|
Can you name the brightest person of all time? Perhaps Albert Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci. Maybe Isaac Newton or John Stuart Mill. These notables are certainly contenders, but there was one man who may have outshone them all. You have probably never heard of William James Sidis.
William Sidis was born of extraordinary parents. They were Russian Jews who fled the intense anti-semitism of their native country. Upon arriving in America Boris Sidis taught himself to read and write English in four months and educated himself with a work-one-week-study-for-two policy. Initially he resisted studying for a degree but then completed the four year course in one year. His Ph.D was awarded even though he declined to submit a thesis or sit an oral exam.
Sarah Mandlebraun studied English under Boris. With her keen intelligence she went on to study medicine and was one of the few women to graduate from medical school before the turn of the century. She encouraged Boris to enrol at Harvard. They fell in love and married despite an insistence by Boris that he would never make any money.
William was born on April fools day in 1898. His parents lavished attention (of a particular kind) on him from the start and worked hard to make him brilliant. In modern parlance, he was 'hothoused'. While still in his cot Boris used letter bricks to teach William syllables. At six months he spoke his first word, "door", and a few months later was able to explain that "door opens, people come". By eighteen months he was reading the New York Times and had learnt to count. Sarah bought him an encyclopedia and her help using it was soon rejected. At three he was typing letters. He taught himself Latin, and then went on to learn Greek, Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Turkish and Armenian. During his life he mastered at least forty languages and it was said he could learn a language in a day.
At six William was able to calculate on what day of the week any date would fall. One reporter was amazed to discover that he could not only quote facts from books, but also give the numbers of the pages on which those facts could be verified. He enjoyed star-gazing and map-making, and began collecting 'streetcar transfers', a hobby which became a life-long obsession and on which he later wrote what may be the most boring book ever written.
He sped through grade school, completing all seven grades in seven months, though he was not so good at maths to begin with. He took an interest at seven and even developed a set of logarithms in base twelve. He devised his own speed-reading system, wrote four books between the ages of six and eight and invented a new Esperanto-like language. By the time he was eight William had passed the Harvard Medical School anatomy examination and the entrance exam for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In high school he took six weeks to complete the four year curriculum and then worked for another six weeks as a teaching assistant. Before officially studying physics he was helping senior students with their assignments.
Withdrawn from the high school after three months William stayed at home mastering advanced mathematics. He read Einstein and may have corresponded with the great man. At eleven he enrolled as a 'special student' at Harvard and at twelve delivered a lecture on 'four-dimensional bodies' to the Harvard Mathematical Club. By now the press was onto him and reported a severe bout of flu as a nervous breakdown. His interests were wide and included politics, mathematics, languages, astronomy, anatomy and transport systems. He wrote a political constitution for a utopian society and ordered his personal life with a set of 154 rules, which included celibacy.
A cousin said of him that he never played games but was always reading. He was "a genius, and to be a genius you have to do a lot of work". This seriousness and brilliance, together with social ineptitude, led to persecution at Harvard, bolstered by strong anti-semitic feeling. His grades were not brilliant and he graduated 'cum laude' rather than 'magna cum laude', thus incurring the wrath of his mother.
In 1915 he secured a position as professor of mathematics at the Rice Institute where he was surrounded by brilliant minds. He was teased and reduced to ineffectiveness by students older than him and increasingly became a social misfit. He joined the socialist party, strongly expressed pacifist views and was asked to leave after eight months.
Enrolling at Harvard Law School he took a greater interest in politics, veering to the left of the socialist party. Some on the left favoured revolution and this incurred the displeasure of people at large. William claimed exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector and escaped prison only because World War I ended. His mother was again shocked when he left law school before graduating.
For a time he worked as a laboratory assistant but resigned in disgust upon discovering that he was working to a military agenda. He was imprisoned for being prominent in a protest march that turned into a riot and was rescued from eighteen months hard-labour by his father. William later considered this redemption to be an 'abduction'.
In 1925 his book 'The Animate and the Inanimate' was published. This was a scientific work in which William predicted black holes years before anyone else. The work was totally ignored and William never again published a book in his own name.
'Escaping' from his parents he worked first as a Russian interpreter and then in a number of positions operating adding machines for low wages. Always he hid his genius from his employer and left when it was discovered. The press continued to hound him and he objected to those who felt that he owed them a debt just because he was a genius. His isolation and eccentricity increased.
His high intelligence cannot be doubted. To give one last example, he was fond of completing crosswords without writing the answers down until he had them all. Abraham Sterling, director of New York City's Aptitude Testing Institute, said that "he easily had an I.Q. between 250 and 300. I have never heard of the existence of anybody with such an I.Q. I would honestly say that he was the most prodigious intellect of our entire generation".
At the age of 46 William James Sidis, possibly the world's greatest mind ever, suffered a serious stroke and died. History hardly remembers him.
What went wrong? Why did this monster mind apparently achieve so little? The potential was there. Reading through the details of William's life (in Amy Wallace's book, 'The Prodigy', published by Macmillan) a few things become very clear. William was a reluctant genius. In his early years he delighted in his gifts and abilities, but he lived in a goldfish bowl with the world watching his every move. His father made the serious mistake of setting him on a pedestal as an example of how children should be educated, attributing his high I.Q. to education. The critics were there, many just waiting for him to fail. The press love to find fault with those in the public eye; it sells newspapers. Princess Diana was a recent victim of the tyranny of the press, but she was not the first and will not be the last. William Sidis was denied privacy and the freedom to live his life in the way he wanted and withdrew into his shell. The world was thus denied the potentially huge benefits of a very powerful mind.
But does society have the right to say to the individual "You must perform for us"? William Sidis did his own thing. He used his great mind in his esoteric streetcar transfer hobby and in the writing of a revisionist history of the American people. We do not tell artists that they must decorate public buildings so that everyone can benefit from their talents. Nor do we expect composers to dedicate themselves to the most popular styles so that the greatest number of people will enjoy their work. Genius does not work like that. In fact, genius may be smothered if we attempt to harness and steer it in a desirable direction. At an individual level most people have experienced 'moments of brilliance' when they have least expected them. In fact, the harder we try to be clever the less likely we are to excel. Brilliance is not available on prescription.
In 1987 Britain experienced 'the great storm' in which millions of trees were uprooted. Some areas were cleared and carefully replanted, with only limited success. Other areas were left untouched and nature has taken its course. These areas are regenerating wonderfully. Let us not forget that minds are also nature's products.
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.
|
Right you are
(I didn't read all of it, of course)
|
Actually its really interesting well worth the time
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
We in Romania had people like Cioran or Nichita Stanescu that we respect very much and consider the most cool writers ever
|
|
|
|
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
|
i was considered a child prodigy.
ntt
|
Norway28664 Posts
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. =]
|
|
|
some of that seems a little far fetched.... i mean a language in a day is ridiculous.... i'm sure history is bending the truth a bit to make this guy seem like he's more than he was.
|
On August 30 2003 18:29 Bleww wrote:
some of that seems a little far fetched.... i mean a language in a day is ridiculous.... i'm sure history is bending the truth a bit to make this guy seem like he's more than he was.
i wouldnt say a day , but in a couple of days yes , you clearly dont have a clue nor do i or anyone on this forum whats a 250~300 IQ capable, this guy intelligence would make us look like a chimp next to him.
After 170 Iq you are considered a genius , 250~300 is like an Alien, besides it never been recorded such a high score.
|
On August 30 2003 18:29 Bleww wrote:
some of that seems a little far fetched.... i mean a language in a day is ridiculous.... i'm sure history is bending the truth a bit to make this guy seem like he's more than he was.
