Well /sci/ does intelligence have unlimited potential or beyond a certain point just a matter of scale rather than capability?

>>16722176 (OP)
in terms of differentiating between scores, that's purely reliant on statistics, and most tests are such that 160 (+4SD) is the point beyond which scores are so poorly populated it's impossible to meaningfully differentiate/rank them. if someone has an IQ of 500, you have to argue that they necessarily beat basically everyone who ever lived or who will live. you'd have to make the argument that they'd beat a hypothetical 300 IQ person, or a hypothetical 180 IQ person, all without having any data to support what a person of either profile would look like.
>captcha: M4RRY

>>16722176 (OP)
if iq measures what you can know, iq is useless
knowing things isn't what makes you smart
using things in the best way makes you smart
knowing trigonometry while hungry is not smart
smart people make knowledge because they need it for a problem
stupid people cling to knowledge without having the problem, because they think the knowledge made the other person smart
it's really not about knowledge at all
you're just too fucking "le smart" to get it