserted island, totally oblivious to the fact she will need to eat and shelter herself from the elements to survive. If your I.Q. is in the Lower Normal Range most of what’s below feels like you: (Pay close attention to the wording before answering yes or no, then count the number of times you answered yes) 1-You had difficulty in high school with science and languages, the other subjects were easier to you but not easy. 2-You enjoy entertainment that doesn’t require thinking too much, such as: reality TV, sport, and shows with a straightforward story. 3-You do what you like to do, you do not follow all the rules. 4-You are almost always with people. 5-Many people have taken advantage of you. 6-You don’t especially enjoy museums, libraries, bookstores. 7-In life, you do not worry much. 8-You are a little apprehensive of trying new things and there are quite a few things you don’t like to eat. 9-You enjoy talking about fashion, how people look, gossip, cars, or sport etc. 10-You have poor memory of facts and cultural knowledge, but good memory of what interests you, and of the life events of the people you love. 11-Out of life, you mostly want an easy job, a house, a family, enough money, and leisure time. 12-You enjoy rhythmic music: reggae, pop, percussions, techno, dance, but not rock, metal, jazz, or classical music. 13-You dislike non-fiction books or non-linear stories. 14-You have, occasionally, been told that your grammar was not very good or that you were using the wrong word. 15-You don’t mind breaking the rules if you think you will benefit from it. 16-You married and had children young (or wanted to). 17-Your parents have taught you rules that everyone else should follow. 18-You use the same words and phrases a lot. 19-People often turn out to be different than you expected, and you get disappointed. 20-You think like most people you know.

2.2 The Upper Normal Range (IQ: 100 to 114) 34% The people who score in the Upper Normal Range encompass everything I mentioned in the preceding part about the Normal Range in its entirety, along with some characteristics of their own. They exhibit some traits from the Lower Normal Range; however, not unlike Superior Rangers (see next chapter), they display increased intellectual abilities373 and more openness to the world147 at large. They comprehend about 34% of the general population; their I.Q. score is found between 100 and 114. To clarify, I will resort to situations taken from the lives of Richard, Ann, Michaella, Leonna, Rico, Lynn, Magalie, Owen, Sylvia, Morris, Cathy; all these situations have been modified, all the names also. The Thinking and Learning Abilities at the Upper Normal Range: This is the level of high-school and college graduates in social science and most humanities majors143, for people in the Upper Normal Range struggle with abstract topics143. Concrete thinking281 is always privileged, causing these folks to shy away from theoretical subjects such as fundamental research and hard science. Leonna went to college but, being averse to committing dates to memory, she graduated with difficulty in U.S. History. These individuals are brainy enough to be low-level managers353 . As they possess an intelligence level not too removed from that of the average employee they are effortlessly understood and followed. Interested in matters that simply require short-term focus59, and a small amount of intellectual effort, Upper Normal Rangers, compared to the preceding range, appreciate intellectually undemanding59 , although more sophisticated334 books, films, shows, sports, and activities. Morris enjoys watching more elaborate sports than his friends in the Lower Normal Range; unlike them who only watch local football, he’s also fond of tennis and rugby, in addition to supporting many exciting teams and players. Ann doesn’t enjoy intricate plots; she’d rather watch straightforward TV-shows. In spite of their somewhat intellectual laziness, if Upper Normal Rangers are passionate about a particular topic, they will be prepared to acquire some knowledge in that area even if the information collected may sometimes remain minimal. Independence of Mind at the Upper Normal Range: Not very independent in their thinking process, Upper Normal Rangers borrow opinions, attitudes and principles282 from peers and family. Consequently, just like members of the lowest ranges, but to a lesser extent, they are prone to intellectual bias282 and strongly committed to ideological beliefs282 hardly based on personal experience, but rather, gathered from the social groups they gravitate towards.

Owen, Leonna and Ann, being unaware of their own bias and other people’s, rarely question what they are told; they tend to think like their friends on political and social issues. Ann, Leonna, Magalie and their friends always agree on who is right, who is wrong, who is nice and who isn’t, using the same half-baked reasons and thinking them to be totally logical. They frequently emulate their friends’ lifestyles and routines. They may overuse the speech habits that run in their environment as ready-available, thoughtless, knee-jerk reactional words and phrases that prevent them from engaging their cognition into the conversation too much. Although still showing fairly good vocabulary and making few grammar mistakes360-373, they rely on low-energy interaction with these speech habits, especially at the lower end of the range. Michaella keeps saying “it’s heavy” during conversations to express her feelings of powerlessness, because it’s a phrase her peers use a lot. Leonna and Magalie keep saying “I could of” instead of “I could have”, thus, imitating many of their friends. Intuition at the Upper Normal Range: As Upper Normal Rangers exhibit very little independence of thoughts and emotions, they also show little intuition. Often not being aware that one can guess, to some extent at least, the consequences of actions or behaviors, it takes them a while to notice any inconsistency between what a person says and what a person does or really thinks. Owen cannot tell when he’s being lied to even when it’s obvious that something is amiss. It took Michaella and Leonna months to notice the suspicious behavior of one of their co-workers who was taking advantage of them. Sympathy at the Upper Normal Range: Just like at the previous range, a form of sympathy is present for the poor and the unfortunate; however, only a restricted amount of deep emotional connectedness is felt by the Upper Normal Rangers when they come in contact with other beings, may they be humans, plants, or animals. Ann laughs it off whenever someone is in a sorry predicament thinking that it’ll pass and it’s no biggie, sometimes she even jokingly makes fun of that person. Richard, even if he enjoys joking, is in the habit of telling everyone how little he cares for his fellow humans and, what’s more, regularly downplays people’s difficulties. Sylvia connects easily with children but has trouble reading adults; as a result, she gets frustrated with them at times. Nervous Issues at the Upper Normal Range: Unless stricken by hardships, the Upper Normal Rangers’ emotional state remains mainly positive for they, just like the previous range, do not project much into possible challenging future outcomes and don’t overthink the present.