I agree.
|
i read it all, and you are right man!
|
first of all...there are many iq tests with various scales...none of them ranging in the 250-300...and you cant go beyond the scale, no matter how smart you are. Second, a "great mind" is a very subjective term. Therefore the title of greatest mind will of course be made subjectively based on what you value most as greatness. And I'm sure most christians would have to say jesus. However, I am not christian and I would say the ancient greek philospher Epicurus. Not because he was the smartest but because of how he viewed the world.
|
how would you .. train a son or daughter at that age and time line and even this timeline to be as smart as him .. because I am sure now adays there are alot younger children smart but... all that statement
sounds like bullshit..
|
Come on seriously this guy was an alien intellegency wise you cant deny it
"Billy Sidis qualified for admission to Harvard at 9, but had to wait two years to matriculate as a special student."
"He sped through grade school, completing all seven grades in seven months, though he was not so good at maths to begin with. He took an interest at seven and even developed a set of logarithms in base twelve. He devised his own speed-reading system, wrote four books between the ages of six and eight and invented a new Esperanto-like language. By the time he was eight William had passed the Harvard Medical School anatomy examination and the entrance exam for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "
"At eleven he enrolled as a 'special student' at Harvard and at twelve delivered a lecture on 'four-dimensional bodies' to the Harvard Mathematical Club"
..............
|
thats not intelligence zach. Intelligence is basically potential. Not achievement.
and iq is intelligence quotient, mental age divided by physical age. What prevents someone from being that high? What if their mental age was much higher than their physical age???
The highest recorded iq was 210 by a 4 year old prodigy. Obviously if there is an upper bound on the scale then a certain iq can not be reached by a single test, but I would not doubt his iq being WELL over 200.
If i am correct it is so many standard deviations above the average that of all the people in history, less than 5000 would have an iq this high. From what I remember, the average iq is 100 and the standard deviation is 15, so roughly 7 standard deviations above average (and sidis would probably be roughly 8). To give you an idea of how small this is, 3 standard deviations would be about an iq of 145. this would encompass approximately 2 out of every 1000 people. And each increase in standard deviation DRASTICALLY decreases the percentage of people in that upper echelon.
Of all the aforementioned people in the first paragraph of the story, I believe John Stuart Mill had an iq of 190, even though everything he accomplished was really the accomplishment of his bitch (possibly the only instance of intelligent estrogen besides marilyn von whatever the fuck her name is)
ah well, im gonna go grab a statistics book and try to figure out something past 1st std above = 84%, 2nd = 97.5, 3rd = 99.85.
edit: note, i am assuming his iq is about 220 and not much higher simply because nobody in history ever had an iq that high, so im being generous and adding 10 to the highest recorded value.
|
On this page: http://www.pentaone.com/hannibal/iq.shtml
it states:
"Billy could learn a whole language in one day! Billy knew all the languages (approximately 200) of the world, and could translate among them instantly!"
Huh!?
|
ok, 6 standard deviations is about 1 one hundred millionth (unless they cut it off in this textbook), or .00000001 percent of people, or 1 out of 100,000,000 people have an iq that high. Now, this is assuming the standard deviation is 15, i may be wrong about that.
This also doesnt say anything about 8 standard deviations, i dont have a formula, just a chart. So if you have an iq of 190, consider yourself one of the 60 most intelligent people in the world today (according to my assumptions).
My guess is 8 standard deviations would be roughly 1 out of 20+ billion, so maybe the smartest person every hundred years has an iq this high. This is fuzzy math, I should probably aim to be more precise considering ill be doing something math related for a living, but oh well, im a lazy piece of shit and id rather do nothing when im 19.
all in all, this basically shows this is one smart cookie :/
|
i mean a language in a day is ridiculous....
if u already know 20 langauages, it would not be that far fetched. "knowing" a language is not exactly strictly defined either.
|
oh, and as for the language in a day...
i believe it solely because once you know that many languages, you probably understand all the language groups. jumping from spanish to italian is not hard reading wise, speaking is slightly different, but considering he was socially inept, i highly doubt that speaking really mattered to him.
|
wow, beat me by a minute, you little bitch 
|
O:! i made 170 IQ on a for-adults IQ test when i was 14 ^_^ of course i hate studying and just partah~ :p
|
|
|
On August 30 2003 20:05 BigBalls wrote: wow, beat me by a minute, you little bitch \
u swimmin with the sharks now big dog
|
this is just a test of your intelligence - believing everything you read somewhere in the internet :>
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
That was a pretty interesting read.
I had never heard the story about the man, but I had heard about things that probably referred to him. But the more I know, the more I become convinced that he was NOT anything special. His life was simply used to expand his intelligence. In the end maybe he did appear at a higher level than most people, but I don't think his potential was any higher as a base than anyone elses.
I don't believe in intelligence setting people apart at all. There's too much evidence in the world that intelligence is nothing more than a useless statistic. Motivation however, is the key factor that shapes the people in this world and what they do. Even your story shows enormous evidence of that.
|
Norway28664 Posts
orlandu what?
nothing special?
not a higher potential as a base than anyone elses?
I mean, I agree with you that intelligence (or, not intelligence, but IQ, is a pretty useless attribute. one of the people I respect the most and whom I consider the smartest would most likely score around 100, not any higher for sure, on an iq test. but she is more socially intelligent than everyone I know and yadayada. there are just so many kinds of intelligence..
but saying this guy was not special when he had an iq well over 200 is just flat out wrong. :D
|
BigBalls you are ABSOLUTELY wrong, 200 is a very high IQ but its not even near to be the higest iq of a human, experts calculate einstein's IQ arround 314-320, and there are record of a 14 y/o kid in the ex-former URSS that had over 400 because of a genetic desease called hipersinapsis, that exceed the regular electric charge generated by the axons of the brain cells, the problem is that his brain couldnt take it and he was sent to a mental insitution where he died by self inflicted wounds.
and that guy is right, intelligence is not about archievements since most of the super geniuses spend all their lifes dealing with their own minds rather than creating.
|
genius are not if they dont enjoy their own life =D
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
its just too bad the EASIEST thing to do in this world is nothing.. that is why there are so few "geniuses"
|
sort of what i was thinking.. i wonder how much fun this guy had.
|
WickedDreams, thanks, very interesting
|
interesting read for sure
truely amazing.. government should've bought him friends. kind of like the Truman show :-)
|
On August 30 2003 20:40 baal wrote:
BigBalls you are ABSOLUTELY wrong, 200 is a very high IQ but its not even near to be the higest iq of a human, experts calculate einstein's IQ arround 314-320, and there are record of a 14 y/o kid in the ex-former URSS that had over 400 because of a genetic desease called hipersinapsis, that exceed the regular electric charge generated by the axons of the brain cells, the problem is that his brain couldnt take it and he was sent to a mental insitution where he died by self inflicted wounds.
and that guy is right, intelligence is not about archievements since most of the super geniuses spend all their lifes dealing with their own minds rather than creating.
erm, youre retarded.
einsteins iq was 160.
Go to the guinness book of world records and look up iq, thx.
|
fucking CAUGHT
btw.. was this kid like those autistic kids? Not as disabled apparently, but autistic in some ways?
|
|
|
|
|
early 1900's albert einstein
later 1900's stephen hawkings
stephan hawkings is currently the most brilliant person on the planet
in other categories; eminem is the most brilliant song writer/freestyle/over all talented in music
and im the most smartest street smart, and understanding how people behave in diff situations and for what reasons etc (psychology)
o yea and boxer is the most brilliant sc mind ever
|
On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis.
i'm sure you have proof of this somewhere, cause i'm inclined to call bullshit.
|
On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis.
nice bullshit, the day that it would be possible for some1 like forrest gump to surpass some1 like einstein is the day i eat my shorts!
|
My buddy learned swedish in 3weeks, ohwell he could do some cursing and stuff until he started to learn it, but thats rather impressive. but I dont think he has a iq over normal.
