As far as an IQ I would say Hitler had above average intelligence, it's obvious he had problems in the "logical " thinking department- i.e. his conduct of the Eastern front war. He seemed to have good ituitive skills and good cognitive skills
Many artists types are idiot-geniuses. IQ tests usualy don't accurately measure these people. Sort of like people with Autism.
However Hitler had supra-genius people skills, and a "magnectic" ability that belies explation. IQ does not measure this.
Someone else here may be able to help more,
I believe the standard IQ test is an average score of Three Scores of three areas-Cognitve, intuitive, and logical thinking
Nazi IQs
You gotta wonder if Streicher, who was a hard-core Nazi to the end (of the rope -- litterally) would have fully cooperated with any I.Q. test given by an enemy whom we all know he believed was controlled by.
Some of the others may have tried to score high, but the circumstances of the tests were at best done under duress.
Some of the others may have tried to score high, but the circumstances of the tests were at best done under duress.
===========
National Socialism is really a way of life [eine Weltanschauung]. It always begins at the beginning and lays new foundations for life. That is why our task is so difficult, but also so beautiful.... -- Dr. Goebbels
National Socialism is really a way of life [eine Weltanschauung]. It always begins at the beginning and lays new foundations for life. That is why our task is so difficult, but also so beautiful.... -- Dr. Goebbels
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
On this site they have an estimated IQ of Hitler (141) and other famous people.
http://www.surfonby.com/iq.html
http://www.surfonby.com/iq.html
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
The IQ does not measure overall intelligence.. I think it measures the learning rate of a person, but not how intelligent he is.. Human intelligence is not easy to measure.. there are so many things - from speech, to math, to logic, to sociability, to creativity, to general knowledge, to specific knowledge.. etc.. etc..
A person can have a very high IQ but that doesn't mean that he is very intelligent (generally).
A person can have a very high IQ but that doesn't mean that he is very intelligent (generally).
My estimate
From what I've read, I'd say Hitler probably would score in the 120's or maybe 130's on the Stanford-Binet scale; but he'd probably *think* he was much smarter than that. In other words, bright, but not a genius, but probably thought he was a genius.
IQ tests measure the kind of intelligence required to succeed in school, but they don't predict what a person does with their life. One of my dear friends tested at 190 while on Haldol, but for various reasons he can't hold a job.
I think the "famous IQ's" site is way, way off in some ways. For reference, I've had two IQ tests in my life. The first one, done by a psychologist when I was four, was skewed high because I was already reading; it was somewhere above 200. The second one was an online test where I scored 160, the same score the site's maker gives to Einstein. And there is *absolutely no way* I am as smart as Einstein. (Just ask anyone who knows me!) There is even less way that I'm as smart as da Vinci.
Tucker
IQ tests measure the kind of intelligence required to succeed in school, but they don't predict what a person does with their life. One of my dear friends tested at 190 while on Haldol, but for various reasons he can't hold a job.
I think the "famous IQ's" site is way, way off in some ways. For reference, I've had two IQ tests in my life. The first one, done by a psychologist when I was four, was skewed high because I was already reading; it was somewhere above 200. The second one was an online test where I scored 160, the same score the site's maker gives to Einstein. And there is *absolutely no way* I am as smart as Einstein. (Just ask anyone who knows me!) There is even less way that I'm as smart as da Vinci.
Tucker
The test used on the Nueremberg defendents was on a standered diviation of 14 (belive it was the Weschler-Bellvue test), Stanford-benet (s/p) is 16. So 132 is third sigma for Stan and 128 is 3nd for W-B. So add approximetly another 4 points on for the 128-142 nazi's and add 6 for the 142 and up. Stanford-Bennet states the mean iq of phD/Md's at 125.
