What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

Yes but being very gifted in one way is pretty useful. When you're gifted in every way, you can actually seem to others to be pretty ordinary.

He was actually asked this in a video. He said he dosnt care lol

don't know but definitely high af

When I speak to MENSA-members with high Visual IQ's, they do not always have the Verbal IQ that we expect. A chimpanzee can learn how to distinguish between a triangle and a square,, but they couldn't decode Winnie the Pooh.

A true genius has at least two IQ-fields at the 99th percentile. Magnus is 99.99999...etc percentile at chess.

When Magnus was a kid, he was unsure which one to choose of his two favorite sports, chess or football. Imagine he picks football, and becomes a world-class player. I wonder if you guys would be debating his IQ all the same.

People see him play chess, and they immediately assume he has a genius level IQ, but that is based on empty stereotypes and nothing else.

If you search it on Google it's like 176

Facepalm.

You should improve your reading skills.

The man has stated he has never taken an IQ test. No one knows what it might be. Everyone who is saying "it's (fill in your favorite groundless wild guess)" is just blowing hot air.

Prove it. Prove any chess champion's IQ has been over 140, in fact. Good luck.

Where can we get a list of these "IQ fields"? This sounds super interesting...

By the arrogant tone in your question, I doubt that you are bright enough to understand an elaborated answer.

But for those at higher IQ-levels here is a brief summary:

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

There are several different types of intelligence and fields of IQ beyond just visual IQ. The concept of intelligence is complex and multifaceted, and different theories have been proposed to describe and measure it. Here are some of the most commonly recognized fields of IQ:

Verbal IQ: This refers to intelligence related to language skills, including comprehension, vocabulary, and verbal reasoning.
Logical IQ: This involves the ability to solve problems, understand complex mathematical concepts, and use deductive reasoning.
Visual - Spatial IQ: Also known as visuo-spatial IQ, this encompasses the ability to visualize and manipulate objects in space, as well as perceive relationships between shapes and forms.
Kinesthetic IQ: This refers to bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, which involves the ability to control one's body movements, balance, and coordination.
Intrapersonal IQ: This relates to self-awareness and understanding one's own emotions, motivations, and strengths.
Interpersonal IQ: This involves understanding and empathizing with others' emotions, thoughts, and intentions, and navigating social interactions effectively.

And obviously music, arts and poetry as well. Mathematics goes without saying.

Gardner's "IQ fields" have nothing to do with official IQ tests or IQ...so IQ is a complete misnomer here. There's no tests, ergo no quotients. Just substitute "intelligence" and you are closer to the truth...that these are broad concepts that have no empirical scrutiny. "Frame of Mind" seeks to capitalize on the reputation of the term IQ, but ironically, IQ tests themselves are considered a bad measure of intelligence in modern times.

"Never hitch your wagon to a rock" is the lesson to be learned here, for both Gardner, and yourself.

I wouldn't think that "verbal IQ" is meaningful in any real way.

Provided you think and speak logically and clearly, that can oppose itself to rhetorical ability where the rhetoric is used to win points. Rhetorical ability is a useful tool but when someone's maybe a politician and they need to use rhetoric, they can find their actual thinking being led by rhetorical desirability or the perceived need to make their thinking fit the rhetoric which they found was successful.

Even worse, they may not find it.

I find myself agreeing with Dio that breaking up intelligence into all these fields is not useful or even related to cognitive ability. One may as well add "digestive intelligence" to the list, for how well you can cope with onions, cheese and celery.

I don't think IQ tests are considered "bad" in modern times. They do what they do and nothing else. They're very useful in specific ways, which was the intended purpose.

Rereading, I think that the kinesthetic thing annoyed me. The others are vaguely related to intelligence. If intelligence is a semi abstract thing in that it's a measure of using our minds to solve problems, both real-world and "set", which tend to be a mix of abstract ideas and ideas about real things which we have to relate to one-another in such a way that we use given info to work out non-obvious facts based on that info, then it's a seperate ability.

I can (or could, because I'm 73) rock climb, play football (soccer), cricket, tennis, table tennis, walk along the top of a railing of width about one inch with my young son sitting on my shoulders, ten feet above the ground etc. These involve coordination, dexterity, balance and so forth. They are not a measure of intelligence in any real sense, so much as ability to use our bodies in a real way; rather than our minds to perceive that reality, turn the reality into abstract, juggle with that abstract and return to the real world with an answer regarding how to proceed with solving some problem.

After writing that it's made me realise how wrong the kinesthetic variation is. Music, arts, poetry can be instinctive rather than thought out. It seems to me wrong to push inclusivity at the expense of losing focus on what IQ was originally meant for. I would say ignore it in regard to thinking it's related to cognitive IQ but if wanted, develop fields of understanding of other types of ability.

Incidentally, I recall that the Eysenck IQ tests measured both logical and visuo-spatial ability. I think that's good because they shouldn't be regared as separate. You can logically manipulate a visuo-spatial image and answer questions on it or you can do it via visualisation.

That's only because you are not good at it, right?

"Reportedly"? "Around"?

Very convincing.

I have 186 iq and and 13