I on the other hand simply mark the cuntlet down as moron-once-removed and move on ; because the important point about IQ tests nobody seems to ever tell the precious cuntlets of great intelligence & evident import is that... it's an industrial fucking measure. Its design domain and intended utility have to do with the mass handling of mass humans, generally for purposes to do with the military-industrial complex. IQ is measured to sort the morons sufficiently moronic to be found interacting with that chumpatron in classes of moronicity, so as to avoid giving rifles to anyone who'll end up shooting your gunnery sgts and to predict what sort of needs a regiment-sized assemblage of them is likely going to present. "Just how fucking stupid are these idiots" is the problem IQ tests attempt to solve.

Unsurprisingly enough then it's about as meaningful to measure IQ past the hundred as it is meaningful to measure any other healthiness of people -- like persay have a 160 L[iver]Q[uotient] or K[idney]Q[uotient]on the basis of platelet function or creatinine clearing so remarkably average as to be 1.6 times average-er than those of an average sample etcetera. You can't have a liver better than in good working order, and you can't meaningfully have an IQ over 100, irrespective of what the "global warming"-style pseudoscientists misunderstand their numberic method as.

That said, and thereby bearing in mind that the meaning of two digit IQ is both very well documented and extremely well understood (while the meaning of three digit IQ is entirely imaginary), an IQ of 59 promises you that you'll be dealing with an broadly educable individual who can learn to care for himself, and who can therefore be employed in work with a very high routine factor, as long as direct supervision is available. He's perfect for teamwork and gangwork, such as unloading ships, picking fruit, etcetera. He might do okay cleanning floors, especially in open space plans, selling movie tickets or highway tokens (as one of multiple booths) and so on. He might be able to live alone but will probably do best in some kind of supervised arrangement. There's generally no directly obvious genetic or brain damage causing low intelligence, just "normal variation".

The individual you have in mind, bedridden and completely dependent, is generally in the 30 and below range -- almost always with abundant co-morbidities which generally make it physically impossible for him to complete tasks even if he were cognitively capable of managing them.

This said, it is indeed strictly impossible to prevent any individual from scoring anywhere on the scale between 0 and his "actual" (or rather, maximal) IQ, for the obvious fucking reason discussed both by the original article and in footnotes.

This is the major weakness of the premise of "IQ test", even in its traditional application (measuring stupidity) -- it is quite unlike e.g. fingerprint, you can get four strong men to hold down a prisoner to get his fingerprint, but who can do this for test with puzzles? If someone doesn't want to solve, he won't. Even when solving doesn't lead directly to electric chair, lol, but simply (like most prisoners, and for that matter children) "can't be arsed."