Talk:High-IQ society

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Would it be possible for a skilled editor to add the Epimetheus Society to the list/table of societies? The Epimetheus Society was founded in 2006 by Dr. Robert Hoeflin, PhD, and has no dues.

Here is a link to the homepage:

http://epimetheussociety.com/

The society is for +4SD, ~99.997th and above percentile score, ~164 and above IQ

Entry requirement is any of:

1. Stanford-Binet: older versions 190 IQ; recent: 160 IQ.

2. Terman Concept Mastery Test (form T): 183 raw score.

3. Army General Classification Test: 180 IQ.

4. California Test of Mental Maturity: 164 IQ.

5. Miller Analogies Test: old version: 98 out of 100. Recent versions with new scaling: insufficient information.

6. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: 160 IQ.

7. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: 160 IQ.

8. Scholastic Aptitude Test: To mid-1995: 1550 (V & Q); after mid-1995: insufficient ceiling,

9. Graduate Record Examination: 1600 (V & Q).

10. Cattell Verbal: insufficient ceiling. Cattell Culture Fair: 164 IQ (sufficient ceiling is in doubt)

11. ACT (American College Testing program): 35 out of 36

12. Titan Test: 36 raw score out of 48 (not taken after 2/27/2011)

Thank you for your consideration 107.122.225.102 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer is "no". CAVincent (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Prove its notability by telling us how many members they have. From what I'm seeing on the website, it looks like 25. It probably needs 100 times that many to be notable. DOSGuy (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is an understandable position; however I will point out that both the Prometheus and Mega Society have membership numbers in the double digits and are featured on the page. By the standard that membership numbers need to be at least in the thousands they should be removed. The page would no longer list any +4SD societies but given the extreme exclusivity of Prometheus/Mega/Epimetheus they will always have very low membership. 2600:8804:6F0D:4A00:7D4E:6E30:6D6B:2424 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No, those two societies are not included because of their membership numbers. Rather, they are included because they are presumed notable based on coverage about them in independent reliable sources, which appears to be the consensus standard per this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kinu: Where are these sources? Also, does that "this discussion"-link go to where you intended it to go? Polygnotus (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems the discussion in question has been renamed or removed entirely; I suppose that is my mistake for pointing to a thread and not to a specific diff. Nonetheless, based on several of the discussions as seen on this talk page and its archives, the consensus does appear to be that the existence of an article merits inclusion in the list, which agrees with WP:LISTCRIT in that keeps obviously non-notable entries (e.g., blatant spam) out. That being said, "existence of an article" is not necessarily indicative of notability (hence the use of the word "presumed" above and in my edit summary here), and it is worthwhile to revisit these articles on a per-case basis. Using Prometheus Society as an example, while there appears to be coverage, whether they contribute to notability such that an article is justified is a reasonable matter for discussion, and your approach of opening an AfD (considering the previous one was in 2006) is reasonable here. Perhaps other editors who have taken more time to investigate the sources will weigh in there. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that the Prometheus Society article is now gone, and it is removed from this list. I don't care enough to spend time on an AfD on Mega Society, but that one looks a bit dubious as well. CAVincent (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I can't imagine someone making the claim that ISPE is not a notable high IQ society, as it was the first 99.9th percentile high IQ society, and was in many ways the progenitor to TNS. However, due to previous discussion here, I thought I would preempt any efforts of removing ISPE from this list. ISPE is part of the history of the foundation of the High IQ community and simply because it does not publish membership information (an arbitrarily and inappropriately applied qualifier of notability) does not mean it should be excluded from this article. 45,000 people see ISPE every month in the US Mensa Bulletin, I think it's safe to say it's a fully operational and well known society. PJimmy2000 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus per previous discussion (see the talk archives, including this discussion) is to include only those societies with existing Wikipedia articles. If the society is notable per Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject), then feel free to create an article about it and then include it in the list. I've reverted the addition per WP:BRD in the meantime. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I read the archives, there was not consensus on this decision; it's simply the most recent in a long line of decisions. I am challenging this decision now, as many did before. I have provided an argument for why ISPE should be considered a notable high IQ society, as it is by any account of someone familiar with the subject. For it not to be included in this list of notable high IQ societies, one would think that the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable. PJimmy2000 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the notability issue, there are also verifiability issues. Limiting this article to societies that actually have wikipedia articles still strikes me as a reasonable way to address those concerns. I think Kinu is correct that there is long-standing consensus on this. As for the suggestion that "the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable", this is backwards - the burden is on those who want to add to the list to prove notability. Proving non-notability is an absurd proposition. CAVincent (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Vincent,

