EPT
The greatest mind ever - a lesson from history - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
fenixdown
Colombia320 Posts
| ||
|
0_0
United States2090 Posts
Also, out of curiosity... generally geniuses don't live that long... I mean mozart, this sidis guy, etc. eventually they're self destructiveness kills them(e.g. drugs, beer, etc? Or just dying early) - of course there are exceptions. Anyways, is this because of some abnormality in their brain or something - perhaps a tumor or what not? I've always been curious, but never asked :-/. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Also, the russian kid died of self inflicted wounds due to being psychotic from an overactive brain. He died in a mental hospital. North american standardized tests go to 200, I believe european ones go to 150. You need special tests to go above that. Edit: Made a typo on mozart's age. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On October 21 2004 21:47 Element)FrEaK wrote: Gengis Khan's children exceeded 800, I believe they far exceeded that actually, he has something like 100,000 direct decendants. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a Czar that had over 800 children. Powerful womanizers do that. I'm not going to argue on the topic you probably have no knowledge. Just think about how many wifes Ghengis Khan had. You can't have more than 1 in Russia. | ||
|
Casper...
Liberia4948 Posts
asians are generally smarter than whites whites are generally smarter than blacks it ain't no big fuckin thing, and, really, it don't mean shit being smart ain't worth shit without everything else | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Mongolia's reign over northern asia during the period that they held it was much more interesting. Word of note: Ghengis Khan had MUCH more children than with just his wives. Any powerful womanizer will get plenty of children, I'm just saying that a Czar could have it due to having alot of power. I'm saying its possible, though probably not correct. If it is correct, it wouldn't be something you could read up on as they clearly didn't do it openly. *shrugs* | ||
|
dsh
United States879 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
 | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On October 21 2004 21:47 Element)FrEaK wrote: Gengis Khan's children exceeded 800, I believe they far exceeded that actually, he has something like 100,000 direct decendants. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a Czar that had over 800 children. Powerful womanizers do that. if Khan's dick could speak... | ||
|
Hydrolisko
Vanuatu1659 Posts
On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: This statement is incredibly stupid and incorrect. Could you link me to where you read this? IQ tests that result in a specific race getting higher scores than another, are completely useless. A proper IQ test doesn't require any knowledge. Obviously these scores are based on a select few of iq tests from the different countrys, and as we all know, the educational system in Africa as a whole, is not really great. If anything, these scores might be an indicator to how well the education system is in those specific countrys/nations, compared to each other. Um yes I can, it's a damn book. You think I made it up or something? http://www.socialsciencesweb.com/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations_027597510X.html and... if you have ever taken an IQ test or even read about it, you'll know that it does not require much knowledge, if any at all. Most of the IQ test is based on memory, logic, and speed of response. Please get it right before you come out with your non-sense opinion claiming my facts as non-sense. | ||
|
klaasdebaas
59 Posts
On August 30 2003 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote: you're not the greatest mind ever if you are socially inept lolz anyway im not surprised the smartest person ever joined the socialist party. =] Yeah, its proven that the brightest people are mostly socialists. I guess im not to bright  | ||
|
s.taro
Canada172 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
IQs are overrated, if they even exist at all. No one can quantify a person's ability to think, not to mention "averages" for entire nations. I don't even know what the statement "its proven that the brightest people are mostly socialists" is supposed to mean. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
That's not all memory, the ability to memorize a passage does not mean you understand it. That is all that IQ really is, the higher the IQ the greater the ability to understand and retain information given to you. Having a higher IQ just means you have to work less hard to learn things, but it does not make you any better at execution or applying them. Hard work will almost always outdo IQ, IQ and Intelligence can only go so far. | ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
| ||
|
Sosha
United States749 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On October 22 2004 02:17 Element)FrEaK wrote: you can measure a person's ability to understand and retain information and then repeat it though. That's not all memory, the ability to memorize a passage does not mean you understand it. That is all that IQ really is, the higher the IQ the greater the ability to understand and retain information given to you. Having a higher IQ just means you have to work less hard to learn things, but it does not make you any better at execution or applying them. Hard work will almost always outdo IQ, IQ and Intelligence can only go so far. If this were true, how would one take such a measure? Even the most abstract of memory tests rely on a degree of comprehensive familiarity. Such things as logic, association and generalization are subordinate to the kind of breeding one's mind undergoes. You will forgive a person who has never been exposed to mathematics to be unable to grasp the connection between the ideas of "seven days" and "seven apples". It is more reasonable to conclude that such ideas, and intelligence with it, are cultivated. People are overeager to come to the conclusion that Intelligence -> Ability to think -> Ability to Understand -> Creates interest -> Creates knowledge The amusing thing with such a hierarchy of causes is that it can be inverted so assume any form, the logic of which may be defended in argument. Interest -> Creates knowledge-> Intelligence-> Ability to think-> Ability to understand. Furthermore this kind of analysis completely ignores the purposes of the person involved. One's ability to think does not matter as much in the long run as their willingness to think; which involves a choice to take an interest in thinking, and not merely one's innate ability. | ||
|
fenixdown
Colombia320 Posts
| ||
|
TvP On Guillo
Denmark646 Posts
On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: Um yes I can, it's a damn book. You think I made it up or something? http://www.socialsciencesweb.com/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations_027597510X.html and... if you have ever taken an IQ test or even read about it, you'll know that it does not require much knowledge, if any at all. Most of the IQ test is based on memory, logic, and speed of response. Please get it right before you come out with your non-sense opinion claiming my facts as non-sense. I don't care if it was something you made up, its still stupid and incorrect. I hope no one takes that book serious, or you for that matter. To quote the link: "The lowest measured is in Guinea (IQ, 59)," (Guinea has an average IQ of 59 according to this book) Hah. If this was true, over 50% of the Guinean population are unable to speak coherently / are lower intelligent than the average retard. Further down it says: "The numbers may be incorrect but nonetheless are worthy areas of debate and data for additional research." Well, no shit! The numbers in the book DOES NOT INDICATE IQ, NOR IS BASED ON TESTS THAT ACCURATELY MEASURES IQ. | ||
| ||
