Tests Accepted for Admission to the Mega Society

The Mega Society accepts only the qualifying scores listed here for admission purposes. Please do not submit applications based on any other test scores. 

Timed, supervised IQ tests do not accurately measure at the one in a million level. For example, the range of the Stanford-Binet is 40–160,[1] which is four standard deviations of 15 about the mean of 100, so that a score of 160 corresponds to a population rarity of 1 in 30,000.[2] The Mega Society accepts members on the basis of untimed, unsupervised IQ tests that have been normalized using standard statistical methods.[3]  There is controversy over whether such tests measure the same thing as timed, supervised IQ tests.[4]

At the present time, the only tests accepted for admission to the Mega Society are:

* Email answer sheets to ultrapowertest@gmail.com. The scoring fee for each test is $10 USD, payable via Stripe.

For more information about these tests, see "High-IQ Societies and the Tests They Accept for Admission Purposes (Part 3)" and Darryl Miyaguchi's "Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests".

For more information, email Administrator Brian Wiksell at bwiksell@megasociety.org.

[1] Roid, Gale H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5), Fifth Edition. PRO-ED Inc.


[3] Hoeflin, Ronald K.. Mega Test Norms. Hoeflin's norming of the Mega and Titan tests extrapolating from reported scores on supervised, timed tests.

Membership Committee (1999). "1998/99 Membership Committee Report". The Prometheus Society.A committee of ten people including four psychologists found that the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test, the Mega Test, and the Titan Test are able to discriminate at the 4.75 sigma (one in a million) level.

Towers, Grady. Norming of the Mega Test. Grady Towers uses the Rasch model of item response theory to norm the Mega and Titan tests.

[4] Roger D. Carlson, Ph.D. (1991). Daniel J. Keyser, Ph.D., Richard C. Sweetland, Ph.D. (General Editors) Test Critiques, Volume VIII, PRO-ED, 431-435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. From the article:

Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, inventive, intellectually stimulating, and internally consistent, it violates many good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.