The probable smartest person I've known was a alcoholic at 17 but I think he's still in university on some hardcore education. Many extremely intelligent people often suffer from mental problems and such.
|
most intelligent person don't care one fuck about university and mostly that's y their grades are bad or y they're still in uni...
|
On August 30 2003 22:22 ShAsTa wrote:
most intelligent person don't care one fuck about university and mostly that's y their grades are bad or y they're still in uni...
thx for your intelligent input 
|
On August 30 2003 20:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
orlandu what?
nothing special?
not a higher potential as a base than anyone elses?
I mean, I agree with you that intelligence (or, not intelligence, but IQ, is a pretty useless attribute. one of the people I respect the most and whom I consider the smartest would most likely score around 100, not any higher for sure, on an iq test. but she is more socially intelligent than everyone I know and yadayada. there are just so many kinds of intelligence..
but saying this guy was not special when he had an iq well over 200 is just flat out wrong. :D
I see what you mean. I didn't mean to discredit the guy. When I say he was nothing special, what I mean is, what he achieved wasn't something that couldn't be done by other people. He did do some great things apparently, but I don't think it's anything that is that impossible to do. It just takes the right motivation and the right way of life, it doesn't have as much to do with the individual person as people would like to have you believe.
|
On August 30 2003 21:23 BigBalls wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 20:40 baal wrote:
BigBalls you are ABSOLUTELY wrong, 200 is a very high IQ but its not even near to be the higest iq of a human, experts calculate einstein's IQ arround 314-320, and there are record of a 14 y/o kid in the ex-former URSS that had over 400 because of a genetic desease called hipersinapsis, that exceed the regular electric charge generated by the axons of the brain cells, the problem is that his brain couldnt take it and he was sent to a mental insitution where he died by self inflicted wounds.
and that guy is right, intelligence is not about archievements since most of the super geniuses spend all their lifes dealing with their own minds rather than creating. erm, youre retarded. einsteins iq was 160. Go to the guinness book of world records and look up iq, thx.
I heard something like that too, but it was just from other people.
|
On August 30 2003 21:42 badteeth wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis. i'm sure you have proof of this somewhere, cause i'm inclined to call bullshit.
Think about it a little harder. Analyze the world we live in. You might understand his point a little bit better.
|
On August 30 2003 22:46 Orlandu wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 21:42 badteeth wrote: On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis. i'm sure you have proof of this somewhere, cause i'm inclined to call bullshit. Think about it a little harder. Analyze the world we live in. You might understand his point a little bit better.
Nice trolling, what makes you think your pathetic mind has a better grip on reality then mine?
|
|
|
Yes, picking on my spelling, when english is clearly not my native language. You sir, si a winnar!
|
On August 30 2003 22:37 FrZ[9] wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 22:22 ShAsTa wrote:
most intelligent person don't care one fuck about university and mostly that's y their grades are bad or y they're still in uni...
thx for your intelligent input
I wasn't talking to you. Please don't think I would ever..
|
Einstein had like 160-170. Hawkings is a little bit above that. And about the highest sane persons can have is 220-230 max. Above that are the freaks
|
On August 30 2003 22:01 FrZ[9] wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis. nice bullshit, the day that it would be possible for some1 like forrest gump to surpass some1 like einstein is the day i eat my shorts!
Could happen if forrest gump was an idiot savante.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
But anywya, everyone stopa rgueing about smart people's IQ! There are hundreds of tests and all of them yeild different results. 150 on one test may be more impressive than 300 on another.
Don't let numbers fool you -_-v
|
|
|
|
|
On August 30 2003 23:06 ShAsTa wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 22:37 FrZ[9] wrote: On August 30 2003 22:22 ShAsTa wrote:
most intelligent person don't care one fuck about university and mostly that's y their grades are bad or y they're still in uni...
thx for your intelligent input I wasn't talking to you. Please don't think I would ever..
You're saying to me that u would never say anything to me? Nice.... :-)
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On August 30 2003 21:36 GnR wrote:stephan hawkings is currently the most brilliant person on the planet
No, he's just popular with laymen because he has a disability which gives him publicity.
|
I've given much thought to it and i'd have t o say i am
|
On August 30 2003 22:53 badteeth wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 22:46 Orlandu wrote: On August 30 2003 21:42 badteeth wrote: On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis. i'm sure you have proof of this somewhere, cause i'm inclined to call bullshit. Think about it a little harder. Analyze the world we live in. You might understand his point a little bit better. Nice trolling, what makes you think your pathetic mind has a better grip on reality then mine?
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.
|
On August 31 2003 00:33 HnR)ht wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 21:36 GnR wrote:stephan hawkings is currently the most brilliant person on the planet
No, he's just popular with laymen because he has a disability which gives him publicity.
sad but true -_-
|
Norway28664 Posts
first of all guys!
_there are different iq scales_
three different actually, and one says 148 is top 2%, and the other I think are 131 and 126 for top 2%.. (not totally sure about the numbers, but they are around that area anyway. )
considering the rather large differences, it's quite obvious that if someone scores 180 on the 148 scale, his iq will not be close to 180 if he had gotten it measured on the 126 scale.. it would in that case be closer to 150.. taking this into consideration, you might some places see that einstein had an iq of 160, other places he might have 200, but either way the fact is just saying a number is pretty fucking useless unless you also include what scale was used to measure..
as for the person in this story, an iq of above 200 is enough to classify you as a "fucking genius" no matter what scale is used to measure, but its far more impressive if measured on the 126 scale..
oh and this was taken from some official mensa site:E
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
eri, are you in mensa? 
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
btw i think iqs are a very bad measure of intelligence for individuals, measuring how "smart" someone is on a multiple choice timed test is impossible
|
Hey, if these people are just guessing that his I.Q. was 250-300, then wasn't it exactly that? A guess?
|
enjoyed the reading (all of it). plus it was easy to read... not like when i try to read nietzsche 
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
So WickedDreams where did you get that anecdote from?
|
how can u measure iq? i mean, the guy who "invented" it, must be like the smartest person ever?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
you measure iq by giving a test. the test is statistically normed so that approximately a certain percentage of the population will get lower than a given score. you convert the percentiles into an iq scale. the "iq" measured on tests is actually not the intelligence quotient but something called general intelligence.
|
but still...the guy who made the test, must also kmow all the answers? therefore, he must be the smartest man ever?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
|
|
action
how old are you?
|
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.
|
|
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
I'm a member of mensa -_-v
All you have to do is go to their website and do well on their test..
|
IQ is irrelevent. The person with the highest IQ in Canada(i think, could be the States) lives in a shack in the woods and makes like 10 grand a year being a bouncer.
Its what you achieve, not your potential that counts.
|
there are serveral ways to mesure IQ, einstein is not 160 ofcourse since the average college student has arround 120, the new generation of inteligence measurement is based on intelectual potencial rather than in a "culture test" like the SIT, lets say that if an autist boy takes a commont iq test he would get under 70 while a lot of those kind of ppl tend to be geniuses over 150, the potential of einstein was calculated as trice of the average person, and people with hypersynapsis are arround 150 to 400 but ofcourse that synapsis causes damage to the brain and most of the time it causes severe mental deseases, but i guess is better to shine for a second than live in the shadows.
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.
|
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.
|
or you could go even further and say that only being happy counts, cause that guy in the shack could be the smartest man ever. Maybe he knows something we don't =]
|
Or hes just a cynical asshole who chooses to isolate himself from the world because it isnt made for someone like him.
|
On August 31 2003 09:52 Orlandu wrote: Show nested quote +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.
so basically, "Its what your potential is, not what u achieve that counts"
=/
|
Canada5062 Posts
I was beginning to wonder when someone would mention Sidis. The guy's enjoyed underground celebrity status for the past few years and I've enjoyed reading about him. Thx for the article, Wicked.