My apologies and I am new to this, so in reading this thread, I understand why information about the ISPE I entered was deleted, due to the lack of an existing Wikipedia page dedicated towards it.

Unfortunately, the page's use of the term "IQ" is completely wrong. As stated throughout the entire book, "The Neuroscience of Intelligence," written by the world's leading expert in intelligence testing, Dr. Richard Haier, IQ is a term that can only apply to children (technically under the age of 30) who are still experiencing genetic methylation and acetylation and thus the quotient implies they display intelligence of an age level above their own age (precosciousness). If you apply an IQ calculation to a 60 year old man, the quotient would somehow state he is either as intelligent as a 60 year old should be, or that he is more precocious, somehow having the intelligence of a 90 year old?! This is why intelligence quotients do NOT work on adults. An intelligence score, which is issued as standard terminology for all non-child intelligence test absolutely MUST by included in this article. I am an adult and the neuropsychologist who issued my intellgience test strictly labeled my score as an intelligence score. When I was new to this, I asked why it was not called an "IQ score."

The certified psychologist stated exacty what Dr. Richard Haier stated in his book. This is what led me to pursue more information regarding the difference between IQ and Intelligence scores. By you knowingly featuring the term IQ to refer to the intelligence of adults and not children, you are either intentionally or unknowingly providing false information, which is detrimental to any members of society who are looking to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge on the subject of intelligence testing, scores, and societies. I am asking that you immediately investigate this further and find a way to incorporate "high-intelligence" societies, scores, and individuals as terminology into this article. The only way your current article would be acceptable is if you renamed the article to "Children's High-IQ Societies." Please advise. GatewayProcess (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@CAVincent Also Mr. Vincent, you will notice, directly from Pearson's website, one of the administrators of the WAIS-IV intelligence test, all factors, except for the FSIQ, which is "intellect quotient," and not traditional IQ, are based on an intelligence score that pertains to each category. The actual meaningful subtotal score, the GAI, is an index that does not operate at all like the old, antiquated "IG" calculation:

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wais-iv/wais-iv-score-report.pdf

Also an excerpt from Haier's book, that was mentioned before. I will admit I am concerned incumbent editors of this page were not aware of the distinctions of IQ versus inteligence scores/indexes, because most of the world's audience interested in this topic would defer to Wikipedia for a quick fix in terms of answers.

https://www.learningandthebrain.com/blog/intelligence-haier/

I also have worked with Dr. Haier in the past, and would love to make a motion to have him become executive editor of this page, of course if he has the time and were willing. GatewayProcess (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not have "executive editors". As for why the article refers to IQ, reading Intelligence quotient might be a good place to start about the difference between contemporary and past usage. The term IQ has not applied only to children for a while now. CAVincent (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, you are using wikipedia to justify wikipedia content? If you are a self-proclaimed expert on intelligence measurement, do you mind if I get you involved in a conversation with Dr. Haier with Jogns Hopkins to convince him that because wikipedia's article written by several people with no journals published in any credible scientofic journals, he should immediately surrender his decades of research? The same absurd wikipedia page you sent claims that intelligence being hereditary is debated, but as of 2016, with further research on CRISPR and the study of gene NMDH-7, that was completely blown out of the water and it is 50% hereditary and 50% environment until age 12, then 100% hereditary until methykation and acetylation cease. @CAVincent May I ask you what your credentials are? If I am simply a mere plebian, I would love to feature a posted audio debate with you, Dr. Haier, Murray (Bell Curve) and Pinker. I be you would really show them!

