Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker
Well, I can see this side to it but - what I say is, listen to "the coffee house tapes" sometime - the tapes Stevie and Lindsey made together way back in 1970 or so, maybe '71. Stevie isn't a flighty rhymery with a lot of arm-wayving and a little country vibrato in her voice singer. Never has been, never will be. It's just one of many, many things Stevie and Lindsey tried back when they were trying to break in and make it big. The one people see is just simply the one that happened to work. I agree with the rest of that sentence though! 
Really though, I DO agree that other people ( *cough* - LINDSEY! ) - have been of great assistance in Arranging her music, making it more marketable, etc., but still, she has a certain "knack." And I still claim that whatever her I.Q. happens to be, it's higher than most people realize. There's different scales, but on one of them, 150 isn't "at the far end of the bell curve" - I've known plenty of people in that range. And for whatever it's worth I did read that most successful rock stars have an I.Q. of 150 or higher.
There really are different scales by the way - according to one of them, Einstein's I.Q. was "only" 160. But by another scale, it was well over 225.
Mostly though, my personal opinion is that Stevie has what they call "Emotional Intelligence" (in terms of being able to write the types of songs she does). But I could easily picture her not doing as well on the "math" or "logic" parts... 
Anyway I think maybe my main point is, yeah, I can see that maybe there was some luck involved - but I seriously doubt that this level of success happened completely by accident. Rumours was the third-highest selling record of all time for decades, and many people have felt that Stevie had a lot to do with that. And right there is where the Lindsey thing comes in, of course, since he Arranged all of her music on it.  But overall I feel it's closer to the truth to over-estimate her, rather than under-estimate her. In my opinion, whatever terms you use, this is somebody that's got some marbles somewhere in there. |
All this IQ talk got me to research the distribution. This is from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#IQ_score_distribution
I have also read that Stevie has a "high" IQ, but don't it's anywhere near 150. According to the table below, if Stevie's IQ is 150 she is the top .04%
IQ score distribution
IQ score distribution IQ Range Percentile Range
Below 30 0 – 0.0002
30 to 50 0.0002 – 0.04
50 to 60 0.04 – 0.4
60 to 74 0.4 – 4
74 to 89 4 – 23
89 to 100 23 – 50
100 to 111 50 – 77
111 to 120 77 – 91
120 to 125 91 – 95
125 to 132 95 – 98
132 to 137 98 – 99.3
137 to 150 99.3 – 99.96
above 150 99.96 – 100
IQ scores are expressed as a number normalized so that the average IQ in an age group is 100. In other words, an individual scoring 115 is above average when compared to people in the same age group. It is common practice to standardize so that the standard deviation (σ) of scores is 15, although some IQ tests use different scales (for example, the Stanford Binet IQ test uses a standard deviation of 16, and the Cattell IIIB test uses a standard deviation of 24). Tests are designed so that the distribution of IQ scores is Gaussian; that is, it follows a bell curve. A difference has been documented between the IQ score distributions of left-handed and right-handed test subjects; the distribution in left-handed people tends to cluster at the two extremes of the IQ scale.
(The following numbers apply to IQ scales standard deviation σ = 15.) Roughly 68% of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115. The "normal" range, or range between −2 and +2 standard deviations from the mean, is between 70 and 130, and contains about 95% of the population. An accurate score below 70 may indicate mental retardation, and a score above 130 may indicate intellectual giftedness. Retardation may result from normal variation or from a genetic or developmental malady; analogously, some otherwise normal people are very short, and others have dwarfism. Giftedness appears to be normal variation; autistic savants have often astonishing cognitive powers but below-average IQ's.
It has been observed that scores outside the range 55 to 145 must be cautiously interpreted because there are smaller numbers of respondents with which to make comparisons in those ranges. Moreover, at such extreme values, the normal distribution is a less accurate estimate of the true IQ distribution.
In actuality there is a higher percentage of the population measured at 3 or more standard deviation levels on the test than the probabilities of the normal distribution would predict (Lewis Terman, Genetic Studies of Genius, 1959). Some IQ scoring procedures may attempt to integrate such clusters of statistical outliers into the curve by adjusting the scores so that they better represent actual probabilities (according to Silverman) and in these cases, scores around 145 and above may actually have been notably higher, were they not so adjusted.
Most IQ tests in the United States tend to use a SD-15 or SD-16 scale, meaning that one standard deviation corresponds to +/- 16 points on the IQ scale. However, European IQ tests tend to use a SD-24 or SD-25 scale, resulting in discrepancies. Therefore, an IQ of 130 (+2 standard deviations) in the U.S. might correspond to an IQ of 148-150 in Europe. Due to these differences, percentiles are more accurate measurements than IQ numbers.