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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
good thing that ppl think im funny, but its cuz i dont know how this test is made...is there only 1 iq test, and is it like a math test? seriously, if u just measure icq on how many answers u had right in this test, the man who made it must be the guy with the highest iq ever...i assume he knew all the answers? plz enlighen me
|
haha mensrea cleverest person on the forum ;p
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).
|
On August 31 2003 01:32 Orlandu wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 22:53 badteeth wrote: On August 30 2003 22:46 Orlandu wrote: On August 30 2003 21:42 badteeth wrote: On August 30 2003 20:48 iGgs wrote:
if you push yourself hard enough (incredibly fucking hard) and have some kind of general intelligence you can equal or surpass einstein and william james sidis. i'm sure you have proof of this somewhere, cause i'm inclined to call bullshit. Think about it a little harder. Analyze the world we live in. You might understand his point a little bit better. Nice trolling, what makes you think your pathetic mind has a better grip on reality then mine? 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.
|
and just some random notes - reading through that article you rather get the impression he was able to learn extremely quick, but that's rather similar to a pc being fed with information at an extreme rate. it is certainly an extraordinary ability, but not what we mean by intelligence. he should've stopped somewhere and asked himself why the fuck am i doing this. guess he was too young and in some respects not developed enough (as every kid).
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.)
|
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..)
|
|
|
|
|
On August 31 2003 15:57 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Creativity > IQ.
That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
|
you didn't hear it, you read it.
HAHAHA OWNED NEWBIE. MY IQ > YOU
|
Intelligence is usually an excuse slackers use to boost their confidence. Person A sits on the couch all day and achieves absolutely nothing but says his IQ is 160 so he is still "smart". Lets bow down to these pathetic losers who lie about their IQ and still do nothing.
Intelligence does not justify underachievment. Ive learned this the hard way :/ (yes my little bashing is somewhat of an autobiography, although im not a total slacker, I do achieve a lot, just not as much as I should)
There is a difference between smart and intelligence. Intelligence is potential while smart is achievment. Aim to be smart, not intelligent. For about 5 years I rode intelligence when I should have tried to be smart (adding to this thinking im more intelligent than i really am).
I used to be a semi math prodigy (no ntt reference intended). I was doing ~10th grade math when i was in 2nd grade. I got tired of it and stopped and rode out my superiority even through 12th grade. Now at college, im still one of the smartest math kids (im here on full scholarship for math), but im seeing students (namely 1) with equal intelligence far surpassing anything I can achieve because hes been "smart" for the time I was "intelligent".
Honestly, iq is the worst thing in the world. It serves no purpose but to show potential. If at all possible, try NOT to know your iq. If it is low, you may become dejected and not bother trying to do anything. If it is high, you may develop a superiority complex and think you dont need to try hard to achieve what others do.
Note the story of Sidis: he was always reading. Not that everyone should be a lump of boredom, but dont be a waste of life.
Oh and rek, the story is from an online site, search for Sidis on google, and youll find it on some IQ page, I read it a few years ago when I was semi obsessed with IQ because I thought mine was so fucking godlike.
well, time to go back to trying to be smart. advanced calc is giving me some trouble
all in all, fuck IQ, it is a potential inhibitor.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On August 31 2003 18:34 BigBalls wrote:
Intelligence is usually an excuse slackers use to boost their confidence. Person A sits on the couch all day and achieves absolutely nothing but says his IQ is 160 so he is still "smart". Lets bow down to these pathetic losers who lie about their IQ and still do nothing.
Intelligence does not justify underachievment. Ive learned this the hard way :/ (yes my little bashing is somewhat of an autobiography, although im not a total slacker, I do achieve a lot, just not as much as I should)
There is a difference between smart and intelligence. Intelligence is potential while smart is achievment. Aim to be smart, not intelligent. For about 5 years I rode intelligence when I should have tried to be smart (adding to this thinking im more intelligent than i really am).
I used to be a semi math prodigy (no ntt reference intended). I was doing ~10th grade math when i was in 2nd grade. I got tired of it and stopped and rode out my superiority even through 12th grade. Now at college, im still one of the smartest math kids (im here on full scholarship for math), but im seeing students (namely 1) with equal intelligence far surpassing anything I can achieve because hes been "smart" for the time I was "intelligent".
Honestly, iq is the worst thing in the world. It serves no purpose but to show potential. If at all possible, try NOT to know your iq. If it is low, you may become dejected and not bother trying to do anything. If it is high, you may develop a superiority complex and think you dont need to try hard to achieve what others do.
Note the story of Sidis: he was always reading. Not that everyone should be a lump of boredom, but dont be a waste of life.
Oh and rek, the story is from an online site, search for Sidis on google, and youll find it on some IQ page, I read it a few years ago when I was semi obsessed with IQ because I thought mine was so fucking godlike.
well, time to go back to trying to be smart. advanced calc is giving me some trouble
all in all, fuck IQ, it is a potential inhibitor.
Agreed.
|
On August 31 2003 18:34 BigBalls wrote:
Intelligence is usually an excuse slackers use to boost their confidence. Person A sits on the couch all day and achieves absolutely nothing but says his IQ is 160 so he is still "smart". Lets bow down to these pathetic losers who lie about their IQ and still do nothing.
Intelligence does not justify underachievment. Ive learned this the hard way :/ (yes my little bashing is somewhat of an autobiography, although im not a total slacker, I do achieve a lot, just not as much as I should)
There is a difference between smart and intelligence. Intelligence is potential while smart is achievment. Aim to be smart, not intelligent. For about 5 years I rode intelligence when I should have tried to be smart (adding to this thinking im more intelligent than i really am).
I used to be a semi math prodigy (no ntt reference intended). I was doing ~10th grade math when i was in 2nd grade. I got tired of it and stopped and rode out my superiority even through 12th grade. Now at college, im still one of the smartest math kids (im here on full scholarship for math), but im seeing students (namely 1) with equal intelligence far surpassing anything I can achieve because hes been "smart" for the time I was "intelligent".
Honestly, iq is the worst thing in the world. It serves no purpose but to show potential. If at all possible, try NOT to know your iq. If it is low, you may become dejected and not bother trying to do anything. If it is high, you may develop a superiority complex and think you dont need to try hard to achieve what others do.
Note the story of Sidis: he was always reading. Not that everyone should be a lump of boredom, but dont be a waste of life.
Oh and rek, the story is from an online site, search for Sidis on google, and youll find it on some IQ page, I read it a few years ago when I was semi obsessed with IQ because I thought mine was so fucking godlike.
well, time to go back to trying to be smart. advanced calc is giving me some trouble
all in all, fuck IQ, it is a potential inhibitor.
Agreed also, and a great post. IMO one of the best I have read on this board.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On August 31 2003 13:36 Macrophage wrote:
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 :>
- I believe you are talking about people who are referred to as "idiot savants:" extraordinarily "gifted" in certain, highly specialized areas such as math or music, but who are otherwise intellectually disabled. "Rain Man" would be an example of an idiot savant. It's not exactly a "disease" tho. Merely a way of describing such people.
- the "Indian mathematician" you mention is prolly Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Hope this helps.
|
yes ^^ though i only heard of them as savants (in some horizon programme :>)). oh yes and i just remembered there is a physical illness similar to being savant - people developing "artistic" (ie being able to draw) talent after becoming mentally disabled.
|
mh just looked very quickly through his inanimate and animate and found this.
