
An IQ upgrade (↑) / IQ downgrade (↓) icon, a ranking methodology used by genius studies scholar Libb Thims in doing adjusted IQ rankings of the world’s greatest 500 geniuses.

An IQ upgrade (↑) / IQ downgrade (↓) icon, a ranking methodology used by genius studies scholar Libb Thims in doing adjusted IQ rankings of the world’s greatest 500 geniuses.

In genius studies, IQ ranking methodology refers to the methods, e.g. Terman (1916), Cox (1926), Walberg (1981), Simonton (1983/2006), Buzan (1994/2005), Thims (2007/2013), etc., by which IQs are assigned to geniuses (140+ range) and thereby ranked accordingly and respectively.

Overview
The general method by which IQs are assigned and geniuses ranked in Hmolpedia is via the meta-analysis method, such as exemplified on the greatest mathematician ever page, a snippet of which is shown below, which explains how Euler and Gauss are respectively ranked, not necessarily by IQ, but respect to mathematical prowessness, according to 8+ different means of intellectual magnitude gauging and ranking studies:

Historically, the theory that one can assign a numerical value to one's level of relative brightness, began with the 1916 work of American psychologist Lewis Terman (see: IQ history), who affixed the numerical value of 140 and above, on his so-called "IQ scale", to geniuses. Originally, the method by which these numbers were calculated were done so via the Terman IQ formula, designed specifically to test of potential ability (or disability) in youth, therefore being an age ratio (see: ratio IQ) focused formula. Terman then applied his formula to geniuses of history, Francis Galton in particular, whom he assigned with an IQ of 200 (the first ever estimation at this level), reasoning that his formula methodology could be used to estimate (or guesstimate) the IQ of individuals of the past, based on their documented mental ability at a given sub-adulthood age relative to an adult; hence, eliminating the need to take an actual so-called "IQ test" to gauge discernment.

Galton
In 1869, English naturalist Francis Galton published his Hereditary Genius: an Enquiry into its Laws and Consequences, wherein he examined a “large body of fairly eminent men” and the “kindred of the most illustrious commanders, men of literature and of science, poets, painters, and musicians, of whom history speaks”, in attempts to show that genius is inherited. [1] Although Galton, it seems, doesn't given an actual "ranking", the date of publication of his book is sometimes cited as the start of the field of genius studies.

Cattell \| Top 10
1. Napoleon Bonaparte 2. William Shakespeare 3. Muhammad 4. Voltaire 5. Francis Bacon 6. Aristotle 7. Johann Goethe 8. Julius Caesar 9. Martin Luther 10. Plato

Cattell | Top 10

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. William Shakespeare
3. Muhammad
4. Voltaire
5. Francis Bacon
6. Aristotle
7. Johann Goethe
8. Julius Caesar
9. Martin Luther
10. Plato

Cattell
In 1894, American psychologist and science editor James Cattell undertook a monumentous so-called “big names” of history project in which analyzed name dominance in four biographical dictionaries: Lippincott’s Biographical Dictionary (American), Rose’s Biographical Dictionary (English), Le Dictionnaire de Biographie Generale (French); and two encyclopedias: The Encyclopedia Britannica (English) and Brockhaus Encyclopedia (German), to obtain a first draft listing of the top 6,000 names found therein, according to space allotted; he thereby then narrowed this list into a ranked-by-eminence listing of top thousand preeminent individuals of history, the truncated methodology of which Cattell describes as follows: [2]

“The method I followed to discover the 1,000 men who are preeminent was this: I took six biographical dictionaries or encyclopedias (Lippincott’s Biographical Dictionary, The Encyclopedia Britannica, Rose’s Biographical Dictionary, Le Dictionnaire de Biographie Generale, Beaugean’s Dictionnaire Biographique, and Brockhaus’ Conversationslexicon)—two English, two French, one German, and one American and found the two thousand men (approximately) in each who were allowed the longest articles. In this way some 6,000 men were found. I then selected the men who appeared in the lists of at least three of the dictionaries, and from these (some 1,600) selected the thousand who were allowed the greatest average space, the value of the separate dictionaries being reduced to a common standard. Thus was obtained not only the thousand men esteemed the most eminent, but also the order in which they stand.”

The result was the resulting list famously became known as the Cattell 1000. This list, in many respects parallels the so-called WorldCat 100 (below), the a cloud tag of the top 100 world authors by prominence of the 20 million "identities", found in the world’s libraries. A salient issue in Cattell's top ten is that Muhammad is not a real person, but rather a mythological aggregate; the same way the WorldCat 100 lists Jesus Christ, also not a real person, in the top ten.

Cox \| Top 10
1. Johann Goethe	210
2. Gottfried Leibnitz	205
3. Hugo Grotius	200
4. Thomas Wolsey	200
5. Blaise Pascal	195
6. Paolo Sharpi	195
7. Isaac Newton	190
8. Pierre Laplace	190
9. Voltaire	190
10. Thomas Schelling	190

Cox methodology
In the 1920s, American psychologist Lewis Terman, inventor of the modern IQ scale (1916), where 100 = average; 140 or above = genius, assigned his graduate student Catherine Cox to use his newly invented IQ scale to rank the top 300 most intelligent geniuses in the Cattell 1000, who lived (existed) in adulthood age during the years 1450 to 1850, and who achieved eminence on their own, as compared to eminence via inherited throne. The following is Cox's definition of IQ as far as it concerns geniuses:

“IQ is thought to be a measure which expresses the relative brightness or intelligence of any given individual.”

