Revised Post-160 Intelligence Ranking System<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roles with indirect management (e.g., US President, generals like Westmoreland, or purely academic figureheads) are scored based on impact alone, capped at 80%<\/p>\n\n\n\n Individuals with demonstrated cognitive ability in the top 0.1% (e.g., via prior IQ tests ~150+, academic credentials, or equivalent achievements). Metrics and Weighting Metric Impact Employment Financial Success Direct Reports Scoring Formula<\/p>\n\n\n\n Total Score = (Impact \u00d7 0.4) + (Employment \u00d7 0.2) + (Financial Success \u00d7 0.2) + (Direct Reports \u00d7 0.2) Data Verification<\/p>\n\n\n\n Impact: Assessed via public records, patents, or third-party evaluations (e.g., economic analyses, user adoption metrics). Exemptions<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. Example Rankings<\/p>\n\n\n\n Name Tech CEO Scientist Nonprofit Leader Implementation<\/p>\n\n\n\n # Post-160 Intelligence Ranking System\n\n## Purpose\nTo 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).\n\n## Eligibility\n– Individuals with demonstrated cognitive ability in the top 0.1% (e.g., via prior IQ tests ~150+, academic credentials, or equivalent achievements).\n– Exclusions: Roles with diffuse authority (e.g., US President, 4-star generals) where direct reports don\u2019t reflect impact. Such individuals are evaluated case-by-case based on outcomes.\n\n## Metrics and Weighting\nScores 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.\n\n| Metric | Description | Weight | Normalization Method |\n|——–|————-|——–|———————-|\n| 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) |\n| Employment | Number of people employed by the individual\u2019s organization | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points) |\n| Financial Success | Personal net worth or company market capitalization | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points) |\n| Direct Reports | Number of individuals directly managed | 20% | Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points) |\n\n### Scoring Formula\n– Total Score = (Impact \u00d7 0.4) + (Employment \u00d7 0.2) + (Financial Success \u00d7 0.2) + (Direct Reports \u00d7 0.2)\n– Maximum score: 100 points.\n\n## Data Verification\n– Impact: Assessed via public records, patents, or third-party evaluations (e.g., economic analyses, user adoption metrics).\n– Employment: Verified through company filings (e.g., SEC reports, payroll data).\n– Financial Success: Confirmed via audited financial statements or public market data.\n– Direct Reports: Validated through organizational charts or HR records.\n– Safeguards: Independent auditors review data to prevent manipulation (e.g., inflated employee counts).\n\n## Exemptions\n– 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.\n– Appeals process: Individuals can submit evidence for re-evaluation if excluded or misranked.\n\n## Example Rankings\n| Name | Impact (Score) | Employment (Score) | Financial Success (Score) | Direct Reports (Score) | Total Score |\n|——|—————-|——————–|————————–|———————–|————-|\n| Tech CEO | 5M users (80) | 5,000 employees (80) | $2B market cap (90) | 50 reports (70) | 80.5 |\n| Scientist | 10M lives impacted (90) | 50 employees (40) | $5M grants (40) | 5 reports (30) | 64.0 |\n| Nonprofit Leader | 50M lives impacted (100) | 1,000 employees (70) | $10M budget (50) | 20 reports (50) | 78.0 |\n\n## Implementation\n– Administered by a neutral body (e.g., academic consortium or nonprofit).\n– Annual rankings published, with transparent methodology and appeal process.\n– Data sourced from public records, corporate filings, and verified self-reports.\n\n## Notes\n– Logarithmic scaling prevents runaway scores from ultra-large organizations.\n– Impact metric prioritizes societal benefit to balance profit-driven metrics.\n– Regular updates to weights and criteria based on stakeholder feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notes<\/p>\n\n\n\n Logarithmic scaling prevents runaway scores from ultra-large organizations. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14\/revisions\/18"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pkveteran.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Metric<\/th> Description<\/th> Weight<\/th> Normalization Method<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Impact<\/td> Societal, economic, or technological contributions (e.g., lives affected, policy changes, patents with demonstrated use)<\/td> 40%<\/td> Scaled by reach (e.g., 1M lives = 50 points, 100M = 100 points)<\/td><\/tr> Employment<\/td> Number of people employed by the individual\u2019s organization<\/td> 20%<\/td> Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points)<\/td><\/tr> Financial Success<\/td> Personal net worth or organization\u2019s market capitalization\/revenue<\/td> 20%<\/td> Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points)<\/td><\/tr> Direct Reports<\/td> Number of individuals directly managed<\/td> 20%<\/td> Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Scoring Formula<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Data Verification<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Exemptions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Exclusions: Roles with diffuse authority (e.g., US President, 4-star generals) where direct reports don\u2019t reflect impact. Such individuals are evaluated case-by-case based on outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Description
Weight
Normalization Method<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Number of people employed by the individual\u2019s organization
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., 100 employees = 50 points, 10,000 = 100 points)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Personal net worth or company market capitalization
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., $10M = 50 points, $1B = 100 points)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Number of individuals directly managed
20%
Logarithmic scale (e.g., 10 reports = 50 points, 100 = 100 points)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maximum score: 100 points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appeals process: Individuals can submit evidence for re-evaluation if excluded or misranked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Impact (Score)
Employment (Score)
Financial Success (Score)
Direct Reports (Score)
Total Score<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5M users (80)
5,000 employees (80)
$2B market cap (90)
50 reports (70)
80.5<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10M lives impacted (90)
50 employees (40)
$5M grants (40)
5 reports (30)
64.0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
50M lives impacted (100)
1,000 employees (70)
$10M budget (50)
20 reports (50)
78.0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Impact metric prioritizes societal benefit to balance profit-driven metrics.
Regular updates to weights and criteria based on stakeholder feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n