"Life is a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. Or, to put it in other terms, since we have seen that mechanical efficiency under positive tendency is less than 100%, under neutral tendency just 100%, and under the negative tendency more than 100%, we may define: Life consists of bodies with a mechanical efficiency of over 100%."
i found summing up physics up to his time was pretty impressive, but his way of differentiating animate and inanimate is pretty premature. if something reminds him of something "alive" (ie a ball going upstairs instead of down (think of a video of something played backwards) then it is alive. correct me if i'm wrong but that's more less how he did it in chapter 6. also, how does the universe know something is alive and something isnt and uses accordingly different laws? -ok read on a bit, he says life just comes from life so by reproduction we pass on this different physics. life always existed, he supports a "Biogenetic" theory, from our modern point of view this is very improbable, under certain conditions proteins etc can assemble themselves (randomly) and we know alot about how our body works and it is all in tune with the 2nd law.- create a 1:1 copy of a human mind, we will get something which we have to call alive. btw ghost in the shell is a good movie.
apart from alive and dead being only human notions without describing a "ding an sich" - but thats me
also, why not reverse the rules of entropy in a reverse universe? there are verified problems with supersymmetry, but entropy isnt one of them as far as i know.
"The second law of thermodynamics is really a mental law indicating the direction of the illusory flow of time. Time itself really exists as a two-direction affair, and really has no more flow than space."
leave away the "mental" and this sentence would make sense. though this does not follow from the mathematically similar treatment of time and space by einstein (the idea is likeable though ^^).
__
well i cant read everything now, it certainly has some brilliance, but seems to be "mislead" (Einstein on the other hand had most of the time the right intuition.) easy to judge though 80 years later
|
you say its not about IQ, its about archievements...
wrong.
its not about archievements, its about how you feel about them.
Gates may be the richiest man on the earth, but he is sooooo poor in many, many ways.
|
If any1 can get a hold of mynock, pls ask him to interview mensrea.
He is the wisest (if not the most 'intelligent') person on this forum. I live for his posts.
Wisdom is so much more fulfilling than intelligence.
Any fans of Socrates?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me.
|
On August 31 2003 21:49 Teroru wrote:
Any fans of Socrates?
Thats sorta ironic
|
mensrea could interview himherself like glenn gould did ^^
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
|
|
On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me.
Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes...
|
Canada5062 Posts
On August 31 2003 23:03 Krzych wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me. Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes...
Be careful.
|
|
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On August 31 2003 23:03 Krzych wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me. Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes...
ok you're right eri is the coolest but i'm 2nd!
|
On August 31 2003 23:09 [pG]Rekrul wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 23:03 Krzych wrote: On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me. Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes... ok you're right eri is the coolest but i'm 2nd!
|
Canada5062 Posts
|
I say that being intelligent isn't knowing a lot; its what you do with what you know. ):
|
whoever invented sexy thongs and g strings
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On August 31 2003 23:37 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
I say that being intelligent isn't knowing a lot; its what you do with what you know. ):
Said the kid with a low IQ.
|
On August 31 2003 23:14 Krzych wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 23:09 [pG]Rekrul wrote: On August 31 2003 23:03 Krzych wrote: On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me. Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes... ok you're right eri is the coolest but i'm 2nd!
Eri IS the coolest.
For what its worth - out of every1 i have met on brood war, i would want to give eri a BJ~
Congrats eri u won mora's BJ !
Or Hefe-X17. he's really hot.
|
On August 31 2003 17:41 Bleww wrote: you didn't hear it, you read it. HAHAHA OWNED NEWBIE. MY IQ > YOU
What if I'm blind and I'm using one of those new revolutionary computers that talks? 
|
On September 01 2003 02:31 Teroru wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 23:14 Krzych wrote: On August 31 2003 23:09 [pG]Rekrul wrote: On August 31 2003 23:03 Krzych wrote: On August 31 2003 21:50 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
But I'm the coolest which is why he should interview me. Instead of being funny you're being pathetic sometimes... ok you're right eri is the coolest but i'm 2nd! Eri IS the coolest. For what its worth - out of every1 i have met on brood war, i would want to give eri a BJ~ Congrats eri u won mora's BJ ! Or Hefe-X17. he's really hot.
that's not funny, just pathetic attempt at ass kissing.
|
why is this thread still alive?
|
On August 31 2003 11:58 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
<3<3<3<3
you edited!
nazgul just curious, had you read my post?
I figured I wrote it to incoherant and nobody would read it.
|
Russian Federation1233 Posts
I reckon he can read initial messages cos he is an admin
|
actually, the highest iq ever meassured is pretty recent: 297 IQ, scored by a then 11 year old boy.
|
On September 01 2003 00:04 [pG]Rekrul wrote: Show nested quote +On August 31 2003 23:37 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
I say that being intelligent isn't knowing a lot; its what you do with what you know. ): Said the kid with a low IQ.
Said the kid who insulted my intelligence using improper grammar.
|
ejai63
United States2101 Posts
stupid topic. the greatest mind ever is obviously lim yo hwan, aka SlayerS_'BoxeR'
|
On September 01 2003 18:07 ejai63 wrote:
stupid topic. the greatest mind ever is obviously lim yo hwan, aka SlayerS_'BoxeR'
Read what rea said =/
|
ejai63
United States2101 Posts
it was a joke, and i didnt bother reading any of the other posts except the first
|
First of all I want to apologize for reviving this old thread, but I was doing a search on the net and ended up reading this interesting story.
Now on topic. A genius person. A genius person is the one the combines several aspects regarding intelligence and thinking, and is able to apply these aspects in what we call skil achievmentes.
Some of the aspects I am talking about would be:
- Ability to fast calculate: a genius person has to solve arithmetic problems with pretty ease.
- Ability to fast mind-react: a genius person has to be always aware, and react when questioned. Doesn't need to be constantly reading, because his mind is prepared to react at anytime to any situation.
- Very good memory: a genius person has to have good memory, both photographical and audible.
- Ability to reason: a genius person has to understand, not know why things work the way they do.
- Spacial reasoning: a genius person has to have abstract reasoning, which is understanding figures and their position in space.
- Crazyness: a genius person has to be at least a bit crazy. Has to be different, have something in mind that always keeps him busy.
- Creativity: a genius person has to have the ability not to copy, but to create and invent.
- Mechanical reasoning: a genius person has to understand mechacnics. Have another point of view of the world.
- High iq.
- Skill: a genius person has to proove the world he's a genius.
- Emotional coldness: last but not least, a genius person has to be 100% focused on what his brain thinks and not what his emotions lead to.
Sidis probably had a few of the aspects I've mentioned here, but not all, and there are hundreds of human beings that have lived in our planet that have had them all and even more. I've gone through, school, high school, undergraduate college, and currently graduate college, and I have met with brilliant men. Both in person and in my readings. And so I have also met with overestimated and overrated men. Let's take for instance people who learn many languages, which definetly isn't a great achievement, where if it's in 3 weeks or 3 years. Learn a language is like learning a recipe. Go on and again and on and again until it sticks. There is no creativity, or invention or developing of new breakouts during the process.
From what I have known, heard and red, the most brilliant and genius persons that have ever lived to me are the following:
20th century:
Bobby Fischer and Jose Capablanca. Yes, I know what you are going to say, two chess players. But both of them combine every single of the points I mentioned previously and executed them relentlessly. Countless stories have been told about how Fischer till today is able to reproduce every single one of his chess games, and about how Capablanca did never read a chess book in his life. At one point of Fischer's career he affirmed that there was no point in playing chess because the 8x8 table had already al the posible strats done by his time, so what did he do ? create a new game.
And to the fellow that said Einstein's iq was 300++ I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actually Einstein is regarded as one of the less intelligent scientists ever (140-150 iq).
19th century:
No question, mathematician Carl Gauss and physicist C. Maxwell.
18th century:
No question, Wolfgang Mozart, the kid that at age 3 was told by his father to pick between mathematics and music, that who is said if he should have pick math he would have been and done more than any other man, and who apart from being a composer was a very talented billards players (mechanical reasoning).
