The company open sourced an 8-billion-parameter LLM, Steerling-8B, trained with a new architecture designed to make its actions easily interpretable.

If you search for the highest IQ on record, you will likely encounter the number 228, attributed to columnist Marilyn vos Savant, or the number 230, attributed to mathematician Terence Tao. However, psychometricians view these astronomical figures with skepticism. While both individuals are undeniably exceptional, the specific numbers attached to their names require context.

The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is one of the most recognized acronyms in the world. It is a score derived from a set of standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. Psychologists generally agree that IQ tests measure a trait known as general intelligence, often abbreviated as g. This concept refers to a broad mental capacity that influences performance across a wide variety of cognitive tasks. When a person takes an IQ test, they are not being tested on their knowledge of trivia or facts.

Instead, they are tested on their ability to reason, solve novel problems, and recognize patterns. The tests also measure working memory, which is the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind over a short period. A useful analogy is to think of g as the computing power of a computer’s processor. A higher score suggests a processor that can handle complex information quickly and accurately.

So how did vos Savant and Tae end up with such high IQ scores? To understand the distinction between internet legend and verified ability, one must look past the simple numerical scores and examine the documented histories of these two intellectuals, beginning with Tao.

The Early Life of a Mathematical Prodigy

Terence Tao is a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a winner of the Fields Medal, which is often described as the Nobel Prize of mathematics. He is widely considered one of the smartest living individuals.

While popular culture frequently assigns him a definitive IQ of 230, the reality of his intellect is best understood through the assessments conducted during his childhood. Two primary academic sources, a 1984 study by Ken Clements and a 2006 retrospective by Michelle Muratori and colleagues, provide a detailed record of this singular mind.

The story of Tao’s precociousness begins remarkably early. According to a 1984 article in Educational Studies in Mathematics by Ken Clements, a mathematics educator who assessed Tao directly, the boy learned to read and write at the age of two simply by watching Sesame Street. By the time he was seven years old, he was living a dual academic life.

He spent part of his day at a primary school in Australia for general studies and the rest of his time at a local high school studying Year 11 and Year 12 physics and mathematics. His high school teacher noted that there was very little he actually taught the seven-year-old, as Tao would finish all the coursework lessons ahead of the rest of the class.

Quantifying Genius: SATs and Estimations

The quantification of his intelligence, which leads to the high IQ estimates often cited today, comes from specific testing data. In his 1984 assessment, Clements administered the Australian Council for Educational Research Operations Test to the then seven-year-old Tao. This test measures the ability to perform mathematical operations. Tao achieved a perfect score of 60 out of 60, a feat Clements had never seen in a primary-school-aged child.

Later, the researcher Julian Stanley from Johns Hopkins University provided an even more standardized metric. As detailed in a 2006 Gifted Child Quarterly article, Stanley sent the Tao family the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) when Terence was just eight years old.

The SAT is a standardized exam generally taken by university-bound high school students in the United States. On the mathematics section, the eight-year-old Tao scored a 760 out of a possible 800. Researchers Julian Stanley and Miraca Gross utilized these raw scores to calculate his estimated IQ. Based on the statistical rarity of an 8-year-old scoring 760 on the SAT, the extrapolated IQ was estimated to be between 220 and 230.

However, Tao himself has downplayed the astronomical estimates derived from these childhood tests. Writing on his own website, he argued that the test is “extremely noisy at these scales” and a more realistic estimate is simply an IQ “greater than 175.”

“This was documented in the book Exceptionally Gifted Children by Miraca Gross, where I was given the pseudonym ‘Adrian Seng’… But there is no reason to expect that this ratio would continue in my later years,” he said.

Cognitive Style and “Radical Acceleration”

Beyond the raw numbers, the researchers observed a specific cognitive style in the young Tao. Clements noted in his 1984 study that Tao possessed a distinct preference for analytic thinking over visual imagery. Analytic thinking involves using logic, symbols, and formulas to solve problems, while visual imagery relies on picturing shapes and movements in the mind.

When Clements administered a space visualization test that required mentally rotating shapes, Tao performed well but made errors that he did not make in pure algebra. When asked to explain his methods, Tao revealed that he tried to use mathematical rules to verify the position of the shapes rather than simply imagining them turning. This indicated a mind that naturally gravitated toward the structure of syntax and symbols rather than spatial intuition.

The educational strategy used to nurture this talent was unique. His parents, Billy and Grace Tao, opted for what researchers call radical acceleration, but they applied it with a twist. As described in the Gifted Child Quarterly, they did not simply push him into university at age 10 to study everything.

Instead, they staggered his grade levels. At age seven, he was taking high school math but remained in primary school for spelling and social studies. This allowed him to maintain social contact with his age peers while his intellectual needs were met in specific subjects. His father, Billy Tao, noted that this prevented the burnout often associated with child prodigies.

From Cognitive Sprinter to Marathon Runner

Billy Tao later used a running metaphor to describe his son’s development. He viewed Terence’s early years as those of a “sprinter,” characterized by rapid progression through standard curriculum. However, to become a true mathematician, Terence had to evolve into a “marathon runner.” This transition occurred during his doctoral studies at Princeton University.

The Gifted Child Quarterly article highlights that the skills required for research are different from those required for testing. While the “sprinter” phase relied on speed and quick calculation, the “marathon” phase required deep patience, perseverance, and the ability to grapple with unsolved problems for long periods.

Despite his intense academic schedule, reports from his childhood suggest he remained a socially adjusted child. Clements observed him playing hide-and-seek with his brothers and noted he was a happy, well-mannered boy who understood he was different but did not let it isolate him.

In the 2006 interview, Terence Tao reflected that his parents worked to keep his life as normal as possible. He did not find his true social niche until graduate school, where he met peers with similar intellectual passions, but his early years were defined by a supportive family environment rather than isolation.

The record of Terence Tao’s early life offers a clear picture of what extreme high intelligence looks like in practice. It was not merely a matter of a high score on a test, but a combination of rapid learning speed, a preference for analytical problem solving, and an educational environment that adapted to his specific uneven development. His journey from a child who taught himself to read at two to a Fields Medalist illustrates that while raw potential is essential, the management of that talent determines the ultimate outcome.

Marilyn vos Savant: The Guinness Record Holder

While Tao’s high score is largely a matter of academic estimation, the other famous contender for the title held a widely publicized official record. For five years in the late 1980s, the Guinness Book of World Records included a category that fascinated the public: Highest IQ. The person holding that title was Marilyn vos Savant, a magazine columnist from St. Louis, Missouri.

