Post-160 Intelligence Ranking System

Revised Post-160 Intelligence Ranking System

Purpose

To rank individuals with exceptional cognitive ability (top ~0.1%, equivalent to ~350,000 people in a 350M US population) based on measurable outcomes, replacing unreliable metrics like ultra-high IQ scores (160+) or academic credentials. The system evaluates impact, employment, financial success, and leadership scope, with exemptions for roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, military generals).

Eligibility

• Individuals demonstrating exceptional cognitive ability through verifiable achievements (e.g., innovations, leadership in high-impact projects, or peer recognition in competitive fields).
• No reliance on academic credentials (e.g., degrees, publications) or IQ tests, due to their flaws (access bias, narrow scope, unreliability at extremes).
• Exclusions: Roles with diffuse authority (e.g., US President, 4-star generals) where direct reports don’t reflect impact. Such individuals are evaluated case-by-case based on outcomes.

Metrics and Weighting

Scores are calculated across four metrics, weighted to balance economic, social, and leadership impact. Each metric is normalized to a 0-100 scale to ensure fairness across domains.

Metric	Description	Weight	Normalization Method
Impact	Societal, economic, or technological contributions (e.g., lives affected, policy changes, patents with demonstrated use)	40%	Scaled by reach (e.g., 1M lives = 50 points, 100M = 100 points)
Employment	Number of people employed by the individual’s organization	20%	Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points)
Financial Success	Personal net worth or organization’s market capitalization/revenue	20%	Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points)
Direct Reports	Number of individuals directly managed	20%	Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points)

Scoring Formula

• Total Score = (Impact × 0.4) + (Employment × 0.2) + (Financial Success × 0.2) + (Direct Reports × 0.2)
• Maximum score: 100 points.

Data Verification

• Impact: Verified via public records, patent adoption data, or third-party impact assessments (e.g., economic studies, user adoption metrics). Academic publications only count if tied to measurable real-world outcomes.
• Employment: Confirmed through company filings (e.g., SEC reports, payroll data).
• Financial Success: Validated via audited financial statements or public market data.
• Direct Reports: Verified through organizational charts or HR records.
• Safeguards: Independent auditors review data to prevent manipulation (e.g., inflated employee counts).

Exemptions

Roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, generals like Westmoreland, or purely academic figureheads) are scored based on impact alone, capped at 80%

Individuals with demonstrated cognitive ability in the top 0.1% (e.g., via prior IQ tests ~150+, academic credentials, or equivalent achievements).
Exclusions: Roles with diffuse authority (e.g., US President, 4-star generals) where direct reports don’t reflect impact. Such individuals are evaluated case-by-case based on outcomes.

Metrics and Weighting
Scores are calculated across four metrics, weighted to balance economic, social, and leadership impact. Each metric is normalized to a 0-100 scale to ensure fairness across domains.

Metric
Description
Weight
Normalization Method

Impact
Societal, economic, or technological contributions (e.g., patents, policy changes, lives affected)
40%
Scaled based on estimated reach (e.g., 1M lives = 50 points, 100M = 100 points)

Employment
Number of people employed by the individual’s organization
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points)

Financial Success
Personal net worth or company market capitalization
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points)

Direct Reports
Number of individuals directly managed
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points)

Scoring Formula

Total Score = (Impact × 0.4) + (Employment × 0.2) + (Financial Success × 0.2) + (Direct Reports × 0.2)
Maximum score: 100 points.

Data Verification

Impact: Assessed via public records, patents, or third-party evaluations (e.g., economic analyses, user adoption metrics).
Employment: Verified through company filings (e.g., SEC reports, payroll data).
Financial Success: Confirmed via audited financial statements or public market data.
Direct Reports: Validated through organizational charts or HR records.
Safeguards: Independent auditors review data to prevent manipulation (e.g., inflated employee counts).

Exemptions

Roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, military generals like Westmoreland) are scored based on impact alone, with a cap at 80% of total score to reflect limited direct control.
Appeals process: Individuals can submit evidence for re-evaluation if excluded or misranked.