To make her list of geniuses, ranked by IQ, a team, led by Cox, in association with Terman, and psychologists Florence Goodenaugh and Kate Gordon developed a ranked list by reading through 1,500 biographies and to each genius independently assigning an estimated intelligence quotient, based on The Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, based on each individual’s life accomplishments and childhood abilities. The result was an 8,500-page report, part of Cox’s 1924 PhD dissertation, which was then truncated into the now-famous 824-page 1926 book Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. [3]

The ranked listing of IQs from this book has since been known as the Cox IQs, and has become a sort of first draft “genius IQs ruler” employed in genius studies.

Psychologist testing methodology
Into the early 20th century, psychologists began administering IQ tests to people. While some of these “intelligence testing” methods supposedly were done on the overt premise that such values would be useful in determining school and or job performance, or something along these lines, when it came to geniuses, calculated values often gave misguided results—calculations done being something akin to throwing darts upwards at clouds and in many cases done so with either far-low mis-calculation and or high-end estimation overzealousness.

French genius Henri Poincare did so poorly on the Binet IQ that he was judged an imbecile (IQ=35); though we now, correctly, rank him at IQ=195. Likewise, William Shockley, eponym of the Shockley diode, the co-inventor of the transistor, along with along with John Bardeen (double Nobel Prize winner) and Walter Brattain, who all received the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, at age 8 he scored IQ = 125 on the Stanford-Binet and 129 at age 9; these early IQ scores frustrated him, and he would later frequently joke about how he could win a Nobel Prize in physics, but not qualify for Terman’s gifted study. [15] The following, likewise, gives an example of overestimation:

“Helena Sidis told me that a few years before his death [1944], her brother [William Sidis] took an intelligence test with a psychologist. His score was the very highest that had ever been obtained. In terms of I.Q., the psychologist related that the figure would be between 250 and 300.”
— Abraham Sperling (1946), director of New York City's Aptitude Testing Institute [14]

In this latter example, Sperling, a psychologist, not being intellectually equipped to successfully judge the harder sciences which comprise the basis of Sidis self-defined magnum opus (The Animate and the Inanimate, 1920), subsequently makes a large incorrect overestimate. The same is the case for many so-called "certified genius" IQ test scores many boast about. Gauging, via a "test", of the so-called "genius" ranking of any given individual is a very grey area and in most cases a type of snake oil science, that for many is very lucrative, often playing on insecurities. In most cases, "geniuses", as Arthur Schopenhauer put it, tend to hit targets that "no one else can see" (see: forest blind), hence one can not put into writing (e.g. a test) something that has not yet been seen. Whatever the case, in some cases psychologist and or test based IQ calculations due tend to result in close to target estimations, one example being Christopher Hirata, estimated, supposedly by a psychologist (c.1999), with an IQ of 225 at age circa 16, who by no coincidence was drawn to the same subject (human chemical thermodynamics), as was Goethe, also estimated with an IQ of 225, by one of the psychologists of the Catherine Cox team (1926).

Walberg \| Word Count	Walberg \| Citation	Walberg \| IQ
1. Samuel Johnson	1. Rene Descartes	1. Johann Goethe	200
2. Martin Luther	2. Napoleon Bonaparte	2. Gottfried Leibniz	200
3. Rembrandt	3. Isaac Newton	3. Hugo Grotius	197
4. Leonardo da Vinci	4. Gottfried Leibniz	4. Blaise Pascal	192
5. Napoleon Bonaparte	5. Martin Luther	5. Paolo Sarpi	187
6. George Washington	6. Georg Hegel	6. Voltaire	185
7. Abraham Lincoln	7. Immanuel Kant	7. Giacomo Leopardi	185
8. Johann Goethe	8. Charles Darwin	8. Philipp Melanchthon	180
9. Isaac Newton	9. Galileo Galilei	9. Thomas Macaulay	180
10. Charles Dickens	10. Leonardo da Vinci	10. Jacques Bossuet	177

Walberg methodology
In 1981, American learning and education scholar Herbert Walberg, in association with Shiow-Ling Tsai, Thomas Weinstein, Cynthia Gabriel, Sue Rasher, Teresa Rosecrans, Evangelina Rovai, Judith Ide, Miguel Trujillo, and Peter Vukosavich, inclusive of a research team involving 76 scholars, expanded on the Cattell 1000 turned Cox IQ estimates by including additional estimate of eminence by counting the number of words in the primary biographical articles on each of the 282 persons in the 1935 New International Encyclopedia and the 1974 Encyclopedia, and listed top ten individuals by word count, citation, and IQ.

The 1974 top ten rankings by word count, citation, and IQ are shown adjacent. [4] In this three way grouping, we see Goethe holding about the same position in word count ranking, i.e. positions #7 (1894) and #8 (1974), respectively. The citation ranking is very interesting, wherein we see Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton climbing in ranking, which can be attributed to the "catch up effect", namely that it generally takes several centuries for deep thinkers to pass from high citation rank to high word count rank. These, word count aside, can be compared to Hmolpedia citation and IQ ranking (below).

Although Walberg and associates seem to be on target with a number of IQ estimates, e.g. Goethe, Leibniz, Voltaire, Pascal, give or take, they are way off in their IQ estimates of scientists, namely: Darwin, Newton, Descartes, Pascal, most of which nearly absurd, e.g. thinking that Newton was less intelligent that Descartes, whose shoulders he specifically said he built on; or that Albrecht and Pascal are smarter than both? The correct IQs of these four, for clarification sake (per genius IQs citation, are shown below):

Cox | 1926
Charles Darwin (165) Isaac Newton (190) Rene Descartes (180) Blaise Pascal (195)
Walberg | 1981 Charles Darwin (160) Isaac Newton (170) Rene Descartes (175) Blaise Pascal (192)
Buzan | 1994
Charles Darwin (163) Isaac Newton (195)
Rene Descartes (175) N/A
Thims | 2013
Charles Darwin (175) Isaac Newton (215) Rene Descartes (195) Blaise Pascal (190)

Cox \| 1926	Charles Darwin (165)	Isaac Newton (190)	Rene Descartes (180)	Blaise Pascal (195)
Walberg \| 1981	Charles Darwin (160)	Isaac Newton (170)	Rene Descartes (175)	Blaise Pascal (192)
Buzan \| 1994	Charles Darwin (163)	Isaac Newton (195)	Rene Descartes (175)	N/A
Thims \| 2013	Charles Darwin (175)	Isaac Newton (215)	Rene Descartes (195)	Blaise Pascal (190)

Suffice it to say that accurate IQ estimates of elite scientific genius may be beyond the acumen of the psychologist, who is limited by a lack of complete understanding of higher end subjects of the hard sciences; hence, mis-quesstimated IQs may often result.