Her listed Intelligence Quotient of 228 became legendary, cementing her status as a cultural icon of intellect. However, the story behind that number is a complex mix of psychology, statistics, and changing scientific standards. By examining the history of her testing and the critiques from experts like psychologist Andrew M. Colman, we can understand why Guinness eventually retired the category entirely.

The Science of Scoring: Ratio vs. Deviation IQ

To understand how vos Savant achieved a score of 228, one must look at how intelligence testing has evolved. According to biographical records, vos Savant took the Stanford-Binet test in 1956 when she was ten years old. At that time, psychologists utilized a scoring method known as Ratio IQ.

This formula calculated a person’s score by dividing their “mental age” by their biological age and multiplying the result by 100. Vos Savant performed so well that the test determined she had the mental age of a person aged 22 years and 10 months. When this mental age was divided by her actual age of ten, the resulting calculation yielded the score of 228.

While this number is mathematically accurate based on the old formula, modern science views it with skepticism. Writing for The Skeptic, Andrew M. Colman pointed out in the 1990s that the Ratio IQ method is flawed, particularly when applied to adults. A person’s mental age does not continue to increase linearly throughout their life, but their biological age does.

This flaw led psychologists to replace Ratio IQ with a method called Deviation IQ. This modern system, introduced by David Wechsler in 1939, scores individuals by comparing them to the general population using a statistical model called a normal distribution, or a bell curve.

In a normal distribution, the average score is set at 100. The way scores spread out from that average is measured in units called standard deviations. For most IQ tests, one standard deviation is 15 points. This means that a score of 115 is one unit above average, and a score of 130 is two units above average.

Colman noted that a score of 228 is 8.53 standard deviations above the mean. In statistical terms, this is an astronomical distance. The probability of a person achieving such a score is less than one in 100 quadrillion. Given that the Earth’s population is only in the billions, Colman argued that finding a person with a valid Deviation IQ of 228 is effectively impossible.

The discrepancy between these scoring methods suggests that vos Savant’s record was the result of using a childhood ratio score that does not translate to adult intelligence scales. Indeed, when vos Savant took the Mega Test as an adult in the mid-1980s, she achieved a standardized score of 186.

While this is still an exceptionally high score that places her in the elite tier of intellectual ability, it is far lower than the 228 figure that brought her fame. In 1990, Guinness removed the category, concluding that intelligence tests at the extreme high end of the spectrum were too unreliable to designate a single world record holder.

Beyond the Score: The Monty Hall Problem

Despite the debates regarding her test scores, vos Savant demonstrated her cognitive abilities through her long-running column in Parade magazine, “Ask Marilyn.” She is perhaps best known for her 1990 analysis of the Monty Hall problem, a probability puzzle based on a game show scenario.

The problem asks whether a contestant should switch doors after the host reveals a losing option. Vos Savant correctly argued that switching doubles the contestant’s probability of winning. At the time, she received thousands of letters, many from academics and mathematicians, insisting she was wrong. Later computer simulations and formal proofs vindicated her answer, proving her logic superior to that of her critics.

The value of IQ

Decades of data indicate that IQ scores are strong predictors of academic achievement and occupational performance. This correlation is particularly strong in complex fields such as law, medicine, engineering, and science.

In these professions, the ability to absorb large amounts of abstract information and apply it to new situations is essential. Because the tests measure this specific type of processing speed and abstract reasoning, they can statistically forecast how well an individual might perform in an academic or highly technical environment.

However, the predictive power of an IQ score has limits. While it correlates with performance, it does not guarantee success. A high score represents potential rather than achievement. Psychologists emphasize that other factors, such as motivation, discipline, and social skills, play a significant role in determining a person’s actual life outcomes. A student with a high IQ who lacks the discipline to study may still perform poorly, while a student with a slightly lower score but a strong work ethic may excel.

Another significant distinction exists between intelligence and rationality. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, is the ability to process information. Rationality is the ability to think clearly, avoid bias, and make sound decisions. Keith Stanovich, a prominent psychologist, argues that IQ tests do not measure rationality.

This explains why a highly intelligent person might still make poor financial decisions or believe in conspiracy theories. The raw processing power of the brain does not automatically result in good judgment. In fact, a high IQ can sometimes allow a person to construct sophisticated arguments to justify incorrect beliefs.

It is also important to recognize that IQ scores are not fixed or immune to environmental influence. Throughout the 20th century, average IQ scores rose steadily across the world, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. This rise suggests that intelligence is influenced by factors such as education, nutrition, and the increasing complexity of the modern environment.

As society has become more reliant on abstract symbols and technology, people have become better at the types of reasoning tasks found on IQ tests. This demonstrates that while biology plays a role, the environment helps shape the cognitive abilities that the tests measure.

In clinical settings, the scores serve a diagnostic purpose. They assist psychologists in identifying specific learning disabilities or developmental delays. By comparing a student’s IQ score with their actual academic performance, educators can identify discrepancies that may indicate a need for specialized support. In this context, the score acts as a tool to understand a learner’s specific needs rather than a label of their worth.

Ultimately, the value of an IQ score lies in its specificity. It is a reliable measure of a particular type of mental horsepower that is useful in academic and technical domains. It is not a comprehensive measure of human capability. It does not account for creativity, wisdom, emotional insight, or practical skills. When viewed objectively, an IQ score provides a snapshot of a person’s abstract reasoning ability, but it leaves the full picture of their potential incomplete.

A recent study published in Psychological Reports suggests that experiencing abuse or neglect during childhood is linked to specific changes in cognitive skills during young adulthood. The findings indicate that while young adults with a history of maltreatment tend to struggle more with switching between mental tasks, their ability to hold and process temporary information remains intact. These results highlight how a harsh upbringing shapes brain development in complex ways, involving both vulnerabilities and psychological adaptations.

Scientists conducted this study to better understand how adverse early environments influence mental abilities as people transition into true adulthood. Emerging adulthood, which spans from ages 18 to 29, represents a unique developmental stage. During this phase, people take on new responsibilities, explore their identities, and experience significant brain maturation.

“Research has long linked childhood maltreatment to mental‑health problems, but findings on its impact on cognitive functioning have been inconsistent,” said study author Wai Man Wong, a PhD student in clinical psychology at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

“Some studies report clear deficits, while others find little to no effect. This inconsistency highlighted a real gap: we lacked a solid, quantitative understanding of whether maltreatment reliably affects cognition, and which domains are most impacted. Our study addressed this by systematically synthesizing the evidence through meta‑analysis to clarify the strength and pattern of these associations.”