@PJimmy2000

@Kinu Mr. Kinu, I will be in your city the first week of October and would like to discuss why uncredentialed people are claiming they know more about scientific subjects than PhDs who have studied these topics for decades. GatewayProcess (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider this part of your comment legitimate, re: "using wikipedia to justify wikipedia content". This page has a history of getting spurious, promotional, hoax, and prank additions to the society list. While it is logically possible that a high-IQ society meets notability and verifiability requirements without having an article, in practice it saves a lot of trouble to just limit this article's list to societies with articles that establish that the society meets these criteria. Beyond that, you may want to tone down the combative tone. CAVincent (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@CAVincent I apologize, Vincent. You make sense here and in reading the thread, it just seemed there was previous resistance by many incumbent constituent editors regarding the content and I couldn't understand why. My question, if you could please help me, is how I can properly convey that verified published sources by leading experts in this field, relatively recently (past 10 years or so) have made distinctions between the concept of the IQ and Intelligence score? While many authors who have conducted research in this field have talked about this, I cite Dr. Haier because his book was the definitive source of study indicating that intelligence measurement has become much more accurate recently and there is a distinction between the quotient and the indexed adult score.

I am also in the process of creating a profile page for the ISPE. The reason being, in researching organizations, I learned that it is the third-oldest intelligence organization. I will give it to you that even their page cites "IQ" as a measurement. I spoke with their editor and they claimed it was because their page is public-facing and it is easier to use the term "IQ" to communicate more easily with the public that visits the cite out of curiosity, but this individual did agree that there is a separation between IQ for youth and intelligence for adults.

I am currently working with one of the wikipedia editors on sources for the page content, but it is difficult for intelligence organizations because often the only source of information about them is their own site/their own leadership. Is there a way I could work with you to help verify the legitimacy of the organization so that it can at least be placed on the table of organizations you have? Normally, I would agree there is no urgency to add another organization, but this one does have historical significance as being the 3rd oldest intelligence organization in existence, but it is also the very first 99.9th percentile organization.

Please let me know, and my apologies again for the tone before. I do appreciate your help and guidance on this. GatewayProcess (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is International High IQ society not listed?? https://www.ihiqs.org/ 2607:FEA8:7C0:2470:BD69:BB9E:6675:6F0B (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

See two discussions immediately above this, as well as archived discussions going back many years, for the answer. CAVincent (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Can we come up with an organized statement of the Wikipedia:List selection criteria for this article?

Editors are allowed to create any set of criteria that they believe is appropriate and functional for the article. There is no set rule, for example, that requires us to exclude non-notable organizations, but we could voluntarily choose that standard (NB that the common version of that criteria does accept WP:REDLINKS). Alternatively, we could voluntarily choose a standard such as being more than X years old, having Wikipedia:One hundred words in an independent source, having more than Y members, or anything else we thought was going to help us make sensible choices for the article.

I see there have been discussions about this (pinging @Andy Dingley), but what I'm hoping for is a written statement that we could agree to stick at the top of this talk page. (I don't care what the actual criteria are, so long as they're agreed upon and written down, so everyone knows what the standard is.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Anything I could add to this I wrote here, years ago: Talk:High-IQ society/Archive 1#Listing of less well-known societies

But this is Wikipedia, a social club and bureaucracy, more than a functioning encyclopedia with objective standards. For policies [sic] like this it's now a question of finding which self-appointed guardian has placed themselves in charge of that little corner, and see what their personal biases will permit through, at risk of the regular threats of blocking and the dire topic of CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I favor criteria that require at least one (1) independent source that isn't self-published (e.g., any ordinary magazine or newspaper article). Do you (all) think that a passing mention in such a source would be enough (e.g., a magazine article that contains the phrase "high-IQ societies such as the Example Society")? Or do you think it needs to be somewhat more substantial (e.g., "The Example Society, founded in 2002, is a high-IQ society that _____")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a passing mention should be sufficient for inclusion. Repeating myself from previous discussion above: "This page has a history of getting spurious, promotional, hoax, and prank additions to the society list. While it is logically possible that a high-IQ society meets notability and verifiability requirements without having an article, in practice it saves a lot of trouble to just limit this article's list to societies with articles that establish that the society meets these criteria." There appears to be a long-standing consensus on this. Obviously, consensus can change, but I haven't seen an argument for change that I find compelling. Respectfully, trying to establish "an organized statement of the (WP:LSC) for this article" sounds more like an invitation to mischief than a useful endeavor. CAVincent (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, the rule is that "the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". Since this is an ordinary article with an Wikipedia:Embedded list, it doesn't make sense to have the inclusion criteria in the lead. Since inclusion is contested (or, to use your words, since there is "a history of getting spurious, promotional, hoax, and prank additions"), it makes sense for the inclusion criteria to be spelled out somewhere (with "here on the talk page" being an ordinary and appropriate answer).