Buzan \| Top 10
1. Leonardo da Vinci	220
2. Johann Goethe	215
3. William Shakespeare	210
4. Albert Einstein	205
5. Isaac Newton	195
6. Thomas Jefferson	195
7. Thomas Edison	195
8. Archimedes	190
9. Aristotle	190
10. Brunelleschi	190

Buzan methodology
In 1994, completely independent to the Cox study, Englishmen accelerated learning expert Tony Buzan and grand chess master and literature scholar Raymond Keene, in their Book of Genius, attempted to rank the hundred greatest geniuses of all-time using an eight category, 835-point, so-called genius scoring methodology, assigning points to different categories: dominance in the field (100), active longevity (100), polymath (100), versatility (100), strength and energy (100), IQ (100), ongoing influence (100), prolificness and achievement of prime goal (100), universality of vision (15), outstanding originality (10), deliberate desire to create teaching avenues or academies to further the genius’ ideas (10). The so-called “methodology” by which they assign IQs to their top 100 group, which they explain below, is rather haphazard: [5]

“As IQ is a significant factor in genius, we included it, and provided a sliding scale with a range of only 30 points. We assumed that each of our 100 geniuses would have comfortably been able to pass Mensa’s introductory tests, and therefore commenced with a minimum IQ of 140, which is basic genius level. Using a further sliding scale we awarded 70 points to an estimated IQ of 140, 88 points to an estimated IQ of 170 and 100 points to an estimated IQ of 190.”

This IQ listing of estimated IQs of geniuses is known as the Buzan IQs. Buzan and Keene comment on the Cox list (1926) in respect to their list (1994) in 2005 as follows: [6]

“It is interesting that the Cox analysis and our own totally independent inquiry both produce an identical number of IQ record holders of 180 or above. In Cox’s case 14; whilst we also identified 14!”

Simonton methodology
In the 1980s, American genius studies psychologist Dean Simonton began building on the work of Cox and in the decades to following began estimated IQs of geniuses (see: American presidents), using a similar type of methodology to Cox. [7] Some of Simonton’s estimation methodologies seem to have issues, e.g. he thinks that John Adams (IQ=173) was 13 IQ points brighter or smarter than Thomas Jefferson (IQ=160), in his estimate, which is not the case by a long shot (e.g. compare Buzan 195 IQ estimate above). [8]

Human Chemical Thermodynamicists \| IQ = 225+

Johann Goethe (1749-1832)	William Sidis (1898-1944)	Christopher Hirata (1982-)
Into 2006, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, while doing research in human chemical thermodynamics, kept coming across "thinkers" in this niche field cited with IQs in the 200 range, e.g. Voltaire or John Mill, or 225+ range, e.g. Goethe, Sidis, or Hirata, as shown above, and thereafter began to be curious just how many so-called "IQ: 200+" range geniuses there are, and so in 2007-2008 began to gather a personal folder of "cited" 200-range IQ geniuses, purely out of curiosity; and soon thereafter was "forced" into bringing some order to hodgepodge cracker jack science of ranking geniuses and calculating and or assigning people with genius IQs (140+).

Thims | Hmolpedia IQ rankings | Origin

See main: Why does Libb Thims make genius lists?

In 2006, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims discovered, via footnote 2.5 of Ilya Prigogine (Order Out of Chaos, 1984), “Goethe” the person he had been searching for, as the person to first apply chemical thermodynamic prediction theory to human relationships modeled as chemical reactions and sought after “intellectual twin” of sorts, for some eleven years, after which, via the Wikipedia article on Goethe, which prior to version 5:08, 10 Feb 2007 (Ѻ) had the following ending lead sentence with accompanying footnote:

“[Goethe] is widely considered to be one of the most important thinkers in Western culture, and is often cited as one of history's greatest geniuses.” [N1]
N1. Psychologist Catharine M. Cox, in her 1926 Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses, speculatively estimated Goethe's IQ at 210, the highest score that she assigned.

Thims took this "IQ at 210" citation factoid (highest of 300 geniuses); and also of the various page deletions and re-adds, and also talk page discussions of suggestions to remove (Ѻ) and to re-add (Ѻ) The so-called “idiotic ‘estimated IQ’ of Goethe, and its comparison with da Vinci's estimated IQ” (Ѻ) , as one anon American poster from Bloomington, Indian, put it.