Their senses being under-reactive compared to those of the ranges above them, they generally show little anxiety164, except in case of turmoil in their own life or that of their family and friends. On the other hand, they may have trouble taking care of important matters, and procrastinate. Rico never worries much, except about his children and about spending his vacation time with his mother-in-law. Leonna and Magalie’s main concerns are about their children, husbands, and parents. Ann never seems to be anxious about anything and neither do Richard and Morris. Whatever the task is, Richard and Leonna love to procrastinate until their spouses take over. Morality Issues at the Upper Normal Range: While they put themselves, as well as friends and family first, these folks are, nevertheless, predominantly law-abiding, and moral. However, they will, at times, bend the rules, especially at the lower end of this range, if they feel it might benefit them or those their love. Under those circumstances, they don’t shun away from lying or cheating, seeing no harm in that, often being in the mindset of “us” against “them”. Leonna is ready to lie for her friends thus risking damaging her relationships with other people. She is also ready to bend all the rules at her workplace to accommodate herself and her friends, oblivious to the likely adverse consequences. When she is rightfully blamed, she pins the whole situation on the blamer and never on herself. Ann sees no harm in lying to her boss once in a while. Ann, Leonna, Michaella and Sylvia really don’t mind being behind with their work, if their boss makes a remark; they never think they are to blame, it’s always someone else’s fault. Unless raised by a pious family, unlike lower ranges, because they follow society’s trends, the individuals in the Upper Normal Range are hardly ever religious, nowadays. Lynn and Harriet, as they put it, only go to church for weddings and funerals. Extraversion at the Upper Normal Range: Few introverted personalities144 are actually observed at that range, Upper Normal Rangers requiring a lot of emotional support from friends and family. Because they tend to be down-toearth and easily satisfied, these people have a propensity for being great reliable friends. Ann prefers to do everything with her friends even if it means changing her plans at the last minute and being unable to do what she wanted to in the first place. Whether it is about shopping, leisure, or going to the movies, Ann, Leonna, Sylvia, Magalie, Lynn and Harriet never do anything on their own because they all feel the need to share their personal experiences whenever they can. Rico spends hours chatting about his problems with whoever is ready to listen.

Upper Normal Rangers enjoy talking about films, TV-shows, books, or music in addition to clothes, food, vacation, leisure, and sport, using factual knowledge281 and some insights373 beyond simply conveying likes and dislikes. Creativity at the Upper Normal Range: These people are usually not that creative110 and rarely pursue a career in that domain, except in artistic families. However, Upper Normal Rangers are sometimes attracted to hobbies requiring the use of their imagination, to some degree, when they try to reproduce the works of more accomplished artists. Magalie and Leonna both want their respective children to learn how to play a musical instrument without being, themselves, interested in music. Cathy loves anything that requires drawing, painting or even cooking. She’s quite good at it as are her brothers, members of the same range. Adventurousness at the Upper Normal Range: Upper Normal Rangers may, now and again, be a tad adventurous if pushed by peers. They may enjoy certain new, albeit not too extravagant savors, some unusual trips, some out of the mainstream art … Ann agreed to go eat sushi with her friends but had to be convinced first, finally barely tasted the dish and ordered something else. Leonna is a little adventurous in her food tastes because her husband is a chef. He gets her to try lots of diverse cuisine. Lynn flew to Europe with her best friend on a whim. Morris and Owen, who are at the higher end of this range, travel a lot every year, even often on their own. No matter the selection of drinks at the bar, Owen always orders pretty much the same drink, at times, he tentatively ventures beyond his comfort zone if nudged by friends. The Memory Strength of the Upper Normal Ranger: The general recollection aptitude of Upper Normal Rangers is reasonably good for matters of interest and emotional life events, but their recollection is superficial rather than profound. They are normally not that focused on what’s going on around them, this habit leaving only sketchy imprints on their brains. Morris and Owen recall many details about their favorite football teams’ games, however, nothing about the coaches’ strategies. Richard likes to read about matters that interest him, but when he reads fiction, he sometimes mixes up real facts with what happened in the book. He also mixes up sayings and ready-made phrases such as “you can make a horse drink but can't bring him to water”.