The researchers focused specifically on executive function, which refers to the higher-level mental skills that help us plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks. Past studies looking at the link between early maltreatment and executive function have yielded mixed and confusing results. The scientists wanted to clarify this relationship by testing two competing ideas in psychology.

The first idea is the deficits model, which proposes that chronic stress from childhood trauma universally damages brain development and impairs mental skills. The second idea is the adaptation model. This perspective suggests that children who grow up in dangerous or unpredictable environments might actually fine-tune certain cognitive strengths to help them survive their specific circumstances.

To investigate these theories, the researchers performed a meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique that combines and analyzes the results of multiple independent scientific studies. They searched five major academic databases to find research that measured childhood maltreatment and specific cognitive skills in emerging adults. Their final analysis included 17 different studies, yielding 85 statistical comparisons and providing a combined sample of 19,357 participants.

The meta-analysis approach allows researchers to look at the big picture rather than relying on a single experiment. By pooling data from over 19,000 people, scientists can calculate an overall effect size, which measures the strength of a relationship between two variables. This statistical technique helps smooth out the quirks of individual studies to reveal true underlying patterns.

In these studies, childhood maltreatment included a range of adverse experiences that occurred before the age of eighteen. These experiences involved physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. The studies also measured forms of neglect, which happens when adults fail to meet a child’s basic physical or emotional needs.

The scientists looked at three specific components of executive function. The first component was cognitive flexibility, which is the ability to easily switch between different rules or ways of thinking. In everyday life, this might look like quickly coming up with a creative solution when a sudden problem arises at work.

The second component was inhibitory control, which refers to a person’s ability to override impulsive urges and regulate their attention or emotions. For example, inhibitory control is what stops someone from snapping at a rude customer. The third component was working memory, which acts as the mental workspace we use to temporarily hold and manipulate auditory and visual information.

The combined data revealed that young adults who experienced childhood maltreatment tended to perform worse on tests of cognitive flexibility than those without such histories. They also showed reductions in inhibitory control. The statistical analysis demonstrated a small but distinct drop in the ability to shift mental focus and suppress impulses among the maltreated group.

At the same time, working memory capacities between the two groups were completely comparable. The researchers found no significant deficit in working memory among those who had endured childhood abuse or neglect. Statistical models that accounted for the age of participants and whether the original studies were peer-reviewed consistently showed that working memory was preserved.

These findings support a balanced view of how trauma impacts the developing brain. The deficits in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control align with the idea that early chronic stress can harm certain areas of brain development. When a child experiences continuous trauma, their body is constantly flooded with stress hormones.

Normally, the human body uses a fight or flight response to survive immediate danger. Once the threat passes, the brain signals the body to stop producing stress hormones and return to a calm state. However, chronic childhood maltreatment can break this natural feedback loop, leaving the developing brain exposed to overwhelming levels of stress chemicals.

Over time, this biological wear and tear can negatively alter the brain regions responsible for higher-level thinking and self-regulation. The physical toll of prolonged stress might explain the slight impairments in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control. At the same time, the adaptation model provides evidence for why working memory remains strong in spite of this stress.

From an evolutionary perspective, maintaining a strong working memory might be prioritized in high-stakes environments. Keeping track of multiple pieces of information helps individuals quickly detect threats and survive dangerous situations. The researchers describe this as a trade-off, where certain skills are sacrificed to preserve the mental tools needed most for survival.

It is important to remember that these findings represent averages across large groups of people. These results do not mean that every person who experienced childhood maltreatment will inevitably struggle with cognitive flexibility or impulse control. Many individuals show immense resilience and perform exceptionally well on all cognitive tasks despite early hardships.

The researchers hope these findings will encourage a shift in how society views survivors of childhood trauma. Focusing solely on cognitive deficits can unintentionally stigmatize people who experienced early hardships. Recognizing the preservation of working memory highlights the incredible adaptability of the human brain.

The scientists also noted several limitations in the available research. Most of the analyzed studies used a cross-sectional design, meaning they looked at data from a single point in time. This prevents researchers from proving a direct cause-and-effect relationship between childhood events and adult cognitive skills.

Additionally, the studies relied on participants to remember and report their own childhood experiences. Relying on human memory can sometimes result in inaccurate recollections or reporting biases. The available data also lacked consistent demographic details, which made it difficult to test how factors like gender might influence these cognitive outcomes.

Moving forward, the researchers suggest that future studies should examine different categories of maltreatment separately. Analyzing specific forms of trauma, like physical abuse versus emotional neglect, might reveal unique impacts on brain development. Scientists also hope to collect more detailed demographic data to better understand how various backgrounds shape the relationship between early adversity and later cognitive function.

“Our results showed that childhood maltreatment is linked to reduced cognitive flexibility and weaker inhibitory control in emerging adulthood, but working memory remained largely intact,” Wong told PsyPost. “In lay terms: on average, young adults with histories of maltreatment, may have a slightly more difficult time switching between different tasks and inhibiting impulses, than those without such histories.”

“On the other hand, there are no differences between groups in working memory, the skill of holding information in mind and actively thinking about. Of note, these findings do not apply to every person with maltreatment. It is important to keep in mind that these are group-level differences. Together, the findings show that maltreatment shapes cognition in complex ways, involving both vulnerability and adaptation.”

The study, “Childhood Maltreatment Impacts Cognitive Function in Emerging Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” was authored by Wai M. Wong, Bixi Zhang, Damaris Foley, and Valentina Nikulina.

A recent comprehensive review of existing scientific research suggests that individuals who engage in impulsive acts of violence tend to score lower on intelligence tests compared to non-violent individuals. The findings provide evidence that lower intellectual abilities may make it harder for people to resolve conflicts peacefully, though intelligence is just one piece of a complex behavioral puzzle. The research was published in the journal Intelligence.

Scientists from various disciplines have spent decades attempting to understand the underlying factors that drive aggression and violence. While past research provides evidence that lower cognitive abilities are linked to general criminal behavior, the specific relationship between intelligence and violent acts against others has remained less clear. This gap in knowledge prompted researchers to look closer at specific types of aggression.