In any event, by 24 Dec 2007, Thims had broken off from Wikipedia and began writing Hmolpedia, and soon thereafter, through research and writing of thinkers to have applied chemistry, thermodynamics, and or chemical thermodynamics to the questions of human existence and experience, puzzlingly, began to discover more cited to be 200+ IQ range geniuses: William Sidis (2008), IQ cited at 250-300, Christopher Hirata (2010), IQ cited at 225, and so therein began to be curious as to just how many of these so-called “IQ 200-range” geniuses there are? Sometime therein, following mental footnote notice of the Goethe-Sidis IQ=200+ citation commonality, a 15-person personal folder collection of newly discovered 200+ range geniuses (with citations) resulted, scan of list shown adjacent, ranked solely by descending order of cited IQ, each IQ estimate taken at face value:

Thims | IQcitation (2007)

Thims | IQcitation (2010)

→

1. Adragon De Mello [?]
2. Michael Kearney [?]
3. William Sidis
4. Terence Tao [?]
5. Marilyn Savant [?]
6. Christopher Hirata [?]
7. Johann Goethe
8. Leonardo da Vinci
9. Albert Einstein
10. William Shakespeare
11. Kim Ung-Yong [?]
12. Nathan Leopold [?]
13. Hypatia
14. Christopher Langan [?]
15. Emanuel Swedenborg

400
325 (age 4), 200 (age 14)
250-300 (age 42)
220-230 (age 11), 211
228 (age 10), 186 (age 40)
225 (age 16)
180, 210, 215, 225
80, 210, 220, 225
160, 200, 205, 225
210
200-210
200, 206-210
170-210
174, 195, 190-210
165, 205
American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' original circa 2007 personal folder listing collection of fifteen IQ=200+ range "cited" geniuses, ranked in descending order of IQ (assuming correctness of the given citation).
Thims' 2010 version of listing of people with IQs at or over 200 per purely descending order of citation estimate; at which point the list was becoming nonsensical.

Thims \| IQcitation (2007)		Thims \| IQcitation (2010)
	→	1. Adragon De Mello [?] 2. Michael Kearney [?] 3. William Sidis 4. Terence Tao [?] 5. Marilyn Savant [?] 6. Christopher Hirata [?] 7. Johann Goethe 8. Leonardo da Vinci 9. Albert Einstein 10. William Shakespeare 11. Kim Ung-Yong [?] 12. Nathan Leopold [?] 13. Hypatia 14. Christopher Langan [?] 15. Emanuel Swedenborg	400 325 (age 4), 200 (age 14) 250-300 (age 42) 220-230 (age 11), 211 228 (age 10), 186 (age 40) 225 (age 16) 180, 210, 215, 225 80, 210, 220, 225 160, 200, 205, 225 210 200-210 200, 206-210 170-210 174, 195, 190-210 165, 205
American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' original circa 2007 personal folder listing collection of fifteen IQ=200+ range "cited" geniuses, ranked in descending order of IQ (assuming correctness of the given citation).		Thims' 2010 version of listing of people with IQs at or over 200 per purely descending order of citation estimate; at which point the list was becoming nonsensical.

This was made into a 24 Mar 2008 (version 18) online listing of the now popular: "IQ: 200+" table. This list, being purely ranked at this point via highest IQ cited (no questions about method of calculation), began to grow. In 2009, the online list was made into a quickly-made 10-minute YouTube video entitled “IQ 200 | Smartest person ever”, containing about 18-individuals, getting about 30,000 views. At the point of 23 Feb 2010 (version 300) when American forced prodigy Adragon de Mello, with his age four IQ=400 citation (calculated by father), was added to the list, as shown above (right), it thereafter became completely nonsensical to rank purely via IQ citation number.


A portion of the "genius studies" books section of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' personal home library of circa 1,500 books.

A portion of the "genius studies" books section of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' personal home library of circa 1,500 books.

In other words, it makes one's head hurt to look at such an incongruent listing; something is amiss? It takes a little while to figure where the estimation errors are, but given time one finds out, e.g., that de Mello was a ratio estimate made by his overzealous father; the same for Kearney; Sidis, likewise, though not a ratio estimate, was made by an overzealous Abraham Sperling, director of New York City's Aptitude Testing Institute; though it is not as easy to dismiss Sidis until one, competent in science, mathematics, thermodynamics, evolution, and astronomy, and hmolscience in general, actually sits down and reads his greatest book The Animate and the Inanimate, in slow critique detail, wherein difficulties on theory become apparent, after which the veil of his apparent supergeniusness disappears, and his "real" (or true) IQ estimate drops down to 185±, if that, at best. A reality check is done on each, so to speak. Tao, likewise, is solely productive in mathematics, and so thus can be compared to the known established IQ estimates of the greatest mathematicians ever (e.g. the Gauss-Euler-Descartes IQ=195 level), and ranked accordingly. Savant famously used incorrect high school age test records to turn a 127 grade school test result IQ into a false 228 Guinness Book IQ.

The mental incongruency of this so-called "de Mello" add table was the "tipping point" that forced Thims into the practice of doing his own rankings and adjustments of known estimates, via meta-analysis reality-based up or down adjustments, based on a number of factors, merit being a large factor.

On 2 Apr 2010, the "IQ: 200(±) candidates page" was started to catch, collect, and analyze purported or recommended IQ=200+ range “candidates” suggested in YouTube forums, Hmolpedia threads, Internet or Google Book searches, or via other means.

On 19 Oct 2010, the first video was remade and "reranked" into the format of better-quality 52-minute four-part video series, containing 37-individuals, was uploaded to YouTube, having since attracted over 1.4 million total views: part one (848,000), part two (314,000), part three (112,000), part four (159,000), and some 4,200+ comments as of 18 Nov 2013.

On 6 Dec 2010, knowing that the 1926 Cox IQ estimate study and the 1994 Buzan IQ estimate study were each done independently, Thims took the mean of the IQs for all geniuses common to both studies, resulting in the Cox-Buzan IQ page, the top ten of which are shown below (left), a hardened genius IQ ruler of thumb for guesstimates of uncited geniuses.