17th century:
No question. Isaac Newton
16th century:
No question. Leonardo da Vinci.
|
that almost sounded like science fiction, but yeah as drone said if he lacked so much these social abilities then he definitely lacked something big and that's what probably kept him from being known.
|
On October 20 2004 09:12 soundwave wrote:
And to the fellow that said Einstein's iq was 300++ I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actually Einstein is regarded as one of the less intelligent scientists ever (140-150 iq).
that definitely proves that IQ means shit when we are talking about true genius.
|
Actually Alberts was was around 180.
|
I think that u just cant be born a genius. You might be able to grasp/learn things quickers than others, but the fact that his father raped him with learning from a baby shows that hard work will make u a genius.
Anyone can do it, it just depends how motivated you are.
Hmm.. ima go play sc stuff hw :D
|
Let's just say IQ is like APM :
Having more than 250 is likely to make you a godly player, but all you really need to be a "genius" is about 150...
|
On October 20 2004 10:03 Theorie wrote:
Let's just say IQ is like APM :
Having more than 250 is likely to make you a godly player, but all you really need to be a "genius" is about 150...
your theorie is horrible
|
Isnt this thread like 2 years old. I kind of remembered reading what mensrea wrote a LONG time ago.
|
Canada5062 Posts
Me too. j/k
Seriously tho, it's an old thread, but soundwave obviously had something more than the odd remark to say, so I don't mind.
|
On October 20 2004 09:40 ChApFoU wrote: Show nested quote +On October 20 2004 09:12 soundwave wrote:
And to the fellow that said Einstein's iq was 300++ I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actually Einstein is regarded as one of the less intelligent scientists ever (140-150 iq).
that definitely proves that IQ means shit when we are talking about true genius.
I agree totally. Considering the limited knowledge we have about intelligence, we shouldn't be so judgemental, especially when IQ tests and similar bs measurements serve no purpose, except to give people a false reason to think they are superior.
On Einstein's IQ, he never took an IQ test, so I have no idea how they are measuring it...
|
Let's just say IQ is like APM:
hahahahahahah :D
|
On October 20 2004 10:14 Pumpkin wrote: Show nested quote +On October 20 2004 10:03 Theorie wrote:
Let's just say IQ is like APM :
Having more than 250 is likely to make you a godly player, but all you really need to be a "genius" is about 150... your theorie is horrible
his nick is also theorie :p
theorie you are horrible .
EDIT: Now that's some genius reasoning of me.!
|
yeah apm's only resemblance to iq is that their numbers happen to be remotely in the same region. They're like complete opposites
|
|
|
I read the story, but didn't read any of the other posts. Omg that guy is so freakin intelligent, but he just didn't have any social skills. What a waste; he had so much potential.
|
how is it possible to get into Harvard Medical and MIT at age 8
|
there is no age requirement
and he didnt actually get into harvard until he was 11
and he later came to the conclusion that he hated socialism
|
|
|
Harvard was different back then, but still very difficult to get into I'm sure. But perhaps more suited to his abilities. Just guessing though.
Perhaps his early education played a large part. I think I remember hearing from various places that we have the highest 'mental apm' (I say that because I forget the term, but I think it may be close enough) as toddlers, but as we grow up a lot of them go to waste. Perhaps his didn't. Maybe not though, because I bet millions of parents wanting their children to be famous prodigies have tried this by now and without such success.
|
was this guy really happy though
would you rather have your child be intelligent, or happy
|
On October 20 2004 12:42 Servolisk wrote:
Harvard was different back then, but still very difficult to get into I'm sure. But perhaps more suited to his abilities. Just guessing though.
I don't even understand what this means.
|
Bigballs, what's tenth grade math? Solving linear equations?
Btw, most critics (except maybe the psycho lesbian feminists) agree that Mill's wife wasn't responsible for any of his important work even though he attributes his best stuff to her--he was just a bit of a fuck up that way.
Reading about prodigies is always interesting. That crossword puzzle thing is SICK.
|
Sweden1225 Posts
I knew all about Sidis already so i didn't bother reading!
he's pretty clever :o kaka
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
On August 30 2003 20:31 Orlandu wrote:
I don't believe in intelligence setting people apart at all. There's too much evidence in the world that intelligence is nothing more than a useless statistic. Motivation however, is the key factor that shapes the people in this world and what they do. Even your story shows enormous evidence of that.
I would certainly agree with your conclusions applied to vast majority of people. Humans are capable of great dela of learning, adapting and developing, so, in my opinion, motivation and effort (and some circumstancial factors) should be more significant than whatever "measurable" predefined (genetic) difference in intelligence.
This, however, is certainly not true in border cases, when, for example, you have a lot of talented people working in a narrow field. Often there is still a lot that separates some of them, and it is sure as hell not lack of hard work. I would think that some people's brain for whatever unknown reasons are just better at certain tasks. You can't say, for example, that top 100 chess players do not work enough, but Kasparov still dominated the field for 20 years.
Another thing I want to mention is intelligence assessment. While I certainly deeply appreciate the effort to measure it in some ways (like IQ tests) in order to understand what it is, you cannot really draw any serious conclusions from it (unless you are comparing 180 with 80). We still have no clue what intelligence is, so considering a limited testing technique as a sort of universal sorting/comparing tool for intelligence (as some people here do) is gullible to say at least. I really don't understand how can you argue about comparison of uncomparable objects.
P.S. Stop refering to Einstein as an example of enormously high IQ. Nobody thought Einstein was that smart before he published articles that were breaktroughs in 3 phundamental physics problems in a very short period of time. From where I stand, his high IQ as an explanatiomn of that phenomena is even worse than a hypothesis that he sold his soul to devil for that.
|
Very Very interesting... so interesting that it prompted me to do a lil research about this man. According to numerous studies and biographies, this guy's IQ was indeed crudely estimated at 250-300 which I initially thought was true.
Einstein's adult IQ was 160 which was by no means "amazing". But his level on transcendental (meaning he can raise his thinking above the ordinary level) thinking was and is unparalleled; with that, you can probably add 30-40 points to his iq which would put him in the class of around 200 iq.
Marilyn Vos Savant had the highest measured IQ of 230.
Highest living measured IQ is 19?, he was once featured on Dateline.
There was also a kid that attended USC at the age of 11, graduated at the age of 14.
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
|
I totally dont understand why do people consider such people geniuses. Nearly everything we learn during the first grades of school is really easy. Especially when one has good teachers and great 'atmosphere' to learn. Some subjects like history. biology etc are just raw facts. Knowing them has nothing to do with great iq, it's just memory. Remembering things fast is nice, but you dont need to know all the facts (nono, IM not being ignorant) when you can check them in a book (for example when one doesnt know the proper date of a battle in 14th centaury it wont make a big difference).
So we are left with languages and mathematics/physics+music.
Languages are easy to learn when you have a private teacher and read a lot/use them. The man mentioned in the article had his parents who taught him and most of us are stuck in language classes at schools (because our parents dont have enough time), with groups of other people and we constantly waste time revising the facts know and being unable to focus on the things we cant catch faster. In addition we cant use the languages all the time like that dude, because our parents probably dont know 10+ languages. During 1/2 year with my private english teacher (2h weekly) I probably learned more than during 4 years at school (6+hours weekly). And that guy was taught at the age of 3 (or so I wont bother to check), when people learn languages much faster.
Plus as it was said when you know 10 languages you will probably learn the 11th easier because many things are the same. Actually he didnt learn 'different' languages like chinese/korean/hungarian. (only turkish and hebraw, not sure if they are hard of not, they were in the center of the chart with hard languages to learn, we made one day, these languages use alphabets, gogo learn chinese ~~).
as for mathematics -the things we learn at school are easy. If you consider it hard you probably had bad teachers who didnt make you 'understand' it, but 'learn' it.
The more complicated math is harder but think about it from other way -(it also applies to music):
that guy learned the basic stuff (notation etc) when he was young and had additional 10 years to understand it. Moreover his parents probably explained to him all the things he had problems with.