The researchers conducted the new review to figure out if people who commit violent acts consistently show lower intellectual abilities than those who do not. They also wanted to know if this pattern holds true for different components of intelligence, such as verbal skills and nonverbal problem solving. By clarifying this connection, the scientists hoped to gather information that could help design better rehabilitation programs.

“The main motivation for this study was the absence of a systematic analysis assessing whether violence is truly related to the intelligence quotient (IQ) or whether, on the contrary, it is an independent factor,” explained Ángel Romero-Martínez, a professor of psychobiology at the University of Valencia.

“Although prior research has linked low intelligence to general antisocial behavior, there was a significant lack of specialized systematic reviews focusing exclusively on violence against others. We aimed to resolve the debate over whether low IQ is an inherent characteristic of violent behavior (acting as a facilitator) or merely an incidental variable. By conducting this meta-analysis, we were able to demonstrate that violence—particularly reactive violence—is not independent of cognitive abilities, but is significantly influenced by them.”

To explore this topic, the scientists conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This type of research involves gathering all previously published studies on a specific subject and combining their data using statistical tools to find an overall trend. The research team searched three major scientific databases, including PubMed and Scopus, along with exploring reference lists to find studies that measured intelligence and assessed aggressive behavior.

Out of more than 5,000 initially identified articles, the researchers removed duplicates and screened the remaining papers for relevance. They ultimately selected 131 empirical studies that met their strict inclusion criteria. For the statistical analysis, they looked at two main sets of data to evaluate group differences and behavioral associations.

The first part of the analysis compared the intelligence scores of 1,860 violent individuals against a control group of 3,888 non-violent individuals. The second part examined the statistical correlation between intelligence and aggressive behavior across a massive pool of 33,118 participants. These aggressive behaviors included a variety of actions, ranging from general hostility and poor anger control to externalizing behaviors and physical assaults.

The intelligence quotient, commonly known as IQ, is a standardized score used to measure a person’s intellectual abilities, with an average score set at 100. In their analysis, the scientists looked at full IQ scores, as well as verbal and nonverbal scores. Verbal intelligence involves the ability to use and understand language, which is important for communication.

Nonverbal intelligence relates to visual problem solving and abstract reasoning without the use of words. The data showed that violent individuals scored significantly lower on full, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence tests compared to the non-violent control groups. This gap in intelligence scores was particularly large when the violent individuals also suffered from a diagnosed mental or personality disorder.

The findings indicate that these cognitive differences are present regardless of gender. The researchers also noted that differences in socioeconomic status did not seem to explain the gap. Many of the included studies accounted for economic and educational backgrounds, and the intelligence gap remained consistent.

“What was truly surprising was just how clear and robust the relationship turned out to be,” Romero-Martínez told PsyPost. “Beyond finding a general link, the most striking aspect was the consistent relationship across all different types of intelligence (verbal and non-verbal IQ).”

When looking at the broader pool of over 33,000 participants, the scientists found a consistent negative correlation between intelligence and violence. This means that as IQ scores decrease, the tendency to engage in violent behavior tends to increase. The correlation coefficients ranged from negative 0.09 to negative 0.20, pointing to a modest but reliable link between lower intelligence and aggressive tendencies.

The research suggests that this lower intelligence is primarily associated with reactive violence. Reactive violence is defined as an impulsive, emotional outburst of aggression in response to frustration or a perceived threat. It differs from proactive violence, which is planned, calculated, and goal oriented.

The scientists propose that lower intellectual abilities might limit an individual’s mental resources for managing stress. Without strong problem solving or verbal skills, a person may struggle to process frustration and navigate conflicts peacefully. In high stress situations, this cognitive limitation can act as a facilitator for impulsive physical or verbal aggression.

“The most important takeaway is that while our study found a correlation between lower IQ and reactive violence, having a lower IQ does not mean a person will be violent,” Romero-Martínez explained. “It is crucial to understand that intelligence is just one factor within a much more complex problem involving biological, social, and psychological variables. Rather than a direct cause, a lower IQ acts as a facilitator.”

“It may limit an individual’s cognitive resources to manage stress or solve conflicts peacefully, making them more prone to impulsive or reactive aggression. Therefore, these findings should be used not to label individuals, but to improve rehabilitation programs by tailoring them to the specific cognitive needs of each person, helping them develop better non-violent coping strategies.”

“The practical significance of these effects should not be interpreted to blame or stigmatize individuals with lower IQ scores,” Romero-Martínez continued. “Instead, the real value of these findings lies in identifying the therapeutic needs of people involved in violent acts.”

“By understanding that cognitive limitations can act as a barrier to peaceful conflict resolution, we can develop more effective intervention programs tailored to individual needs. These results suggest that rehabilitation should focus on providing specific tools and strategies that match the person’s cognitive profile, ultimately helping them to manage frustration and avoid violent behavior more successfully.”

The study does have some limitations that scientists will need to address in future research. For instance, the original studies included in the review used a wide variety of different intelligence tests, which could introduce inconsistencies into the data. Additionally, the researchers only included studies published in English or Spanish, which might restrict how well the results apply to other global populations.

Moving forward, scientists plan to explore other mental factors that might influence the relationship between intelligence and reactive violence. They aim to study how specific mental processes, such as cognitive flexibility and impulse control, play a role in aggressive outbursts.

“As we gain deeper knowledge and a more nuanced understanding of these contributors, we will be better equipped to develop effective strategies to intervene and prevent this type of behavior,” Romero-Martínez said. “We do not want our work to remain solely on a theoretical level. Our ultimate ambition is for our findings to have a real-world impact. By translating this research into practical tools and evidence-based policies, we aim to provide society with better resources to address the root causes of violence and foster safer environments for everyone.”

The study, “Analysis of the intelligence quotient and its contribution to reactive violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” was authored by Ángel Romero-Martínez, Carolina Sarrate-Costa, and Luis Moya-Albiol.

A new study published in Physiology & Behavior has found that medium‑chain triglyceride oil can sharpen certain aspects of thinking in young adults, both immediately after a single dose and after a month of daily use.

Medium‑chain triglyceride oil has long been studied for its potential to support brain health in older adults and people with neurological conditions. However, the cognitive enhancing capabilities in healthy young people have remained an open question.

The brain relies heavily on energy, and medium‑chain triglycerides are known for their ability to quickly increase ketone bodies, an alternative fuel source that the brain can use when glucose is low. This metabolic advantage has made medium‑chain triglycerides a popular topic in nutrition and neuroscience research.