Example Rankings

Name
Impact (Score)
Employment (Score)
Financial Success (Score)
Direct Reports (Score)
Total Score

Tech CEO
5M users (80)
5,000 employees (80)
$2B market cap (90)
50 reports (70)
80.5

Scientist
10M lives impacted (90)
50 employees (40)
$5M grants (40)
5 reports (30)
64.0

Nonprofit Leader
50M lives impacted (100)
1,000 employees (70)
$10M budget (50)
20 reports (50)
78.0

Implementation

# Post-160 Intelligence Ranking System ## Purpose To rank individuals with exceptional cognitive ability (top ~0.1%, equivalent to IQ ~150+) based on measurable outcomes, replacing unreliable ultra-high IQ scores (160+). The system evaluates impact, employment, financial success, and leadership scope, with exemptions for roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, military generals). ## Eligibility – Individuals with demonstrated cognitive ability in the top 0.1% (e.g., via prior IQ tests ~150+, academic credentials, or equivalent achievements). – Exclusions: Roles with diffuse authority (e.g., US President, 4-star generals) where direct reports don’t reflect impact. Such individuals are evaluated case-by-case based on outcomes. ## Metrics and Weighting Scores are calculated across four metrics, weighted to balance economic, social, and leadership impact. Each metric is normalized to a 0-100 scale to ensure fairness across domains. | Metric | Description | Weight | Normalization Method | |——–|————-|——–|———————-| | Impact | Societal, economic, or technological contributions (e.g., patents, policy changes, lives affected) | 40% | Scaled based on estimated reach (e.g., 1M lives = 50 points, 100M = 100 points) | | Employment | Number of people employed by the individual’s organization | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points) | | Financial Success | Personal net worth or company market capitalization | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points) | | Direct Reports | Number of individuals directly managed | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points) | ### Scoring Formula – Total Score = (Impact × 0.4) + (Employment × 0.2) + (Financial Success × 0.2) + (Direct Reports × 0.2) – Maximum score: 100 points. ## Data Verification – Impact: Assessed via public records, patents, or third-party evaluations (e.g., economic analyses, user adoption metrics). – Employment: Verified through company filings (e.g., SEC reports, payroll data). – Financial Success: Confirmed via audited financial statements or public market data. – Direct Reports: Validated through organizational charts or HR records. – Safeguards: Independent auditors review data to prevent manipulation (e.g., inflated employee counts). ## Exemptions – Roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, military generals like Westmoreland) are scored based on impact alone, with a cap at 80% of total score to reflect limited direct control. – Appeals process: Individuals can submit evidence for re-evaluation if excluded or misranked. ## Example Rankings | Name | Impact (Score) | Employment (Score) | Financial Success (Score) | Direct Reports (Score) | Total Score | |——|—————-|——————–|————————–|———————–|————-| | Tech CEO | 5M users (80) | 5,000 employees (80) | $2B market cap (90) | 50 reports (70) | 80.5 | | Scientist | 10M lives impacted (90) | 50 employees (40) | $5M grants (40) | 5 reports (30) | 64.0 | | Nonprofit Leader | 50M lives impacted (100) | 1,000 employees (70) | $10M budget (50) | 20 reports (50) | 78.0 | ## Implementation – Administered by a neutral body (e.g., academic consortium or nonprofit). – Annual rankings published, with transparent methodology and appeal process. – Data sourced from public records, corporate filings, and verified self-reports. ## Notes – Logarithmic scaling prevents runaway scores from ultra-large organizations. – Impact metric prioritizes societal benefit to balance profit-driven metrics. – Regular updates to weights and criteria based on stakeholder feedback.

Notes

Logarithmic scaling prevents runaway scores from ultra-large organizations.
Impact metric prioritizes societal benefit to balance profit-driven metrics.
Regular updates to weights and criteria based on stakeholder feedback.