@CAVincent, when you advocate for a blue-links-only rule (which historically has been limited to exceedingly long lists, BTW), I wonder whether you would accept Mega Society. It is, obviously, a blue link. It is also not currently in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to have a statement of list selection criteria in this case, although I suppose adding a FAQ on the talk page that the list is limited to societies with articles would be fine. And again, that is "with articles" not "with blue links" as you've suggested. That Mega Society link is just a redirect to Ronald K. Hoeflin's article. If memory serves, there formerly was an actual article on Mega Society and it was removed within the last year after an AfD discussion. Adding: I would most definitely not look favorably on any attempt to shoehorn Mega Society and the like back into this article. Also, I'm reminded that above the table in the article is a hidden note about adding "spurious or non-notable societies". The note points to a 15 year old talk discussion. Perhaps updating the note would satisfy concerns about list selection criteria? CAVincent (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So you suggest that the rule be:

• If it's non-notable, then exclude.
• If it's notable, but nobody's written the article yet, then exclude.
• If it's notable, but editors decided to WP:Merge it into a bigger subject, then exclude.

I'm not sure that's the best rule, but have I understood your recommendation correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not correctly representing my position. I'm saying: if it is non-notable and non-verifiable, then exclude. I've acknowledged that it is logically possible for something to meet these requirements without having an article, but as a practical matter I believe it is best to limit the list to societies with articles. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith about your third bullet being an honest attempt to summarize my statement. Using Mega Society as an example, editors did not decide to merge that article into a bigger subject. Editors decided to delete the article. That a redirect now exists is in no way an indication of notability. CAVincent (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of this reply, I'm going to assume that when you wrote "non-verifiable", you actually meant WP:Glossary#uncited.

So: The Mega Society is verifiably a high-IQ society. We can cite this to doi:10.1080/02783193.2022.2148311 which says "the Mega Society...requires an IQ of 190 (with a frequency of 1 in 1 million people) for membership" and to this article in The Atlantic, which says "Nowhere are the downsides of the genius myth more obvious than in ultrahigh-IQ societies....such as the Mega Society, which was limited to people with "one-in-a-million" intelligence."

An entry for Mega Society would therefore be "verifiable" and even "cited". Would you accept that in the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course I would not. My reference was clearly to WP:Verifiability and not WP:Glossary#uncited, and your latest is now ignoring my repeated references to WP:Notability. I'd say that you have A) demonstrated my point about your ostensible original suggestion, that "trying to establish 'an organized statement of the (WP:LSC) for this article' sounds more like an invitation to mischief than a useful endeavor", and B) shown that this is really about trying to get Mega Society back on the list. No amount of your misrepresenting my comments should be taken as support. CAVincent (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I gave you a reliable source that directly WP:Verifies that Mega Society is a high-IQ society. But now you say that your reference was clearly to WP:Verifiability – but verifiability isn't good enough? Because that source definitely meets the requirements of WP:Verifiability.

Your statement above says if it is non-notable and non-verifiable, then exclude. Do you really mean "must have an already-existing separate article"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

We both understand how the word "and" works, and that I was not suggesting that just one of notability or verifiability would be sufficient. I'm done for now with engaging someone that I do not believe is acting in good faith. CAVincent (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So "non-verifiable" is an irrelevant redundancy? Under the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements, it's basically impossible to have a notable high-IQ society that isn't verifiable.

