EPT
actionhow old are you?
The greatest mind ever - a lesson from history - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Konni
Germany3044 Posts
actionhow old are you? | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On August 31 2003 02:40 HnR)ht wrote:it's strange that an iq of 200 (an any scale) should statistically be so rare that a handful of people out of everyone who ever lived should be that high, yet there are seemingly dozens of stories about people getting such iqs That's part of why I don't buy into the whole "this guy's a fucking God" idea. Lots of people are capable of things no one ever hears about. Stuff like this doesn't measure capability or potential, not many things can truly bring that out of a person. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
All you have to do is go to their website and do well on their test.. | ||
|
Zerius[TPR]
Canada1633 Posts
Its what you achieve, not your potential that counts. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
extremely high IQ is a genetic "condition" that most of the times brings along other genetic conditions, thats why a great percentage of serial killers have iqs over 140, anyway what one guy said about a bunch of people over 200 and everybody here claims to be as smart as einstein and that they got low grades cuz all geniuses do... well who cares what kind of junk a teenager spits on a forum, guess how it feels to be one of them... going to bed and closing their eyes where they cant fool themseleves... how pathetic. | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On August 31 2003 08:22 Zerius wrote: Its what you achieve, not your potential that counts. Very true. But what counts isn't evidence of a superior, only potential. In a way you can say potential does count. What counts is influenced by potential, but potential isn't always influenced by things that count. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Zerius[TPR]
Canada1633 Posts
| ||
|
Zerius[TPR]
Canada1633 Posts
On August 31 2003 09:52 Orlandu wrote: Very true. But what counts isn't evidence of a superior, only potential. so basically, "Its what your potential is, not what u achieve that counts" =/ | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
Just an opinion: the "greatest mind" is an inaccurate title. The "highest IQ ever" maybe, but not the greatest mind. Saying Sidis was intelligent prolly wouldn't do the man much justice. He was very obviously brilliant in some ways. But, as the article properly points out, he didn't really achieve much - at least not in comparison with his gifts. Putting Sidis's name alongside the likes of Da Vinci, Mozart or Einstein is akin to favorably comparing Boxer to the great generals in history like MacArthur, Hannibal or Scipio Africanus. The analogy is obviously distorted and flawed, but it is also useful in illustrating a point: true intelligence, in whatever field we care to apply it, is a concept rooted in the Real World. Think about what this means. I can admire the child chess prodigy like I admire Boxer - for their breathtaking talents within a defined system of man-made (or even natural) rules. But, until they make a positive and lasting impact on people's lives (the hallmark of all true "great minds"), it hardly seems appropriate to compare them to the greats in history. Admire and be in awe of Sidis for what he was until he died - a guy with superhumanly extraordinary mental abilities. But, why anyone would mention his name in the same breath as Einstein or Da vinci is puzzling and seems borne of an incomplete grasp of why society elevates certain individuals to the status of greatness and immortality, while ignoring certain others who may have had comparable or even superior raw skills and/or abilities. Put it this way: Sidis may have had a high "APM," but that doesn't mean he's a great player. Or even a good one. | ||
|
sata
Sweden127 Posts
 | ||
|
choader
United States487 Posts
On August 31 2003 10:13 mensrea wrote: Put it this way: Sidis may have had a high "APM," but that doesn't mean he's a great player. Or even a good one. <3 | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7465 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
you edited! | ||
|
actioN
Denmark229 Posts
| ||
|
Macrophage
Germany730 Posts
actually intelligence kind of has a "upper limit" - since pure logic is the upper limit, there are only differences how you confront a problem, how you view things, and how much you can do "in your head", which is far less important then knowing how to get there. beethoven used large notebooks before he would write anything, mozart composed while writing down another piece.. that doesn't mean beethoven was less talented than mozart. mozart maybe had more mental "shortcuts", but that doesn't make much of a difference in the end. sidis had more shortcuts than einstein or feynman, but he prolly wouldnt have had the proper point of view to give the solution to quantum mechanic's mathematical problems (had he been interested in it, dont know). | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On August 31 2003 01:32 Orlandu wrote: Well, I wasn't going to claim that I did, but now I might as well because of your quick desire to fire needless insults. Edit: In case you didn't understand my original post, I wasn't claiming you were dumb or anything, just that you misunderstood his point, whether it was right or wrong. I dont think i did, i just disagree with it. Sorry for the insult, sleep deprevation exacting its toll. Also i think what sets the great thinkers aside is creativity, just intelligence might not be enough. Also achieving something is very, very subjective, like travis suggested. | ||
|
Macrophage
Germany730 Posts
his mental abilities remind me of picasso, mozart, that indian mathematician or this strange sickness which makes people develop talent as a drawer or musician but makes them intellectual idiots :> .. maybe mensrea knows the illnesses name :> anyway wicked, why i was rather suspicious about all the information in the article (i didnt check with google or something) was because einstein's general relativity is 1915, from which it aint a big step at all to black holes. also there is a difference in predicting something and giving scientific reasoning for it. (the book's title was rather dodgy.) | ||
|
Macrophage
Germany730 Posts
On August 30 2003 15:41 WickedDreams wrote: Should we leave our best minds to develop without intervention? Probably not. Very few of intellectual history's great minds have arrived at greatness without active encouragement and even some pushing. But it is the height of arrogance to believe that we can produce genius to order. We should be there for the great minds when they need our support, pushing them oh so gently. And we must protect them from the awful pressures that genius can incur. Of utmost importance, we must remember that the mind belongs to the individual and not to society (and certainly not to parents and teachers). There is the risk that our efforts will be in vain, but the risk of suffocating a great mind may be far greater. he had a problem with this because in some aspects he was too much a child and to much caught in his world of parental pressure, teachers, learning etc. any great mind when it is fully developed shouldn't need this. (i know a girl who is caught similarly at the moment at least..) | ||
| ||