Cox-Buzan \| Top 10		Hmolpedia \| Citation	Hmolpedia \| IQ
1. Johann Goethe	213	1. Johann Goethe	1. Johann Goethe	230
2. Leonardo da Vinci	200	2. Willard Gibbs	2. Albert Einstein	220
3. Gottfried Leibnitz	194	3. Rudolf Clausius	3. Isaac Newton	215
4. Isaac Newton	193	4. James Maxwell	4. James Maxwell	210
5. Galileo Galilei	183	5. Gilbert Lewis	5. Willard Gibbs	210
6. John Mill	183	6. Hermann Helmholtz	6. Rudolf Clausius	205
7. Rene Descartes	178	7. Isaac Newton	7. Gottfried Leibniz	200
8. Michelangelo	178	8. Ludwig Boltzmann	8. Galileo Galilei	200
9. Desiderius Erasmus	178	9. Sadi Carnot	9. Leonardo da Vinci	200
10. John Milton	177	10. Charles Darwin	10. Thomas Young	200

Genius IQs
On 24 Oct 2011, commentary, feedback, suggestion, and debate from the above growing collection of videos and online listings resulted in the genius IQs webpage, a meta-analysis merger of the 300 Cox IQ estimates, the 35 Walberg IQ estimates, the 100 Buzan IQ estimates, some of the Simonton IQ estimates (American President's IQs, etc.), among all other known IQ estimates, calculations, and or citations, which is presently aiming to rank the top 500 geniuses of all time in a realistic meta-analysis descending order of IQ, using the 23 mean Cox-Buzan IQ anchor point geniuses as relative reference points; the top ten of which (as of Nov 2013) shown adjacent, along with the top ten names in Hmolpedia citation ranking. These can be compared to the similar 1974 Encyclopedia Britannica rankings (above).

On 21 Jun 2012, the “genius IQ candidates” page was started as a means to collect and analyze suggested candidates and or newly found geniuses, e.g. via literature, reading, or videos, etc., prior to their possible or tentative add to the main genius IQs page.

In 2012-2013, many Hmolpedia articles began listing IQs on various pages of certain historical figures, for point of reference, linking to the genius IQs page. Threads below all of these Hmolpedia pages (~100±) and in YouTube forums (4,200+ comments) have since generated a certain amount of discussion.

Thims | Hmolpedia methodology | Criterion
In regards to “criterion” and ranking “methodology”, some of this has been outlined on the “IQ: 200+” page, the “genius IQs” page (to a good extent), and discussed in overview on the “genius” page. This specific page, started on 18 Nov 2013, was initiated to give some focus to overall genius ranking, whether be it the top 500 geniuses of all time, the top 50 living (existive) geniuses of a given year, or whatever genius be in question of ranking protocol. The following to quotes give some overall guidance in respect to relative ranking of geniuses in respect to each other:

“I have little patience for [thinkers] who take on a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes when the drilling is easy.”
— Albert Einstein (c.1940), recalled by Philipp Frank [11]

“A person who writes so much must spread his message rather thin.”
— Willard Gibbs (c.1901), comment to Edwin Wilson on uncut (unread) books

To go through one example, people will sometimes ask: who was smarter: Nikola Tesla or Thomas Edison? The following, for instance, is a 2012-launched poll at RRRater.com, which as of 19 Nov 2013 had 255 votes: (Ѻ)

Poll results showed that 59 percent of people believed Tesla to have been smarter than Edison. General opinion therefore might reason that among the top 100 greatest geniuses of all time that Tesla might fall in at a respective position of #40 and Edison at #60, or something along these lines. Yet when we look at the Hmolpedia stats on both, we see a clearer picture:

Nikola Tesla
(1856-1943)
HCR=59
Patents: 700
WPlinks: 3,000+
WParticle: 21-pages
$IQ_O \,$ =230-310
$IQ_O \,$ =200
$IQ_O \,$ =140-160 [GEE]; known for: defunct life theory, electricity, magnetism, human energy, radio technology, alternating current, electromagnetic motors; adhered to a Goethean philosophy, to the exclusion of all other philosophies.
Thomas Edison
(1847-1931)
HCR=7
Patents: 2,300
WPlinks: 2,500+
WParticle: 13-pages
$IQ_B \,$ =195 [GEE]; invented: practical light bulb, phonograph, and motion picture camera; and originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories.

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) HCR=59 Patents: 700 WPlinks: 3,000+ WParticle: 21-pages	$IQ_O \,$ =230-310 $IQ_O \,$ =200 $IQ_O \,$ =140-160	[GEE]; known for: defunct life theory, electricity, magnetism, human energy, radio technology, alternating current, electromagnetic motors; adhered to a Goethean philosophy, to the exclusion of all other philosophies.		Thomas Edison (1847-1931) HCR=7 Patents: 2,300 WPlinks: 2,500+ WParticle: 13-pages	$IQ_B \,$ =195	[GEE]; invented: practical light bulb, phonograph, and motion picture camera; and originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories.

Here we see much trait overlap: both were greatest engineers ever [GEE], Edison (#2) ranked higher than Tesla (#8), according to EngineeringDaily.net, both were primarily in the field of electrical engineering, and both strangely had milk-focused diets: Tesla lived (existed) on milk, and for many years, and Edison's only foods were milk and the occasional glass of orange juice, as Clifford Pickover reports, the reason being, supposedly for calcium brain cell content and myelin sheath function increase factors. [12]

The "biggest" discernment factor between the two, however, is Hmolpedia citation ranking [HCR] count, Tesla cited on 59 Hmolpedia pages, Edison on at most seven Hmolpedia pages (nearly all of which being genius-related pages, none having to do with content or discussion of work). In other words, Tesla didn't just spend time inventing thing, he was also focused on some of the "deeper" questions of human existence, experience, and meaning. HCR ranking is a strong indicator of IQ estimation, though not precisely, variations existing per person. Likewise, more internal Wikipedia pages link (WPlinks) to Tesla (3,000+) than to Edison (2,500+), which means his work is being discussed more at Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has more pages, in printed article length, 21 versus 13 pages, devoted to Tesla than to Edison.