So I ask again: Do you really mean "must have an already-existing separate article"?

I'm sorry you think I'm not acting in good faith, but I think that if you look at my (few) edits to the article, and if you considered the fact that I'm one of the top editors of that notability guideline, as well as being one of the top editors of the guideline on list-selection criteria, you might come to a different conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

The recent changes don't look very neutral:

People who choose to join high-IQ societies, especially those focused on highest levels [...] not as successful as expected according to conventional social standards

relatively low-paid jobs

Well, members of 99.9th percentile intelligence societies are probably not in the 99.9th percentile of the income distribution — which technically qualifies them as having "relatively low-paid jobs." But what exactly is the expectation of the original author here? Why should the goal be to earn $3 million per year pre-tax, which is the threshold for the 99.9th income percentile in the U.S.? Composers, scientists, and university professors don’t typically reach that bracket — yet their societal contributions are immense. That said, a notable number of people in tech and finance are represented at that income level, and some of these startup founders actively participate in high-IQ societies — sometimes even using events to network and recruit team members.

And yes, high IQ societies know also about the people that struggle and are challenged. Usually this changes drastically, once they found peers that they can relate to.

struggle to maintain intimate relationships

lonely, frustrated, and socially awkward

High-IQ societies often foster long-lasting friendships and intimate relationships, precisely because people with similar cognitive profiles finally meet in a shared space. Why frame this as a flaw of the individual? If anything, these societies help correct for a world that isn’t always built to accommodate neurodivergent or cognitively atypical people.

Would be at least helpful to present the perspective of HighIQ clubs.

Noös1982 (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, @Noös1982.

Have you read the cited sources? For example, it's not just that people with IQ at the 99th percentile don't have incomes at the 99th percentile; many of them don't have incomes much above the minimum-wage level.

For example, here's what one article says about Marilyn vos Savant: "...married at 16, had two children by 19, became a stay-at-home mother, and was divorced in her 20s. She tried to study philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis, but did not graduate. She married again and was divorced again at 35". "Multi-divorced teenage pregnancy college dropout" doesn't sound like a picture of personal and financial success for the world's smartest person, does it?

Does the Wikipedia article align with a reliable source that says "Today, because of their infighting and their members’ lack of worldly success, high-IQ groups have become kind of a joke"? If so, the Wikipedia article is probably right.

Does it align with the views of a long-time member of such groups, who was himself a low-paid security guard, who published an article in a high-IQ society's magazine saying that people with high IQs plus social and financial success don't join high-IQ societies, with the result that the people who do join them are either low-paid workers like himself, or "the dropouts" that didn't even have a job? If so, the Wikipedia article is probably right.

Are you aware of any Wikipedia:Reliable sources at all that say the members of high-IQ societies (which, it is important to remember, are distinct from people who have high IQs but don't join high-IQ societies) have a higher than average income, or even an average income? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Well,

I haven’t just read the cited sources — I also understand how to properly contextualize them. I’d be happy to help improve the article by replacing hearsay and outdated references with higher-quality sources that offer a more comprehensive perspective.

Given that Helen Lewis herself relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, she may not be the most appropriate source for a reference work — especially when better information is readily available.

First of all, if we’re talking about demographics, I’d expect actual demographic data — meaning statistical information. However, the article currently doesn’t contain any.

For example, the U.S. division of the largest high IQ society provides statistical data here:

https://www.us.mensa.org/newsroom/press-information/demographics-and-figures/

What do you think about integrating this kind of data into the "Demographics" section? I’d be happy to add it, unless you object.

------------------

Secondly, it seems to me that you’d like to discuss motivations for joining a high IQ society. If you agree, I would suggest creating a separate section titled “Motivations for Membership.”

Considering that there are around 150,000 members of high IQ societies — and 145,000 of them are in Mensa — it would make sense to focus on where most members actually are, instead of highlighting statistical outliers as Helen Lewis does.

Also, I’d recommend using more neutral language than phrases like “lonely, frustrated, and socially awkward.”

