EPTThe World's Smartest Man(IQ 200) - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:11 Servolisk wrote: I'm 90% sure it is just a coincidence :O At first I thought the same thing, and was going to make a post commenting on the irony of her last name. Then I thought that it was probably more likely that the terms originated from her famous and incredibly high IQ. *shrug* | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: whats the big deal? Isnt the average IQ of a TL.net poster around 190 anyways? my guess is 116-120 | ||
|
NoDDiE
Poland170 Posts
| ||
|
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
There was a thread where a lot of people posted screenshots of their results in some IQ test and it was unexpectably high on average, I guess that's what incontrol is reffering to. | ||
|
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
On January 19 2008 22:31 Frits wrote: Haha, I guess the smartest man on earth is a total douche. I want a south park episode | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:58 lololol wrote: There was a thread where a lot of people posted screenshots of their results in some IQ test and it was unexpectably high on average, I guess that's what incontrol is reffering to. ya i know, just wanted to take a guess but people who did the test and werent pleased with their result probably skipped the posting it part in that thread | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Thanks for the history lesson of things which are irrelevant and I already know! Rome was the first dominant republic and it affected many modern countries, including the US. I'm glad you know how to look up "list of republics" on Wikipedia, but the Commonwealth of England was closer to an absolute monarchy than any of the actual monarchies that followed, which are actually republics because Parliament maintained power over the country besides the one little scoff with James II. Maybe a little, but not to the extent that currently exists. "Congress shall make no law" can just as easily be amended "the people shall make no law" and minorities would be protected from the "tyranny of the mob." Oh I see. We need an amendment that says ... "shall make no law which hurts minorities" and everything is covered. Thanks.Today, any human being over the age of 18 can vote for representatives. That's progress towards democracy fought for through popular struggle. Popular struggle? Take a look at all the different civil rights movements. That every US citizen over 18 can vote today is absolutely not due to popular rule.Why should the progress toward democracy stop there, though? Because people don't have enough time, knowledge or rationality to be directly involved in political decisions. People are stupid - you heard it here first. Masses of people are easily coerced and manipulated, and opening things up entirely would turn into a shitfest free for all. You cite the "mistakes" of our government as reason for change, but there's absolutely zero reason to believe "the people" would've made a better choice regarding war and education and the environment, especially given they have an extremely incomplete grasp of the issues and are reliant on more intelligent people (there's your hierarchy again) to inform their judgments.The funny thing is that direct democracy IS implemented in the US through Initiatives and Referendums, and they're barely used because 1) people have other things to do 2) they realize someone more informed should make the decision. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:07 Jibba wrote: Popular struggle? Take a look at all the different civil rights movements. That every US citizen over 18 can vote today is absolutely not due to popular rule. Uh, that's exactly what I meant when I said popular struggle. What do you think civil rights is? Martin Luther King Jr. and the intelligentsia-crew? What do you think popular struggle is? Lenin creating a nation of atheists? Civil rights, women's suffrage, et al. is a lot of regular folk making sure their message is heard by the powers that be and demanding change. Its illegitimate democracy. Its popular struggle. I can't fucking believe that was something you decided was worth nit-picking over. there's absolutely zero reason to believe "the people" would've made a better choice regarding war and education and the environment, According to Noam Chomsky (maybe you think he's a liar, I don't, but take it with that grain of salt, I haven't personally done studies on public opinion and not everyone thinks Chomsky's analysis is fair), everything I said in my first post (that people would support the kyoto protocol, would work to disarm, would be internationally law abiding, would institute penalties for industrial polluters) has been indicated in polls of the general population. That, to me, is a positive indicator that "the people" would do exactly what they need to do to ensure their future. It seems to me it's quite evident that those currently in power will drag their feet until the end of the earth if it means a few more bucks today. | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200.  yup... I am abit bias. i have nothing against woman but She took that IQ test when she was 8. Later she did the test again and scored 180 as an adult i believe. So its misleading to say that she scored a higher IQ than this guy | ||