If we compare IQ estimates, both are comparable, Buzan assigns Edison with an IQ of 195, whereas three other spurious citations assign Tesla with an IQ between 140 to 310. Some of these high end estimates attributed to Tesla, to note, seem to come from his overzealous fan following, which is large. To exemplify, the following are the so-called "missing candidates" discussed in the threads/forums in regards to the IQ:200+ page/video collected up till May 2012:

Tesla (57 votes)
Euler (3), Feynman (3), Poincare (2), Kant (1), Ramanujan (1), etc.

TheTopTens.com
1. Nikola Tesla	955+
2. Albert Einstein	307+
3. Leonardo da Vinci	356+
4. Adolf Hitler	3,327+
5. Isaac Newton	347+
6. Galileo Galilei	76+
7. Stephen Hawking	123+
8. Charles Darwin	129+
9. Benjamin Franklin	58+
10. Pythagoras	57+
11. Aristotle	13+
12. William Shakespeare	17+
13. Mahatma Gandhi	24+
14. Johann Goethe	11+
15. Karl Marx	26+
16. Wolfgang Mozart	16+
17. Archimedes	25+
18. Ludwig Beethoven	11+
19. Solomon	7+
20. Plato	16+

More ranking input comes from the TheTopTens.com ongoing ranking of “Top 10 Smartest People in History”, which according to commentary thumbs up voting ranks Tesla (#1) and Edison (#247) out of 269 Top Ten candidates currently (19 Nov 2013), as shown below: [13]

In other words, while both Edison and Tesla were renouned electrical inventors and are often compared to each other as combating genius peers of sorts; yet when raw intellectual power comes into question, in comparison of the two, Edison drilled more holes in easier wood (spread his focus over 2,300+ patents and was focused more on money), whereas Tesla drilled in harder wood (e.g. defunct theory of life, read 100 volumes of Voltaire, so to master the "beast" as he put it, thought up alternating current while reciting a poem of Goethe’s, gave his patents away without concern for monetary reward, etc.) and not just in the wood of electrical invention, but also in the deeper philosophical woods of the uncharted forests.


The 19 Nov 2013 ranking position of Tesla (#20) in genius IQ rankings, above Majorana (#21) but below Descartes (#19); once into the top 20 all-time geniuses, ranking methodology becomes complex.

The 19 Nov 2013 ranking position of Tesla (#20) in genius IQ rankings, above Majorana (#21) but below Descartes (#19); once into the top 20 all-time geniuses, ranking methodology becomes complex.

So while they were both “sharp” geniuses, using the “harder wood” (Einstein) + “focused message” (Gibbs) idiom, we are cogently able to rank Edison (#94) and Tesla (#20), current rankings (19 Nov 2013), shown adjacent.

Other methodologies are used beyond this; and ranking ups and downs accrues likewise for other geniuses.

The following 15 Nov 2013 commentary, on the 19 Oct 2010 IQ:200+ video series, by YouTuber Gottfried Leibniz, gives indication as to call for written details of genius IQ assignment and ranking methodology: (Ѻ)

“I notice the person/people who posted these videos ask(s) for suggestions. Was this list created by a democratic process? If so, who truly believes that intelligence is a popularity contest? What criteria really produced this ranking? The narrator makes numerous mispronunciation errors. How can someone so poorly versed in such matters rate himself worthy of creating such a list? Indeed, no one should do so.The first problem is that intelligence must be well-defined before it can be measured. If we use Galton's method for calculating IQ then we concede we are only estimating norms in order to figure into the equation. Yet, it becomes a kind of circular logic to estimate one person's IQ based on estimates of others ONLY.

If we claim that breadth of knowledge across all fields is a strong factor for our determination of high intelligence then I agree that von Goethe [IQ=230] (with his immense vocabulary) qualifies as the highest in this regard. For artistic creativity, Da Vinci [IQ=200] reigns supreme. However, if we choose to measure intelligence by the vastness of complexity that is required in order to maintain within the mind each candidates grandest brainchild instantiations then James Maxwell [IQ=210] has demonstrated the greatest ability in this regard. His gigantic conceptions of the structure of mathematical relationships which exist in the physical world are phenomenal. By the way, those "Maxwell" equations which appear in the video are a simplified (notational as well as conceptual) version of Maxwell's original 17 equations. The loss in the translation was a disservice to Maxwell, but was altered by others [Oliver Heaviside, IQ=195] because most mortals could not conceive of the grandiose perfection within Maxwell's originals.”

As for general criteria, meta-analysis comparison of cited IQs aside, all geniuses are measured up against the following general bench marks:

● 50 greatest polymaths ● Another Newton ● Cattell 1000 ● Catch up effect ● Cox IQ ● Cox-Buzan IQ ● Buzan IQ ● Early parental death and genius ● Epicenter genius ● Genius IQs	● Genius IQ candidates ● Greatest chemist ever ● Greatest engineer ever ● Greatest mathematician ever ● Greatest literary author ever ● Greatest philosopher ever ● Greatest physicist ever ● Greatest thermodynamicist ever ● Guinness Book IQ ● Hard science	● Hmolscience citation ranking ● Humanities citation ranking ● IQ: 150+ \| Smartest woman ever ● IQ: 200+ ● IQ: 225+ ● IQ history ● Last person to know everything ● Last universal genius ● Magnitude geniuses ● Military geniuses ● Nobel Prize winners in thermodynamics	● Political geniuses ● Polymath ● American Presidents \| IQ rankings ● Scientific geniuses ● Smartest person ever ● Smartest person alive \| existive ● Two cultures genius \| Two cultures ● Universal genius ● Uber genius comparison quotes ● Uberman ● Walking encyclopedia