Motivations to join such organizations can be quite varied — ranging from intense curiosity (a trait common in highly intelligent individuals), to a desire for intellectual stimulation, connection to peers, self-reflection, or simply the need for a sense of belonging.

So, while the motivations for joining high IQ societies often resemble those for joining clubs in general — such as shared interests, social connection, and intellectual engagement — for some individuals, the experience may also have a therapeutic aspect. It can provide a sense of understanding, validation, and community that they might not find elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noös1982 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The self-published Mensa web page says nothing about social, employment, or financial success. It makes anecdotal claims about occupations ("They include engineers, homemakers, teachers..."). It also provides information about educational achievement, sex ratio, and age (lots of boomers; however, this may have more to do with generational trends in joining clubs in general).

I think that the Mensa source could be used to claim that Mensa has a 2:1 male-dominated sex ratio, and that the overwhelming majority of adult members have attended university.

Speaking of your desire to "contextualize" the existing content, the key context is already in the article: high-IQ societies, especially those focused on highest levels. As in: especially the ones that aren't Mensa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think educational achievement is already a noteworthy information - much more that annecdotical evidence about statistical outliers, which seem to have your preference.

We can use also use quaantitative data on Mensa members compared with the general population - actually a lot of the information on gifted people comes from population samples of Mensa. Noös1982 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've no objection to including information about educational achievement by Mensa members. It should probably specifically mention Mensa, since Mensa's population is known to be different from the other groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Many members report that joining improved their lives significantly. For some, it led to meaningful friendships, even romantic relationships. For others, it fostered greater self-awareness and a sense of agency, which in turn helped them achieve more in life.

Is it really fair to blame people for being wired differently?

Would we do the same to someone because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs?

Since mental health is such a critical topic in society today, I would recommend adjusting the tone of the article to be more neutral and respectful. What’s your take on that? Noös1982 (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that it is disrespectful to describe groups accurately. You want to say that anecdotally, "some" developed friendships by joining. The article already says "They are frequently lonely and feel like they are outsiders, and join for a sense of belonging". I don't feel like we are "blaming people" for not having friends or for hoping they'll make friends if the join the groups; we're accurately saying that the people who join don't have as many friendships.

When multiple sources are describing the members of high-IQ societies, and especially ultra-high IQ societies, with words like "socially awkward", and none of them are describing the members with words like "natural leaders" and "excellent social skills", then it's WP:Neutral to say what the reliable sources say. It might not be what the membership marketing team would like to see, but it's editorially neutral to say what the reliable sources say, and it's editorially biased to make it sound more flattering just because we want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• The additions made on June 9, 2025, are far too reliant on a single source. In particular, the Demographics section is almost entirely reliant on it. At this point, it looks like ~ 25% of the article's citations are to this source, which is just one of 18 sources cited. I read the Atlantic near daily, and am particularly fond of Helen Lewis' writing (I'm pretty sure I read this Atlantic article the day it was published). However, this is an essay and not reporting, and Lewis is not a subject matter expert. The essay simply doesn't bear the weight now being placed on it. While this situation is perhaps not exactly what WP:UNDUE is intended to address, I'd say that undue weight is being placed on a single non-expert's essay in a general interest magazine. At a minimum, the Demographics section should probably go without better sourcing. CAVincent (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Tell me what you'd like to see for sourcing. An insider saying the same thing in a high-IQ society's own magazine, which has been cited and quoted in both mainstream media and scholarly articles? A doctoral dissertation interviewing members of a high IQ society about their "underachievement", which caused "long-term economic and mental health" problems for "most of the participants"? A paper (preprint?) at academia.edu that says "The matter of gifted underachievers is quite commonly discussed in high IQ societies"?

  We could expand it. A book explores on the number of criminals who belong to high-IQ societies. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9468-7 says that currently incarcerated people belong to some high-IQ societies. It also says that that non-incarcerated members of a high-IQ society admitted to building more bombs and otherwise engaging in violent crimes more often than average-IQ controls, especially women. Also, one member admitted to killing someone during the previous year, whereas no controls did.