Led by I Wayan Yuuki from Ritsumeikan University in Japan, the researchers sought to discover whether the benefits of medium‑chain triglyceride oil extend to young adults who do not have cognitive impairments.

To investigate, Yuuki and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial involving 36 healthy young adults (20 males, 16 females), with an average age of 21 years old. Participants were assigned to consume either 12 grams of medium‑chain triglyceride oil or olive oil, which served as the long‑chain triglyceride comparison. The study included two phases: an acute test and a 4‑week daily supplementation period.

In the acute phase, participants completed a series of cognitive tests, consumed their assigned oil mixed with oatmeal, and repeated the tests 75 minutes later.

The researchers found that medium‑chain triglyceride oil did not improve short‑term memory or working memory in the immediate timeframe. However, it did significantly enhance inhibitory control compared to the long-chain triglyceride oil, the mental process that helps people resist distractions and suppress automatic responses. This improvement was measured using the reverse-Stroop task, a classic test of cognitive control whereby individuals must name the word rather than the color that the word is printed in.

“The mechanisms underlying the acute effect of medium‑chain triglyceride on the inhibitory control process remain unknown,” Yuuki and colleagues noted. They hypothesized that “increased ketone body metabolism [in the brain] via increased circulating levels of ketone bodies” may play a role.

The long‑term phase told a different story. After four weeks of daily medium‑chain triglyceride intake, participants showed no improvement in memory or inhibitory control compared to the olive‑oil group.

However, the participants did perform better on a demanding working‑memory task compared to the long-chain triglyceride oil, responding more quickly and consistently during the 2‑back test. The 2-back test involves participants watching a series of images appear one by one and pressing a button whenever the current image matched the one shown two steps earlier. This suggests that regular medium‑chain triglyceride consumption may strengthen the brain’s ability to hold and manipulate information, even if it does not produce immediate changes in this area.

Yuuki’s team concluded, “to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that, compared to long-chain triglyceride intervention with the same macronutrients, a 4-week daily medium‑chain triglyceride regimen is an effective strategy for improving information processing speed and performance stability in complex working memory, though not in easy working memory, among young adults.”

However, the researchers note that the study has limitations. For instance, participants were told to maintain their usual lifestyle habits, including usual diet, physical activity levels, and sleep quality, during the testing period—but these factors were not measured.

The study, “Both a single dose and a 4-week daily regimen of medium-chain triglycerides boost certain aspects of cognitive function in young adults: A randomized controlled trial,” was authored by I Wayan Yuuki, Kento Dora, Teppei Matsumura, Kazushi Fukuzawa, Yoshino Murakami, Kaito Hashimoto, Hayato Tsukamoto, and Takeshi Hashimoto.

If you search the internet for the smartest people in history, one name appears more than any other. That name is Albert Einstein. His wild hair and expressive face have become the universal symbol for genius. But what was his IQ score?

Einstein was a theoretical physicist born in Germany in 1879. He is best known for developing the theory of relativity. This work fundamentally changed how humanity understands the universe.

Before Einstein, the laws of physics seemed set in stone. Isaac Newton had described a world of absolute time and space. Einstein challenged this view.

In 1905, often called his “miracle year,” he published four groundbreaking papers. One of these papers introduced the famous equation E=mc². This equation demonstrated that mass and energy are interchangeable.

He did not stop there. He went on to explain the photoelectric effect, which was a vital step toward quantum theory. This specific work won him the Nobel Prize in Physics.

His contributions led to technologies we use every day. Without his theories, we would not have GPS navigation or laser technology. He reshaped our concept of reality itself.

Because his achievements were so monumental, people naturally wonder about the mind that created them. We want to quantify his brilliance. We want to know if his brain was different from ours.

Understanding the Intelligence Quotient

To understand the rumors about Einstein’s score, we must first understand the test itself. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. It is a standardized score derived from a set of tests.

These tests are designed to assess human intelligence. The first modern intelligence test was developed in France in 1905. Psychologists Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon created it.

Their original goal was not to identify geniuses. Instead, they wanted to identify children who needed extra help in school. The test was a tool for education, not a measure of elite status.

Later, American psychologists adapted these tests for adults. The most famous early version was the Army Alpha test. It was created in 1917 to evaluate soldiers during World War I.

Modern tests, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, measure various cognitive abilities. They look at verbal comprehension and working memory. They also measure perceptual reasoning and processing speed.

The average score on these tests is set at 100. Most people score between 85 and 115. A score above 130 is typically considered “gifted.”

The maximum score on current tests often tops out around 160. This is the 99.9th percentile. This means a person with this score scores higher than almost everyone else in the general population.

The Missing Evidence

This brings us to the central question. Did Albert Einstein ever take an IQ test? According to a 2023 article by psychologist Russell T. Warne, the answer is almost certainly no. Warne asserts that there is no evidence Einstein ever sat for such an assessment.

Warne analyzes the timeline of Einstein’s life to support this conclusion. Einstein was born in 1879. He was already 26 years old when Binet created the first children’s test in 1905. He was an established adult by the time testing became common.

The first adult test, the Army Alpha, appeared in 1917. At that time, Einstein was 39 years old. He was living in Europe and was already a world-famous celebrity. Warne argues that Einstein had little to gain from taking an intelligence test.

It is unlikely that a physicist of his stature would have bothered with a psychometric evaluation. He was busy working on unified field theory. He was also navigating the political turmoil of Europe. There are no records in the Albert Einstein Archives or biographies that mention a test.

Where the Estimates Originate

If there is no record of a test, where does the number 160 come from? Warne conducted a search of historical publications to find the answer. He found that journalists and writers have been guessing Einstein’s IQ for nearly a century.

One of the earliest estimates appeared in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. The article profiled a 14-year-old prodigy named Merrill Kenneth Wolf. The magazine reported that Wolf had an IQ of 182. The article stated that this was “only 23 points lower than Einstein’s.”

This phrasing implies that the magazine believed Einstein’s IQ was 205. However, Life magazine was not consistent. In 1954, the same magazine published an article about another prodigy. This time, they estimated Einstein’s IQ at 192.

Other publications joined the guessing game. In 1962, Popular Mechanics stated that Einstein was estimated to have an IQ of 207. A 1974 book by Mariann Olden claimed his IQ was 205. 

Warne points out that the variation in these numbers is extreme. They range from 150 to over 200. This inconsistency suggests that the numbers are fabricated. There is no primary source. The number 160 appears to be a modern consensus among journalists, but it is not based on data.