|
GoldenSun
21 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:09 A3iL3r0n wrote: He seems more bluster than actual intelligence. Maybe he's got a super fast computer, but all he's got in there is minesweeper. Actually it does. I'm taking AP stat and it's a widely known fact that humans and dolphin's log(brain size) vs body weight is higher than the average | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Yes it isn't my personal opinion, i was just copying pasting what the media labeled him in some sites. Imo this guy has poor judgment but its in fact very smart, not the smartest/intelligent in the world tho Intelligence is far more complex and detailed definition than just a good score on an IQ test pd: btw anyone know who scored the highest IQ test here on the online thing?  im just curious | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On January 20 2008 02:08 ilj.psa wrote: Yes it isn't my personal opinion, i was just copying pasting what the media labeled him in some sites. Imo this guy has poor judgment but its in fact very smart, not the smartest/intelligent in the world tho Intelligence is far more complex and detailed definition than just a good score on an IQ test pd: btw anyone know who scored the highest IQ test here on the online thing? im just curious Even those are capped at a certain IQ, and it's easy to cheat or lie to try to look like you're smart, because it's the internet and people are conceited fucks. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:54 ilj.psa wrote: i have nothing against woman but She took that IQ test when she was 8. Later she did the test again and scored 180 as an adult i believe. So its misleading to say that she scored a higher IQ than this guy They took completely different tests. Marilyn vos Savant took one that was credible, as far as IQ tests go. The bouncer in this video took a test from a magazine, with no credibility besides that of the people who made it. I believe IQ scores are supposed to keep 100 as the middle of the bell curve, not something derived from a formula from test answers. Savant's test was like that, I'm pretty sure. The magazine test I am pretty sure wasn't, and probably did not even have enough people take it to make a bell curve. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:36 Tadzio00 wrote: The Civil Rights movement would have been crushed under direct democracy. Uh, that's exactly what I meant when I said popular struggle. What do you think civil rights is? Martin Luther King Jr. and the intelligentsia-crew? What do you think popular struggle is? Lenin creating a nation of atheists? Civil rights, women's suffrage, et al. is a lot of regular folk making sure their message is heard by the powers that be and demanding change. Its illegitimate democracy. Its popular struggle. I can't fucking believe that was something you decided was worth nit-picking over. According to Noam Chomsky (maybe you think he's a liar, I don't, but take it with that grain of salt, I haven't personally done studies on public opinion and not everyone thinks Chomsky's analysis is fair), everything I said in my first post (that people would support the kyoto protocol, would work to disarm, would be internationally law abiding, would institute penalties for industrial polluters) has been indicated in polls of the general population. That, to me, is a positive indicator that "the people" would do exactly what they need to do to ensure their future. It seems to me it's quite evident that those currently in power will drag their feet until the end of the earth if it means a few more bucks today. What knowledge does the public have about the Kyoto protocol? Just because they're correct on a 50/50 issue doesn't mean they have way to accurately determine things they haven't studied. Oh, but I guess because the media has sensationalized it and adequately convinced the public that it's needed, the Kyoto protocol is the 100% correct decision. Now if only those damned scientists would agree. EDIT: And before someone says it, I'm not trying to argue against the Kyoto protocol. I'm showing that there's hardly an educated consensus on anything, trying to use an uneducated consensus would be even worse. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I don't see how a direct democracy would've harmed the civil rights movement. It may've made the civil rights movement unnecessary... but harmed it? No. Whatever the case, direct democracy today will not undo the progress of the past. By the way, the Commonwealth was a republic. You might not like how parliament and Oliver Cromwell executed it, but there ya go. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I don't know about you, but I like making informed decisions. That's not really possible in this case. Congress may fuck up and trust the wrong informants but it doesn't happen the majority of the time, and it's still better than having a layperson, even more unsure of who to trust, make a hurried decision. The civil rights movement would've been damaged because the majority of the country was racist for at least 150 of our country's 200~ years. | ||
|
samso..
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
Fiji -> Romania. Change plz. | ||
| ||