[[[[(actually when you are interested in something (because of incentives given by good teachers) you are more engaged and try to do things on your own, by reading books/thinking, think about bw, many of us know most of the progamers (some even their names) and spend a lot of time leaning things about them, because we like it. If we would like maths instead of bw and would discuss math problems instead of strategies, we would be generally smarter and like few of people here became high level in bw, few would be good at maths and could even invent something etc. It is the problem of dedication and will to do something, this guy was tutored by his parents and probably couldnt say 'F*** all this S***' Im gonna play bw/soccer/meet some girls etc)]]]].
It may sound unclear but here's an example -if you would learn the music notation (sorry dont know how is it called in english) at the age of 20+ (it;s not a good age to learn it because the older we get, the harder we learn) you will have say 5-10 years during which you can practise before you publish your music (if you fail you have to switch jobs most of the time, etc). That guy knew all the basic stuff when he was young. He had more years when he could 'feel' basics.
Nowadays good classic music is created by people who are usually 60+. They probably learn how to write it at the age of 25 and have around 35 years to practise. When someone is 60+ he gets slower and thinking gets harder (well, Im not sure, Im not that old). And the 'genius' was taught the basics when he was really young and could use them during his most 'creative' part of the life (which IMO is the age around 12-25, when the brain can still learn things really fast).
Of course it's not always true, there is a lot talent needed, but when all of people who create music (etc) were taught how to do it during their childhood, we would have a lot more of better music productions nowadays.
As for the musitians - I always wonder why do people believe he was such a genius. I totally dont understand why is classic music considered 'genius' and popular isnt. IMO the beatels made better music than many classic composers, because the music is still listened by many people.
Of course Im not talking about crap like britney etc, which is created for niches (young girls) and forgotten after few years (however one has to have talent do it, it's not easy).
But what makes the classic music better? If it is so good why dont most of the people listen to it?
Of course I dont claim it's bad. I just think that 'popular' music creators dont get enough recognition.
As for the intelligence - IMO such people are awfully unintelligent. They cant live in a society. They would have big problems if they werent tutored and helped.
I believe that people shoud have children to spread their genes.
Who is smarter, a genius with iq 220 living in a wood, or for example one of the Russian Czars (ceasars) who is said to have 800++ children (he spread his genes), or a guy who was using his own sperm in a clinic instead of 'anonymous' sperm selected by woman (funny guy, lol).
They spread their genes and can survive, plus have enough brain to either (a) rule, (b) be a doctor.
It's the thing someone here called being 'smart'.
Plus the knowledge he had was much usless and the things he created. Black holes? OMG if we would have a theory about them created now, it wouldnt make much difference. And people who create more useful things -medicines, light bulbs ( ) etc, dont get any narly recognition (actually we know about the creator of light bulbs, but dont know who invented microwave ovens). Once again I dont want to make you feel Im beeing ignorant, but when thinking generally, how does a great chess player contribute to the society - only some pleasure for a small group of people (plus if there was a war, he would be quickly forgotten), while someone CREATING or INVENTING someothing will help the life of many people.
But still a chess player>>> that guy, because the chessmaster is probably happy during his life and Im not so sure about this 'genius' and he made a decision to be a pro chess player on his own (and we forget about a lot of people who were tutored just like Sidis and didnt achieve anything -they just wasted their lifes (or rather their parents wasted their lifes)).
of course there is talent and one needs it. but IMO someone who is 'smart' and creative may achieve much more than someone who is a walking encyclopedia, full of worthless facts
|
Maybe the conversation would change direction and we should discuss about ppl being pioneers in thoughts,ideas,contributions to sciences etc.What is their profile?And also this: intelligent ppl without motivation.What could cause this?Poverty?Lazyness?Also does anyone from here know or have some info whats the connection of the human mind memory(for example John Von Neumann had great memory and mathematical ability coinsidence or not?) and its ability to think;calculate,valuating things etc.About brains abilities what counts;genetic determinism or enviroment?Maybe a combination of these?I still read that experts have many disagreements on this
|
u guys could bielive in a flying goat.
|
On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
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.
|
On August 30 2003 15:41 WickedDreams wrote:
Can you name the brightest person of all time? Perhaps Albert Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci. Maybe Isaac Newton or John Stuart Mill. These notables are certainly contenders, but there was one man who may have outshone them all. You have probably never heard of William James Sidis.
William Sidis was born of extraordinary parents. They were Russian Jews who fled the intense anti-semitism of their native country. Upon arriving in America Boris Sidis taught himself to read and write English in four months and educated himself with a work-one-week-study-for-two policy. Initially he resisted studying for a degree but then completed the four year course in one year. His Ph.D was awarded even though he declined to submit a thesis or sit an oral exam.
Sarah Mandlebraun studied English under Boris. With her keen intelligence she went on to study medicine and was one of the few women to graduate from medical school before the turn of the century. She encouraged Boris to enrol at Harvard. They fell in love and married despite an insistence by Boris that he would never make any money.
William was born on April fools day in 1898. His parents lavished attention (of a particular kind) on him from the start and worked hard to make him brilliant. In modern parlance, he was 'hothoused'. While still in his cot Boris used letter bricks to teach William syllables. At six months he spoke his first word, "door", and a few months later was able to explain that "door opens, people come". By eighteen months he was reading the New York Times and had learnt to count. Sarah bought him an encyclopedia and her help using it was soon rejected. At three he was typing letters. He taught himself Latin, and then went on to learn Greek, Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Turkish and Armenian. During his life he mastered at least forty languages and it was said he could learn a language in a day.
At six William was able to calculate on what day of the week any date would fall. One reporter was amazed to discover that he could not only quote facts from books, but also give the numbers of the pages on which those facts could be verified. He enjoyed star-gazing and map-making, and began collecting 'streetcar transfers', a hobby which became a life-long obsession and on which he later wrote what may be the most boring book ever written.
He sped through grade school, completing all seven grades in seven months, though he was not so good at maths to begin with. He took an interest at seven and even developed a set of logarithms in base twelve. He devised his own speed-reading system, wrote four books between the ages of six and eight and invented a new Esperanto-like language. By the time he was eight William had passed the Harvard Medical School anatomy examination and the entrance exam for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In high school he took six weeks to complete the four year curriculum and then worked for another six weeks as a teaching assistant. Before officially studying physics he was helping senior students with their assignments.
Withdrawn from the high school after three months William stayed at home mastering advanced mathematics. He read Einstein and may have corresponded with the great man. At eleven he enrolled as a 'special student' at Harvard and at twelve delivered a lecture on 'four-dimensional bodies' to the Harvard Mathematical Club. By now the press was onto him and reported a severe bout of flu as a nervous breakdown. His interests were wide and included politics, mathematics, languages, astronomy, anatomy and transport systems. He wrote a political constitution for a utopian society and ordered his personal life with a set of 154 rules, which included celibacy.
A cousin said of him that he never played games but was always reading. He was "a genius, and to be a genius you have to do a lot of work". This seriousness and brilliance, together with social ineptitude, led to persecution at Harvard, bolstered by strong anti-semitic feeling. His grades were not brilliant and he graduated 'cum laude' rather than 'magna cum laude', thus incurring the wrath of his mother.
In 1915 he secured a position as professor of mathematics at the Rice Institute where he was surrounded by brilliant minds. He was teased and reduced to ineffectiveness by students older than him and increasingly became a social misfit. He joined the socialist party, strongly expressed pacifist views and was asked to leave after eight months.
Enrolling at Harvard Law School he took a greater interest in politics, veering to the left of the socialist party. Some on the left favoured revolution and this incurred the displeasure of people at large. William claimed exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector and escaped prison only because World War I ended. His mother was again shocked when he left law school before graduating.
