The 'Gifted' Without a Test and the 136 That Doesn't Open Mensa

The 'Gifted' Without a Score and the 136 That Doesn't Get into Mensa

A 32-year-old man appears with a self-awarded medal: intellectual giftedness. He clarifies he's never seriously had it assessed, only taken "several tests over my life," and boasts about being "financially well for my 32 years," going to the gym, and having a sentimental life. He then opens the floor for questions. What trinc is not a masterclass.

From there, the topic of IQ is buried under three things: a debate over which score matters, a numerical puzzle, and a detour into vaccines that no one requested. The initial label still doesn't hold up.

A 136 and the Threshold No One Agrees On

The number appears early in the thread and explodes when the scale is questioned. One participant insists that you don't get into Mensa below 140 and claims he was rejected with a 136, literally "shown the door." Another intervention lowers the bar: the cutoff would be above 125, and 130 would correspond "on the Wechsler scale." Three scores, three rules, no consensus.

The most extravagant data comes from someone who places 180 within reach of "1 in 20,000,000 people, being generous." It serves the usual purpose: making 136 seem less significant. Statistics here act as a bucket of cold water.

Between the Score and Real Life

The most common response doesn't dispute the number: it disputes the wording of the person wielding it. "To be gifted, you express yourself terribly," summarizes one comment, and from there the tone doesn't improve. The underlying suspicion is old and familiar: the gap between what someone claims to be and what they demonstrate when they write.

The sharpest argument comes from another angle: bragging about IQ only impresses those who don't have it. The idea, stated plainly, is that a brilliant mind is only visible to others who are more brilliant, and to them, you will always be the one below. Some also argue that being gifted in Spain is not an advantage but a burden: you realize too much and can't fix anything.

The Puzzle No One Solved for Years

Amidst the squabble, a curiosity with more hook than anything else appears: a numerical series of the type 134537 → 56745, with several rows of the same pattern, presented by its author as proof that, according to him, no one had solved it in the years it was circulating. He himself admits it took him almost two minutes.

It's the only moment someone shows a verifiable result instead of a label. And yet, it remains in the background.

The Detour: From IQ to ELbichito Vaccines

Halfway through the conversation, intelligence stops mattering and the pandemic issue comes up. One participant claims that the highest IQs he knows "got vaccinated against ELbichito" and therefore IQ measures obedience, not intelligence. He even states that there was no pandemic because "not enough famous people died" and that the media silenced adverse effects.

To be clear: these claims are not supported by evidence. The exchange ends, as almost always, with mutual insults and blocks, not conclusions.

The Seven Intelligences vs. The Single Number

Against the single score stands the classic argument of multiple intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The underlying critique is that many of these aptitudes don't fit into a test, and measuring everything with a single number excludes those who play the violin by ear or handle people better than equations.

The counterargument is not long in coming: everything is a balance, and those who are brilliant in the abstract usually have shortcomings in daily life. First-level mathematicians whose social adaptation is, to say the least, questionable are given as examples.

This is where the analysis gets stuck. What remains unresolved is what the score is good for: in the thread, some argue it's useless, while others recall that it doesn't guarantee good judgment.