1. Hjalmar Schacht 143
2. Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141
3. Hermann Göring 138
4. Karl Dönitz 138
5. Franz von Papen 134
6. Eric Raeder 134
7. Dr. Hans Frank 130
8. Hans Fritsche 130
9. Baldur von Schirach 130
10. Joachim von Ribbentrop 129
11. Wilhelm Keitel 129
12. Albert Speer 128
13. Alfred Jodl 127
14. Alfred Rosenberg 127
15. Constantin von Neurath 125
16. Walther Funk 124
17. Wilhelm Frick 124
18. Rudolf Hess 120
19. Fritz Sauckel 118
20. Ernst Kaltenbrunner 113
21. Julius Streicher 106
This entire list is on the 14 scale, 128 would equal the end of the 2sigma begianing of the third, also known as the 98%tile. Another way to look at it is Hjalmar Schacht 143 is in the fifth sigma or about 150 +-2 on the Stanford-bennet. This is about one out of one thousand. Impressive I say, especically considering 125 is the phD/Md mean and that deppression had to play atleast alittle role in that most of these men were looking at serious time/death.
1. Hjalmar Schacht 143
2. Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141
3. Hermann Göring 138
4. Karl Dönitz 138
5. Franz von Papen 134
6. Eric Raeder 134
7. Dr. Hans Frank 130
8. Hans Fritsche 130
9. Baldur von Schirach 130
10. Joachim von Ribbentrop 129
11. Wilhelm Keitel 129
12. Albert Speer 128
13. Alfred Jodl 127
14. Alfred Rosenberg 127
15. Constantin von Neurath 125
16. Walther Funk 124
17. Wilhelm Frick 124
18. Rudolf Hess 120
19. Fritz Sauckel 118
20. Ernst Kaltenbrunner 113
21. Julius Streicher 106
This entire list is on the 14 scale, 128 would equal the end of the 2sigma begianing of the third, also known as the 98%tile. Another way to look at it is Hjalmar Schacht 143 is in the fifth sigma or about 150 +-2 on the Stanford-bennet. This is about one out of one thousand. Impressive I say, especically considering 125 is the phD/Md mean and that deppression had to play atleast alittle role in that most of these men were looking at serious time/death.
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7054
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Stan-B, 132=98%tile of test takers=begaining of 3rd sigma=Sd(standerd divation from the norm) of 16. W-B, 128=98%tile of test takers=begaining of 3rd sigma=Sd of 14. 143 is roughly 1 out of a thousand on a standerd deviation of the norm 14. If the norm is converted to 16, the 143 would fall about 149/150. Either way it's around 1 out of a thousand. 143 is about 1/1000 on a Sd of 14 and 149 is about 1/1000 on a Sd of 16.
-
Beppo Schmidt
- Member
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
- Location: Ohio, USA
Uses of intelligence
It's a little inaccurate to judge someone's IQ by referring to only one facet of their life. Goering may have been quite intelligent, just militarily inexperienced. Erwin Rommel is generally regarded as a military genius, but in other matters he was average.
-
R.M. Schultz
- Member
- Posts: 3062
- Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
The whole idea of intelligence testing is premised upon the idea of there being a "G-factor," that is a general cognitive capability that multiplies any knowledge or talent a person might have. Thus, while some talents and abilities (e.g. perfect pitch, fine motor skills, various forms of savantism, and all forms of creativity) operate outside the realm of cognitive ability, there remains a raw intellectual ability that is measurable and can be applied to any endeavour a person might wish.
Rommel was a better military commander because he chose to focus his cognitive abilities upon that field and because he was able to intuit the reactions of his adversaries. (Intuition properly defined is the ability draw reasonable conclusions from the creative, as opposed to logical, interpretation of information.) I have no doubt that Rommel would have tested just as well as Göring and that the perceived difference is that Göring did not hone his intelligence to one purpose, was out-going and developed a reputation as an interesting fellow, and just happened to be tested scientifically while Rommel was not.
Rommel was a better military commander because he chose to focus his cognitive abilities upon that field and because he was able to intuit the reactions of his adversaries. (Intuition properly defined is the ability draw reasonable conclusions from the creative, as opposed to logical, interpretation of information.) I have no doubt that Rommel would have tested just as well as Göring and that the perceived difference is that Göring did not hone his intelligence to one purpose, was out-going and developed a reputation as an interesting fellow, and just happened to be tested scientifically while Rommel was not.