  There are probably other, equally interesting things that could be said about high-IQ societies. Last week, the article was a nine-sentence stub, and most of the rather anemic content was about admissions criteria. I've more than doubled the size (as measured in readable prose). I'm pretty sure that with a little effort, it could be doubled again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you find yourself writing something like "one member admitted to killing someone during the previous year, whereas no controls did" and thinking that it is a convincing argument for anything at all, it is probably time to step away for at least a few days to try to regain perspective. CAVincent (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be relevant for inclusion in the article, and I'd worry about readers not grasping the distinction between homicide (e.g., could be a car wreck) and murder. However, a statement that some high-IQ societies are open to incarcerated people appears to be verifiable, and a statement that members of high-IQ societies may be more likely than average-IQ people to admit to committing violent crimes might also be appropriate.

  It would be interesting to find a source on rates of autism among members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  (In case that last sentence isn't clear: Other research shows that autistic people are less likely to lie about their past actions, even if the truth could harm their reputation. If you survey a group of autistic people and a group of non-autistic people, all of whom you know for certain have committed a crime (but they don't know that you know this), most respondents in both groups will be honest, but you are likely to get an even higher proportion of honest responses from the autistic group. Consequently, if the ultra-high IQ society has substantially more autistic people compared to the average-IQ control group, then you would expect the society group to report more crimes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hi,

I am wondering why Genius Society is an auxiliary lemma here - both resources, that are supposed to support this, don't do it.

1) "And “genius society”? The truth is we’re just an ordinary membership organization whose members are extraordinary. At work or at play, we value intelligent pursuits."

https://www.us.mensa.org/newsroom/press-releases/american-mensa-celebrates-its-diamond-jubilee/

2) " Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately, but “genius” societies rarely claim to represent true genius: the merging of intellect, creativity and outstanding achievement. Peters notes that her high-IQ colleagues are acutely aware of their own ignorance. Simpson concurs. “None of us consider ourselves a ‘genius,’” he says. “Well, maybe there's this one guy, but he hasn't been in the society for a while now.” " https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-high-iqs-hang-out1/

Both sources explicitly reject the notion of being a "society of geniuses"—whether as a self-description or through external validation. Additionally, "Genius Society" as a search term primarily leads to unrelated topics, such as a space fantasy RPG. Since the term is neither claimed nor supported—and even refuted—it should be removed from the article. Noös1982 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither source supports the usage of "genius society". Removed. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you say this.

The subtitle for the first source uses the phrase genius society: "When High IQs Hang Out: "Genius" societies offer a social network for the top tier of test takers".

The first sentence of the Mensa press release says "American Mensa has been a so-called “genius society” for 60 years come this October."

Both of these sources clearly acknowledge that genius society is a name used to describe high-IQ societies. Note that the purpose is not to promote self-identification or marketing messages. The purpose is to help readers figure out if they're on the right page.

If you'd like other sources, they're certainly available:

• doi:10.1002/9781444343120.ch24 says "Among “genius societies,” membership in Mensa requires an IQ that is only in the upper 2 percent, whereas the Mega Society requires an IQ that is attained by one in a million"
• Christopher Langan talks about 'super-HIQ "genius societies"' in his self-published book, The Art of Knowing.
• This book says "Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately, but genius societies rarely claim to represent true genius"
• The top of this news article says "Block B Park Kyung admitted as a member in genius society MENSA"
• This news article says "Emerson Park Academy students pass genius society Mensa’s entry exam with flying colours"
• This news article is headined "Genius’ 4-year-old taught herself to read, joins exclusive genius society" and describes Mensa as "the exclusive genius group" and as "the genius club".
• This news article explains that "Mensa...very carefully stays away from labeling itself a “genius society.”"

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

"When High IQs Hang Out" puts "genius" in quotation marks - additionally, it puts "so-called" in front of it.

Seeing that this and all of the other sources refer to the High IQ society that has the lowest entry requirements, this source makes it even less a reference.

The rest comes with "rarely claim to represent true genius", "very carefully stays away from labeling itself a "genius society"" or coming from some local newspaper articles.