Psychologists Weigh In

Academic experts are skeptical of these numbers. In a 2020 article for Biography.com, Dean Keith Simonton weighed in on the issue. Simonton is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

Simonton warns that these estimates often confuse two different things. They conflate intellectual ability with domain-specific achievement. Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of his time. This means he was exceptional in physics.

However, general intelligence tests measure a wide range of skills. They test vocabulary, pattern recognition, and memory. Being a genius in physics does not guarantee a perfect score in every other area. Simonton suggests that if you look at Einstein’s early development, his raw IQ might not have been as striking as his physics work.

Jonathan Wai, a professor at the University of Arkansas, offers a different perspective in the same Biography.com article. Wai notes that people who earn PhDs in physics typically have extremely high IQs.

Wai points to Einstein’s famous thought experiments. As a teenager, Einstein imagined chasing a beam of light. This required intense spatial visualization. Wai argues that this suggests Einstein was highly talented in spatial reasoning.

Wai believes that if Einstein had been tested, he would have scored well above average. This is consistent with data on other physicists. However, this is still a prediction, not a confirmed score.

The Biological Evidence

While we lack a test score, we do have biological evidence. We have Einstein’s brain. When Einstein died in 1955, a pathologist named Thomas Harvey performed the autopsy. Harvey removed the brain for scientific study.

In 1999, a team of researchers published a landmark study in The Lancet. The team was led by Sandra F. Witelson and Debra L. Kigar. They worked with Thomas Harvey to analyze the anatomy of the brain.

The researchers compared Einstein’s brain to a control group. This group consisted of 35 brains from men with normal intelligence. The men in the control group had an average IQ of 116.

The study revealed something surprising about brain size. Many people assume that a genius must have a massive brain. However, Einstein’s brain weighed 1,230 grams. This was not statistically different from the control group.

In fact, his brain was slightly lighter than the average for the men in the study. This finding is significant. It proves that total brain weight is not the primary factor in exceptional intelligence. A heavy brain does not automatically equal a smart mind.

Unique Brain Architecture

Although the weight was normal, the structure was not. Witelson and her colleagues found unique features in the parietal lobes. The parietal lobes are the part of the brain responsible for processing sensory information.

This region handles visuospatial cognition and mathematical thinking. The researchers measured the width of Einstein’s brain. They found that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider than those of the control group.

This extra width gave his brain a more spherical shape than a typical human brain. The researchers also discovered a unique feature on the surface of the brain. The brain has deep folds and grooves. One major groove is called the Sylvian fissure.

In a normal brain, the Sylvian fissure runs deep and meets a structure called the parietal operculum. The study found that Einstein lacked a parietal operculum in both hemispheres.

Because this structure was missing, the Sylvian fissure did not run as far as usual. It merged with another groove called the postcentral sulcus. This was a unique anatomical variation. The researchers did not see this in any of the control brains.

The Functional Impact

The researchers in The Lancet study proposed a theory about this anatomy. They suggested that the absence of the parietal operculum allowed the inferior parietal lobule to expand. This is a specific area within the parietal lobe.

The scientists hypothesized that this expansion allowed for better connections between neurons. Without the usual groove separating the area, the brain cells could communicate more efficiently. This creates a highly integrated network for visual and spatial thinking.

This biological finding aligns with how Einstein described his own mind. He often stated that words were not significant in his thought process. Instead, he thought in signs and images.

He visualized complex physical problems. His theory of relativity came from visualizing moving bodies and light. The researchers concluded that his unique parietal anatomy likely supported this specific type of reasoning.

The Threshold of Intelligence

The biological evidence tells us Einstein was unique. However, it does not confirm a specific IQ number. This leads to a broader discussion about the value of IQ scores.

In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the relationship between IQ and success. He compares Einstein to a man named Christopher Langan. Langan appeared on the TV show 1 vs. 100. The show claimed Langan had an IQ of 195.

If we accept the common estimate of 160 for Einstein, then Langan’s score is significantly higher. By strict numerical logic, Langan should be “smarter.” Yet, Einstein is the one who revolutionized science.

Gladwell uses this comparison to introduce the “threshold theory.” He argues that intelligence matters up to a point. You have to be smart enough to handle complex ideas. But once you cross that threshold, a higher score does not guarantee more success.

Gladwell supports this by looking at Nobel Prize winners. He lists the colleges attended by the last 25 American winners in medicine. The list includes elite schools like Harvard and Yale. But it also includes schools like Holy Cross, Gettysburg College, and the University of Illinois.

These are good schools, but they are not all exclusive Ivy League institutions. Gladwell argues that a Nobel Prize winner does not need to have the highest IQ in the world. They just need to be smart enough to get into a decent university.

Once a person is “smart enough,” other factors take over. Creativity, persistence, and a willingness to question authority become essential. Einstein possessed these traits in abundance.

Why We Obsess Over the Number

Robert B. McCall, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, questioned the value of these estimates in his interview with Biography.com. He stated that he does not see the value in trying to calculate Einstein’s IQ.

McCall argues that famous people are famous for their actions. We should celebrate those actions. Their contributions are only modestly related to a test score. A person can be accomplished in ways that an IQ test cannot measure.

The obsession with the number 160 reveals more about society than it does about Einstein. We want to believe that intelligence is a single, measurable trait. We want to rank people on a scoreboard.

Assigning a score of 160 to Einstein gives us a reference point. It makes the concept of “genius” feel tangible. However, it is an oversimplification. It ignores the specific nature of his mind.

New research published in BMC Psychology suggests that the structural wiring of the brain may play a significant role in how people solve problems through sudden insight. The study indicates that individuals who frequently experience “Aha!” moments tend to have less organized white matter pathways in specific language-processing areas of the left hemisphere. These findings imply that a slightly less rigid neural structure might allow the brain to relax its focus, enabling the unique connections required for creative breakthroughs.

For decades, scientists have studied the phenomenon of insight, which occurs when a solution to a problem enters awareness suddenly and unexpectedly. This is often contrasted with analytical problem solving, which involves a deliberate and continuous step-by-step approach.

While previous studies using functional MRI and EEG have mapped the brain activity that occurs during these moments, there has been little understanding of the underlying physical structure that supports them. The researchers behind the new study aimed to determine if stable differences in white matter—the bundles of nerve fibers that connect different brain regions—predict an individual’s tendency to solve problems via insight.