● 50 greatest polymaths
● Another Newton
● Cattell 1000
● Catch up effect
● Cox IQ
● Cox-Buzan IQ
● Buzan IQ
● Early parental death and genius
● Epicenter genius
● Genius IQs

● Genius IQ candidates
● Greatest chemist ever
● Greatest engineer ever
● Greatest mathematician ever
● Greatest literary author ever
● Greatest philosopher ever
● Greatest physicist ever
● Greatest thermodynamicist ever
● Guinness Book IQ
● Hard science

● Hmolscience citation ranking
● Humanities citation ranking
● IQ: 150+ | Smartest woman ever
● IQ: 200+
● IQ: 225+
● IQ history
● Last person to know everything
● Last universal genius
● Magnitude geniuses
● Military geniuses
● Nobel Prize winners in thermodynamics

● Political geniuses
● Polymath
● American Presidents | IQ rankings
● Scientific geniuses
● Smartest person ever
● Smartest person alive | existive
● Two cultures genius | Two cultures
● Universal genius
● Uber genius comparison quotes
● Uberman
● Walking encyclopedia

Thims | Hmolpedia IQ rankings | Rater credentials

See main: Libb Thims (genius ranking)

In respect to “rater” credentials, namely in respect to the questioning of the intellectual capacity of Hmolpedia/HumanChemistry101 IQ list maker, organizer, and ranker Libb Thims, a short answer to this semi-common query is that while historically genius IQs have been assigned by teams of psychologists collecting lists of name predominance in biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias and thereafter attempting to rank or assign estimated or guesstimate—an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculation—Thims first wrote his own encyclopedia, namely Hmolpedia (6-volumes as of 2013), inclusive of over 1,000+ biographical entries, of all the "big thinkers" over time to have gone after the "big questions" of human existence and experience, from a physical science point anchored of view, and thereby has an “intuitive” sense as to how the majority of all big name geniuses modern and in history rank in respect to each other, in short. In response to a specific query such as: "How can someone so poorly versed in such matters [as name pronunciation] rate himself worthy of creating such a list?" (above), the following bullet point opinions may give some guidance:

Polymathy Quote: “Thims’ edits are far and wide. Unless Physchem is an incredible polymath, I doubt he would be able to pick up on all the BS a Thims-type editor introduces. That’s not knocking Physchem, I don’t think there is anyone who could deal with the range” (Keith Henson, 2007);
Genius Quote: “I stumbled onto your website by accident but I have to confess this might be one of the most stunning undiscovered intellectual achievements of the 21st century. I have browsed through your wiki and I cannot express how tragic it must be to a man in your position—to be a pioneering thinker yet to be rejected by an uptight academic community with neither the depth nor will to understand your unique work, defending their own turf like dogs. I can only compare you to the many other pioneering heroes of science, Newton (IQ=215), Einstein (IQ=220), Tesla (IQ=195), men (IQAVG = 210) who like you blazed their own paths but were too victims of their own genius, only to be validated years after their death. Perhaps one day historians will look back and have a chuckle—that the pioneer of enthropology published by a vanity press in a book resembling a third rate romance” (Steven Pierce, 2009)
Oracle Quote: “Thims: the great oracle and developer of human thermodynamics—the philosophical revolution of the 21st century. A genius of outstanding stature and originator of many concepts in human chemistry” (Mark Janes, 2011)
IQ Quote:“I think the [Thims] has the highest IQ [ever].” (alphawolf099, 2012)
Encyclopedic Quote: “Thims is [a walking] encyclopedia of human thermodynamics.” (Milivoje Kostic, 2013) [9]
Library Total: 1,500+ books

→ thermodynamics: 360+, mate selection: 140+, religio-mythology: 85+, medicine: 100+, neuroscience: 50, general non-fiction (100s), general science (100s), etc.
Publications Total: 10+ volumes

→ one journal
→ one book, one two-volume textbook, and six-volume encyclopedia (over 1,000+ biographies)
→ unfinished manuscripts, drafts, articles, video, lectures, etc.

Polymathy	Quote: “Thims’ edits are far and wide. Unless Physchem is an incredible polymath, I doubt he would be able to pick up on all the BS a Thims-type editor introduces. That’s not knocking Physchem, I don’t think there is anyone who could deal with the range” (Keith Henson, 2007);
Genius	Quote: “I stumbled onto your website by accident but I have to confess this might be one of the most stunning undiscovered intellectual achievements of the 21st century. I have browsed through your wiki and I cannot express how tragic it must be to a man in your position—to be a pioneering thinker yet to be rejected by an uptight academic community with neither the depth nor will to understand your unique work, defending their own turf like dogs. I can only compare you to the many other pioneering heroes of science, Newton (IQ=215), Einstein (IQ=220), Tesla (IQ=195), men (IQAVG = 210) who like you blazed their own paths but were too victims of their own genius, only to be validated years after their death. Perhaps one day historians will look back and have a chuckle—that the pioneer of enthropology published by a vanity press in a book resembling a third rate romance” (Steven Pierce, 2009)
Oracle	Quote: “Thims: the great oracle and developer of human thermodynamics—the philosophical revolution of the 21st century. A genius of outstanding stature and originator of many concepts in human chemistry” (Mark Janes, 2011)
IQ	Quote:“I think the [Thims] has the highest IQ [ever].” (alphawolf099, 2012)
Encyclopedic	Quote: “Thims is [a walking] encyclopedia of human thermodynamics.” (Milivoje Kostic, 2013) [9]
Library	Total: 1,500+ books → thermodynamics: 360+, mate selection: 140+, religio-mythology: 85+, medicine: 100+, neuroscience: 50, general non-fiction (100s), general science (100s), etc.
Publications	Total: 10+ volumes → one journal → one book, one two-volume textbook, and six-volume encyclopedia (over 1,000+ biographies) → unfinished manuscripts, drafts, articles, video, lectures, etc.

