That is a very bad error to report a result that is a function of some arbitrary feature of your transformation. You are anchored to average being 100 for IQ but it's not clear what should be regarded as "very high" or "very low." I suppose you could use increments anywhere between 1 and 10. Someone could reasonably see the far right box as the smartest people alive. I think that an IQ of 120 - 130 could arguably be regarded as "very high" too.
A better way to estimate iq is to use percentiles: In a group of 100 random persons, how many of them are you smarter than?
Jesus. How does this pass peer review? It took you, what, all of 2 minutes to see their flawed methodology?
That is a very bad error to report a result that is a function of some arbitrary feature of your transformation. You are anchored to average being 100 for IQ but it's not clear what should be regarded as "very high" or "very low." I suppose you could use increments anywhere between 1 and 10. Someone could reasonably see the far right box as the smartest people alive. I think that an IQ of 120 - 130 could arguably be regarded as "very high" too.