“For over two decades, neuroscience has mapped what happens in the brain during these moments using EEG and fMRI. We know from prior research that insight feels sudden, tends to be accurate, and involves distinct functional activation patterns — including a burst of activity in the right temporal cortex just before the solution reaches awareness,” said study authors Carola Salvi of the Cattolica University of Milan and Simone A. Luchini of Pennsylvania State University.

“But one major question remained open: what structural features of the brain might make some people more likely to experience insight in the first place?”

“Most previous white matter studies of creativity did not specifically focus on Aha! experiences. They measured how many problems people solved, or how creatively, not how they solved them (with or without these sudden epiphanies). Yet insight and non insight solutions are phenomenologically and neurally distinct processes.”

White matter acts as the communication infrastructure of the brain, transmitting signals between distant regions. To examine this structure, the researchers employed a technique called Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). This method tracks the movement of water molecules within brain tissue.

“We wanted to know whether stable white matter microstructure — the brain’s anatomical wiring — differs depending on whether someone tends to solve problems through sudden insight or through deliberate step-by-step reasoning (non insight solutions),” Salvi and Luchini explained. “Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allowed us to examine this structural dimension directly.”

In healthy white matter, water tends to move along the direction of the nerve fibers, a property known as fractional anisotropy (FA). High FA values generally indicate highly organized, dense, and well-insulated fibers, which are typically associated with efficient signal transmission and strong cognitive performance.

The study involved 38 distinct participants, after excluding those who did not meet specific criteria or failed to complete the task correctly. These participants engaged in a standard test used to measure creative potential known as the Compound Remote Associates (CRA) task. In this activity, individuals viewed three words, such as “crab,” “pine,” and “sauce,” and were asked to find a fourth word that forms a common phrase with all three, in this case, “apple.”

After each successful solution, participants reported whether they arrived at the answer through a step-by-step analysis or a sudden insight. This self-reporting method allowed the scientists to quantify an “insight propensity” for each person. The researchers then analyzed the DTI scans to see how white matter integrity correlated with this propensity, controlling for variables such as age and gender.

The findings offered a counterintuitive perspective on brain connectivity. The analysis revealed that participants who solved more problems via insight exhibited lower fractional anisotropy in the left hemisphere’s dorsal language network. This network includes the arcuate fasciculus and the superior longitudinal fasciculus, pathways that connect brain regions responsible for language production, comprehension, and semantic processing.

“One striking finding was that people who more frequently experienced insight showed lower fractional anisotropy in specific left-hemisphere dorsal language pathways, including parts of the arcuate fasciculus and superior longitudinal fasciculus,” Salvi and Luchini told PsyPost.

“At first glance, that might sound counterintuitive. Fractional anisotropy is often interpreted as reflecting the coherence or organization of white matter pathways. In many cognitive domains, higher fractional anisotropy is associated with better performance.”

“But insight may operate differently. The left hemisphere is typically involved in focused, fine-grained semantic processing — narrowing in on dominant interpretations of words and concepts. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is thought to support broader, ‘coarse’ semantic coding — integrating more distantly related ideas. Slightly lower fractional anisotropy in left dorsal language pathways may reflect a system that is less tightly constrained by dominant interpretations.

“In other words, it may allow a partial ‘release’ from habitual patterns of thought and it is in line with other studies where lesions in the left frontotemporal regions have been shown to increase artistic creativity,” Salvi and Luchini continued. “Taken together, these findings imply that left hemispheric regions play a regulatory role in creativity and that their disruption lifts this constraint, thus promoting novel ideas.”

“That release effect is fascinating. In simple words It suggests that creativity sometimes emerges not from strengthening control, but from relaxing it just enough to let weaker, more remote associations surface. When the brain is less locked into its most obvious interpretations, it may be more capable of restructuring the problem — and that restructuring is the heart of an Aha! moment.”

It is worth noting that no significant structural associations were found for the step-by-step analytical problem solving style. This suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight is distinct and specific. Analytical solving may rely on dynamic brain activity rather than the stable structural traits identified for insight.

This concept of sudden recognition is being explored in other sensory domains as well. A separate study recently conducted by researchers at NYU Langone Health examined “one-shot learning,” which is the visual equivalent of an “Aha!” moment.

In that study, participants viewed blurred images that became recognizable only after seeing a clear version. The NYU team found that the high-level visual cortex stores “priors,” or memory templates, which the brain accesses to suddenly make sense of ambiguous visual information.

While the NYU study focused on visual perception and the current study focused on linguistic creativity, both highlight a similar cognitive phenomenon: the brain’s ability to reorganize information suddenly to form a coherent whole. The NYU findings suggest this happens through accessing stored memory templates, while the current study suggests that linguistic insight relies on structural flexibility that permits distant connections to surface.

There are some limitations to the current study that warrant mention. The sample size of 38 participants is relatively small, though it is typical for technically intensive DTI studies. Additionally, the study establishes a correlation but does not prove causation. It remains unclear whether people are born with this structural connectivity or if engaging in creative thinking alters the white matter over time. Demographic factors such as education level were also noted as potential influences on white matter integrity.

Future research will likely focus on larger and more diverse groups to verify these results. Scientists may also attempt to combine structural imaging with functional tracking to see how these white matter highways are utilized in real-time during the moment of insight. By understanding the physical architecture of creativity, science moves closer to demystifying how the human brain generates novel ideas.

“In many areas of cognition, greater microstructural organization (as indexed by higher fractional anisotropy) is associated with stronger performance. Here, greater insight propensity was linked to lower fractional anisotropy in specific left dorsal pathways,” the researchers added.

“This challenges a simple ‘more organized white matter equals better cognition’ view. Instead, it suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight may involve a delicate balance between constraint and flexibility. Too much structural rigidity could reinforce dominant interpretations. A slightly less constrained system may allow the mind to wander just far enough to discover something unexpected. That idea — that brilliance can emerge from loosening control rather than tightening it — is both scientifically intriguing and deeply human.”

The study, “The white matter of Aha! moments,” was authored by Carola Salvi, Simone A. Luchini, Franco Pestilli, Sandra Hanekamp, Todd Parrish, Mark Beeman, and Jordan Grafman.

The stereotype of the eccentric genius with radical political views is a common trope in fiction. A new study challenges this assumption by suggesting that highly intelligent adults may hold political views that are remarkably similar to the general population. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. These findings were published in the scientific journal Intelligence.

Society often looks to gifted individuals to solve major problems. These individuals frequently occupy leadership roles in economics, science, and politics. Because they hold positions of influence, understanding how they view the world is a matter of public interest.