Beyond these snippets, a near complete biographical of Thims would be required, but one as such at the present is beyond the scope of the current objective, which is the past time of ranking geniuses, learning something along the way, and possibly teaching others something in the process. The bottom line, ranking procedures aside, is that Thims can "feel" the rankings in his head, off rankings, up or down from an incorrect position make bring about an ache or throbbing of sorts in Thims' head; when the correct position is reached the ache subsides.

Smartest person alive | Existive
On 22 Jul 2013, as a sort of carry over from the ubiquity of thread and forum candidate recommendations of actual "living" (existive) people who some deem worthy of either a genius IQ ranking and or a IQ: 200+ ranking, some (e.g. Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking, etc.) being cited independently multiple times, that Thims launched the "smartest person alive | existive" page, with current aims to make an annual (end-of-year) video series: Smartest person alive | existive (2013), Smartest person alive | existive (2014), etc., out of it.

Possibly, some further ranking methodology will be added as this latter process ensues.

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“My IQ is somewhere between Dr. Seuss, who in 1931 claimed an IQ of H2SO4, and Dr. Faustus, who in 1514 sold his soul to the devil for truth, knowledge, and power; the embodiment of the latter found in the mind of Goethe, who in 1809 professed that he and his wife were like CaCO3 (limestone), who when put into contact with H2SO4 (Captain) have no “choice” but to debond, and who in 1926 [Cox] became the first ever person ranked with an IQ of 225.”
— Libb Thims (2013), reply to query by Paul Rael, Aug [16]

“I think [Thims] is a pretty cool guy, he ranks IQ and doesn’t get afraid of anything [or] official IQ rankings. Why do people get so worked up over IQ? Because they’re scared little monkeys.”
— IJustWantToSignIn (2013), comment (Ѻ) on IQ 200+ | Smartest person ever (4 of 4), Nov 10

See also
● Who was smarter?

References
1. Galton, Francis. (1869). Hereditary Genius: an Enquiry into its Laws and Consequences (abs). MacMillan and Co.
2. Cattell, James McKeen. (1894). “A Statistical Study of Eminent Men”, statistics of paper presented to the American Psychological Association Dec.; abstract published in the Psychological Review, Mar., 1895; read in present form as a lecture before the Philosophical Club of Yale University, 1897; Popular Science Monthly (1903), 62: 359-77.
3. (a) Cox, Catherine. (1924). “On the Early Mental Development of a Group of Eminent Men”, dissertation/thesis. Stanford University.
(b) Cox, Catharine, M. (1926). Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses (Genetic Studies of Genius Series). Stanford Univ Press.
4. Walberg, Herbert J. Tsai, Shiow-Ling, Weinstein, Thomas, Gabriel, Cynthia L., Rasher, Sue, P. Roesecrans, Teresa, Rovai, Evangelina, Ide, Judith, Trujillo, Miguel, and Vukosavich, Peter. (1981). “Childhood Traits and Environmental Conditions of Highly Eminent Adults”, Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3):103-07.
5. Buzan, Tony and Keene, Raymond. (1994). Book of Genius (methodology, pg. 235). Stanley Paul.
6. Buzan, Tony and Keene, Raymond. (2005). Buzan’s Book of Mental World Records (IQ table: World’s top 14 all-time highest IQs (180-220), pg. 31). D&B Publishing.
7. (a) Simonton, Dean. (1991). “When Giftedness Becomes Genius: How Does Talent Achieve Eminence?”, in: Handbook of Gifted Education (pg. 343); editors: Nicholas Colangelo and Gary A. Davis. Allyn and Bacon.
(b) Simonton, Dean K. (1994). Greatness: Who Makes History and Why (pgs. 224-25). Guilford Press.
(c) Simonton, Dean K. (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity (pg. 130). Oxford University Press.
(d) Simonton, Dean K. (2002). Great Psychologists and Their Times (Table 9.2). APA Books.
(e) Dean Simonton (faculty) – University of California, Davis.
8. Simonton, Dean K. (2006). “Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives” (pdf), Political Psychology, 27(4):511-26.
9. (a) Kostic, Milivoje. (2013). “Introduction of Speaker Comments”, in: full video (time: ), Apr 16.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2013). “A Guidemap to Human Chemical Thermodynamics: Goethe's Elective Affinities to Human Free Energies” (abs) (NIU announcement) (cover) (main) (full video) (abs video), Lecture to mechanical engineering thermodynamics students (professor: Milivoje Kostic), Northern Illinois University (NIU), Apr 16.
10. Forum comment (2012): 34 thumbs up votes in three weeks (YouTube: "IQ: 200+ | Smartest person ever"

); vote rate: one thumbs up every 175 views (1.6 days)).
11. Einstein, Albert (c.1940). “Recalled by Philipp Frank” (Ѻ), in: “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3): 349-55, Jul.
12. (a) Top 10 remarkable engineers of all time – EngineeringDaily.net.
(b) Pickover, Clifford A. (1998). Strange Brains and Genius: the Secret Lives of Eccentric Scientists and Madman (pg. 70). Quill.
13. Ten Smartest People in History – TheTopTens.com.
14. Sperling, Abraham. (1946). “A Story of Genius” (pgs. 322-339), in Psychology for the Millions, F. Fell.
15. Shurkin, Joel. (2006). Broken Genius: the Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the Electronic Age (pg. #). Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Thims, Libb. (2013). Query: “Who are you, a professor somewhere? And what is your IQ?”; asked (Ѻ) by Paul Rael, Aug.