Thanks for the laugh. 160 is genius level. So what's your education and link us to some of your published papers?
Oh wait, that's right you're too busy posting on the forums all day.
IQ has little to do with achievement; one of the guys that almost always beat me out was, last time I heard from him, working as a garbageman up north (I forget which state or city) and perfectly happy as long as he could afford weed and movies and could think about whatever he wished while working. And he's no burnout, just not interested in stuff (or even sex, that I could ever tell in high school.) Motivation always trumps IQ, and common sense usually does.
I took buttloads of IQ tests starting in eighth grade, and depending on the test genius level usually started around 160 to 175. It might be different now, I don't know. IQ tests are notoriously unreliable, I scored all over the place, anywhere from below 120 to over 200. It's very, very difficult to devise an IQ test that doesn't make assumptions about what you know or concentrate on one narrow band of ability, especially for those given as a child. One of the first ones, which was over 200 (didn't give an exact number, everything above 180 or so was just a range depending on how many correct answers you provided) had questions that I knew from independent reading; I didn't have to figure them out, I already knew how to work them. All the rest, to some degree, had the same problem.
All that said, I think Palin is a reasonably sharp cookie, but I won't guess her IQ because I think those numbers are largely arbitrary and irrelevant. They say: "We think you may be gifted. Or retarded. Frankly we won't know which until we run some tests." That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about IQ tests and their reliability.