Researchers have spent decades trying to understand the link between cognitive ability and political belief. Some past theories suggested that higher intelligence leads to left-wing or liberal views. Other theories proposed that intelligent people might favor economic conservatism.

The results of these past studies have been inconsistent. This inconsistency led a team of researchers to investigate the matter using a long-term approach. They wanted to see if distinct political patterns emerge when comparing gifted adults to a control group of average intelligence.

The lead author of the study is Maximilian Krolo from the Department of Educational Science at Saarland University in Germany. He collaborated with Jörn R. Sparfeldt, also from Saarland University, and Detlef H. Rost from the Department of Psychology at Philipps-University Marburg.

The team based their research on the “Cognitive Complexity-Openness Hypothesis.” This concept suggests that people with higher intelligence are generally more open to new experiences. They are also thought to be better equipped to handle complex or nuanced ideas.

If this hypothesis holds true, gifted individuals might reject rigid political dogmas. They might gravitate toward more flexible or moderate positions. The researchers aimed to test if this theoretical flexibility translates into specific political preferences in adulthood.

To do this, the authors utilized data from the Marburg Giftedness Project. This is a longitudinal study based in Germany that tracks the development of individuals over time. The project began during the 1987-1988 school year.

The initial phase involved examining over 7,000 third-grade students. The researchers administered standardized intelligence tests to this large group. These tests measured reasoning abilities and the speed at which the students processed information.

From this large pool, the team identified a group of gifted students. These students had an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 130 or higher. In the general population, an IQ of 100 is considered average.

The researchers then selected a control group of non-gifted students. This group had IQ scores near 100. The researchers ensured this control group matched the gifted group in other ways, such as gender ratios and socioeconomic background.

This matching process was designed to ensure fair comparisons. It allows researchers to be more confident that any differences found later are actually due to intelligence differences.

Six years later, when the students were in the ninth grade, the team tested them again. This re-evaluation confirmed the cognitive status of the participants. It ensured that the classification of “gifted” or “non-gifted” remained accurate as the children entered adolescence.

The current study focuses on these same individuals roughly 35 years after they were first identified. The participants were now adults with an average age of about 43. The researchers sent them surveys to assess their political orientations.

A total of 87 gifted adults and 71 non-gifted adults completed the survey. The response rate was notably high for a study spanning so many decades. This level of participation helps strengthen the reliability of the data.

The survey measured political views in two different ways. The first method was a simple single-dimensional scale. Participants were asked to place themselves on a spectrum ranging from left (1) to right (10).

The second method was more detailed. The researchers used the “Political Ideologies Questionnaire” to measure four distinct dimensions of political thought. These dimensions allowed for a more precise understanding of specific beliefs.

The first dimension was economic libertarianism. This viewpoint emphasizes free markets and individual liberty in economic matters. People who score high here often view merit-based inequality as fair.

The second dimension was conservatism. This outlook values tradition and social stability. High scorers usually believe that shared culture and established rules are necessary to prevent societal fragmentation.

The third dimension was socialism. This perspective focuses on equality of outcome. It emphasizes protecting disadvantaged groups and may advocate for social changes to reduce exploitation.

The fourth dimension was liberalism. In this context, liberalism refers to placing a high value on individual autonomy. It suggests that people should be free to live as they please provided they do not harm others.

The researchers analyzed the survey data using statistical methods called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). They checked for differences between the gifted and non-gifted groups. They also looked for differences based on sex.

On the simple left-right scale, the results showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Both the gifted and non-gifted adults tended to place themselves near the center of the spectrum. This suggests a general tendency toward moderation in both groups.

The researchers then analyzed the four specific dimensions of the detailed questionnaire. For economic libertarianism, socialism, and liberalism, the analysis again showed no statistical difference between the groups. Giftedness did not appear to push individuals toward or away from these specific ideologies.

However, a distinct pattern emerged regarding the dimension of conservatism. The researchers found an interaction effect between giftedness and sex. This means the relationship between intelligence and conservatism depended on whether the participant was male or female.

Specifically, non-gifted men scored higher on conservatism than gifted men. The non-gifted men were more likely to endorse values related to tradition and strict social order. Gifted men were less likely to hold these traditional conservative views.

This difference was not observed among the women in the study. Gifted women and non-gifted women showed similar levels of conservatism. The divergence was unique to the male participants.

The researchers used supplementary Bayesian analyses to verify these results. Bayesian analysis is a statistical technique that weighs the strength of evidence for different models. These additional tests supported the initial findings.

The team interpreted the findings through the lens of cognitive flexibility. They suggest that non-gifted men might rely more on traditional perspectives when processing complex social issues. This reliance could lead to higher conservatism scores.

On the other hand, gifted men may possess greater cognitive flexibility. This allows them to process diverse perspectives more easily. Consequently, they may be less inclined to adhere to rigid traditional norms.

The lack of difference in the other categories supports the “centering” hypothesis. This is the idea that intelligent individuals often avoid extreme political positions. They may see extreme views as oversimplifications of a complex reality.

The authors also noted that the German political context might play a role. Germany has a “social market economy” that blends capitalism with social welfare. This cultural environment might encourage a consensus around moderate views for everyone, regardless of intelligence.

As with all research, there are limitations to the study that must be considered. The sample size was relatively small, which is common in studies that last for decades. A larger sample might have detected smaller effects that this study missed.

Additionally, the study was conducted exclusively in Germany. Political terms like “liberal” or “conservative” can have different meanings in different countries. The results might not apply perfectly to the political landscape of the United States or other nations.

The study also relied on self-reported beliefs. While honest reporting is assumed, people sometimes describe themselves differently than their actions might suggest.

Future research could address these limitations by looking at actual behavior. For instance, scientists could examine voting records or party memberships. This would help determine if these internal orientations translate into real-world political action.

Despite the limitations, the study offers a clear message. High intelligence does not automatically lead to radical or distinct political views. Gifted adults appear to be as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population.

The one notable exception regarding male conservatism warrants further investigation. It highlights how intelligence and gender might interact to shape how people value tradition.

Ultimately, this research suggests that while gifted individuals may process information differently, their political conclusions are not fundamentally alien. They navigate the same societal debates as everyone else. Their minds may be exceptional, but their politics are often quite ordinary.

The study, “Exploring exceptional minds: Political orientations of gifted adults,” was authored by Maximilian Krolo, Jörn R. Sparfeldt, and Detlef H. Rost.