Or in short - I don't see any Wikipedia-worthy notability. Noös1982 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability is the word we use to talk about whether something deserves a completely separate, stand-alone article – for example, if you wanted to make a case that Genius society deserved an article separate from High-IQ society.

If someone searches for "Genius society", they'll be redirected to this article. Under Wikipedia's style rules (e.g., WP:ALTNAME and WP:BOLDREDIRECT), the words genius society should be in the introduction to the article and displayed in bold-faced text. Therefore, the only remaining question is whether you want little blue clicky numbers, to show that it isn't a made-up name.

I suggest that you self-revert your removal of the name. I understand that you dislike the name and consider it to be damaging to the reputation of Mensa, but it belongs there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have replaced "genius society" in the first sentence. It is obviously verifiable per the list of sources above, and genius society redirects to this page. That Mensa considers it undesirable for their branding/marketing efforts is IMO irrelevant, since this isn't the article on Mensa International.

If it is removed again, we should probably start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Also this edit lacks a relationship with the article.

" There are disagreements about appropriate tests. Some tests, such as the Mega Test, are usually self-administered, which has resulted in concerns about people cheating. Other tests have been criticized for relying on outdated or sexist cultural stereotypes, such as a logic puzzle that assumes women always change their family name when they marry."

There is no disagreement.

Mensa: "tests must be administered by a neutral and qualified third party in a traditional testing environment", Intertel: "No self-administered tests will be accepted" - in TNS self-administered tests are only accepted if conducted more than 30 years ago.

Where does the second sentence relate to? Which test? Why is it relevant here?

Actually, I suggest to discuss this in Intelligence quotient#Validity_as_a_measure_of_intelligence - here it doesn't seem to fit. Noös1982 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This article needs to cover both past and present high-IQ societies. We have a source saying that past disagreements over this were significant, to the point that some societies were destroyed by internal fights over this subject.

Do you have a source saying that all high-IQ societies now agree on the appropriate tests?

I've no objection to adding something about Mensa requiring third-party testing in a traditional testing environment; I'd be happy, if we can source it, to say that this is now required by "many" or "most" high-IQ societies. But the fact that Mensa is sensible doesn't mean that the Mega Society is. https://megasociety.org/tests.html says "The Mega Society accepts members on the basis of untimed, unsupervised IQ tests" and additionally says that "There is controversy" over their choice. We cannot therefore say that there is no disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The article needs to cover notable IQ societies - those are listed also in the article.

Seeing that you like to make a point with Hi IQ societies, who do not fulfil notability criteria to argue that "there are disagreements about appropriate tests", does not make the claim valid.

Otherwise, everyone can create a "XYZ Society" - and can make unverified claims over XYZ societies in general.

So, I correct now:

"All High-IQ Societies agree in accepting only IQ tests from traditional testing environments."

See sources 5,6,7 which are for a while already in the article. Noös1982 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Those are self-published, non-independent, primary sources. They apply only to the three high-IQ societies for which the English Wikipedia presently has separate, stand-alone articles. Ones the English Wikipedia chooses to have separate articles about ≠ all high-IQ societies.

And, yes, you are absolutely correct: Anyone can create a "XYZ Society", and dozens of people have done so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these the things we disagree about? Are there any more?

1. We need to agree on the list-selection criteria, as recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines. As CAVincent said above, this can be placed on the talk page, maybe as a {{FAQ}}; it does not need to be in the article.
2. Genius society redirects here (Pppery) and has been mentioned in the article since January 2021, but was removed from the article by Noös1982 on the grounds that Mensa rejects the term.
3. Noös1982 wants the article say that "all" high-IQ societies have similar admissions procedures, when the facts indicate that only three (out of dozens) do. (NB: The word notable, used to mean that it qualifies for a separate article on Wikipedia, is an impermissible WP:SELFREF. That word can only be used in this context to indicate the ordinary dictionary definition, e.g., worthy of note, remarkable, memorable, noted, distinguished, etc.)
4. Noös1982 is concerned that the article contains derogatory information about members, e.g., that they are often "lonely" or "socially awkward" compared to non-members.

Is there anything else that should be on this list? Anything else that seems like it could be resolved quickly and easily? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)