For a time he worked as a laboratory assistant but resigned in disgust upon discovering that he was working to a military agenda. He was imprisoned for being prominent in a protest march that turned into a riot and was rescued from eighteen months hard-labour by his father. William later considered this redemption to be an 'abduction'.
In 1925 his book 'The Animate and the Inanimate' was published. This was a scientific work in which William predicted black holes years before anyone else. The work was totally ignored and William never again published a book in his own name.
'Escaping' from his parents he worked first as a Russian interpreter and then in a number of positions operating adding machines for low wages. Always he hid his genius from his employer and left when it was discovered. The press continued to hound him and he objected to those who felt that he owed them a debt just because he was a genius. His isolation and eccentricity increased.
His high intelligence cannot be doubted. To give one last example, he was fond of completing crosswords without writing the answers down until he had them all. Abraham Sterling, director of New York City's Aptitude Testing Institute, said that "he easily had an I.Q. between 250 and 300. I have never heard of the existence of anybody with such an I.Q. I would honestly say that he was the most prodigious intellect of our entire generation".
At the age of 46 William James Sidis, possibly the world's greatest mind ever, suffered a serious stroke and died. History hardly remembers him.
What went wrong? Why did this monster mind apparently achieve so little? The potential was there. Reading through the details of William's life (in Amy Wallace's book, 'The Prodigy', published by Macmillan) a few things become very clear. William was a reluctant genius. In his early years he delighted in his gifts and abilities, but he lived in a goldfish bowl with the world watching his every move. His father made the serious mistake of setting him on a pedestal as an example of how children should be educated, attributing his high I.Q. to education. The critics were there, many just waiting for him to fail. The press love to find fault with those in the public eye; it sells newspapers. Princess Diana was a recent victim of the tyranny of the press, but she was not the first and will not be the last. William Sidis was denied privacy and the freedom to live his life in the way he wanted and withdrew into his shell. The world was thus denied the potentially huge benefits of a very powerful mind.
But does society have the right to say to the individual "You must perform for us"? William Sidis did his own thing. He used his great mind in his esoteric streetcar transfer hobby and in the writing of a revisionist history of the American people. We do not tell artists that they must decorate public buildings so that everyone can benefit from their talents. Nor do we expect composers to dedicate themselves to the most popular styles so that the greatest number of people will enjoy their work. Genius does not work like that. In fact, genius may be smothered if we attempt to harness and steer it in a desirable direction. At an individual level most people have experienced 'moments of brilliance' when they have least expected them. In fact, the harder we try to be clever the less likely we are to excel. Brilliance is not available on prescription.
In 1987 Britain experienced 'the great storm' in which millions of trees were uprooted. Some areas were cleared and carefully replanted, with only limited success. Other areas were left untouched and nature has taken its course. These areas are regenerating wonderfully. Let us not forget that minds are also nature's products.
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.
Read every word. Incredible story, and clear and though-provoking writing style. It does appear to be an essay for school though. I doubt anyone of us could've written it.
|
|
|
dude was too smart to ever get anything done
|
The greatest mind ever=John Nash
|
|
|
Why is everyone believing this?
1. intelligent and stupid people start speaking at the same time, you can't tell any reasonable difference until age 4
2. you can't learn a language in a day. there is more than just intelligence that is required for so many things, there is experience. even if he could read a word in another language and english once and permanently remember it, that would take a lot longer than a day, especially if you had to hear the word pronounced as well. Lastly, memory and intelligence are seperate issues.
3. why do you people think he was affected by others? ok picture yourself surrounded by retards. do you really think retards are significantly going to affect the way you think and act.
4. this story is of course 100 years old because if it were not it would be identified as false
5. for those of you who don't know how the iq system works. 100 is the mean and 15 or 16 is the standard deviation. a person like me with an iq of 140 would be in the top 2% which is the boundary for someone to be considered genius. Someone with an iq of 210 would be a 1 in 278 billion chance of occuring.
|
On October 20 2004 19:45 SurG wrote: Show nested quote +On August 30 2003 20:31 Orlandu wrote:
I don't believe in intelligence setting people apart at all. There's too much evidence in the world that intelligence is nothing more than a useless statistic. Motivation however, is the key factor that shapes the people in this world and what they do. Even your story shows enormous evidence of that. I would certainly agree with your conclusions applied to vast majority of people. Humans are capable of great dela of learning, adapting and developing, so, in my opinion, motivation and effort (and some circumstancial factors) should be more significant than whatever "measurable" predefined (genetic) difference in intelligence. This, however, is certainly not true in border cases, when, for example, you have a lot of talented people working in a narrow field. Often there is still a lot that separates some of them, and it is sure as hell not lack of hard work. I would think that some people's brain for whatever unknown reasons are just better at certain tasks. You can't say, for example, that top 100 chess players do not work enough, but Kasparov still dominated the field for 20 years. Another thing I want to mention is intelligence assessment. While I certainly deeply appreciate the effort to measure it in some ways (like IQ tests) in order to understand what it is, you cannot really draw any serious conclusions from it (unless you are comparing 180 with 80). We still have no clue what intelligence is, so considering a limited testing technique as a sort of universal sorting/comparing tool for intelligence (as some people here do) is gullible to say at least. I really don't understand how can you argue about comparison of uncomparable objects. P.S. Stop refering to Einstein as an example of enormously high IQ. Nobody thought Einstein was that smart before he published articles that were breaktroughs in 3 phundamental physics problems in a very short period of time. From where I stand, his high IQ as an explanatiomn of that phenomena is even worse than a hypothesis that he sold his soul to devil for that.
Wow that is an old quote of mine =]
I know everything in your post wasn't directed towards me, but I'm not going to bother quoting out the specific parts.
I think I was a bit brash in my old quote. With like what you said, we still have no real idea what intelligence truly is, so trying to measure it is a bit illogical. But that's not to say that intelligence doesn't play a part in things, as I think my quote gave off such an impression.
I simply feel motivation is the most important factor of all. That's not limited to simply the amount of work put in, but to all aspects of motivation, both mental and physical. With the right motivation, I believe a person can achieve anything... the problem is all properly stimulating all aspects of motivation.
For example, Korea vs the World in Brood War. Foreigners put in so much effort, but still cannot compete with the Koreans. It's not because Koreans are born with some innate ability... or perhaps they are in a sense, in that aspects of their motivation are already properly stimulated that foreigners can't easily stimulate. The Koreans not only practice more than Foreigners, the true pros devote their emotions and mental structure to the focus of Brood War. There are very few foreigners who can even lie and say they do half as much of that.
I believe intelligence to be a part of the mechanics of the brain, but not something set in stone for a person. In a sense it may be set in stone, because I don't believe humans have any idea of how to stimulate the right aspects of motivation that would be measured under our standards as intelligence, rather it happens unconsciously, by luck, or forces beyond our control.
But, I think it would be igorant of me to say all brains are equal in every aspect... While I believe in general they are quite similar, there has to be some differences between them. It is my personal belief however that raw motivation, defined under all of it's aspects, is the true make-up of what we call intelligence.
There are just so many examples of people with seemingly amazing talents that achieve so little under certain circumstances, yet people with seemingly unamazing talents achieving so much under other circumstances... There have to be a network of aspects that could allow for such circumstances to promote such achievement... Something to stimulate the brain that allows it to act in the way in which it does. Perhaps the environment, how one is brought up and taught to view life and it's functions.
I don't know if anyone followed what I'm saying, and to be honest I wasn't directing most of this post to the poster I quoted, I sort of began rambling and theorizing and recklessly finishing my thoughts... just kind of writing what was in my head without realizing it.
|
that guy was motivated more than other geniuses, but he didn't accomplish much compared to others, he just educated himself.
|
On October 20 2004 13:25 travis wrote: Show nested quote +On October 20 2004 12:42 Servolisk wrote:
Harvard was different back then, but still very difficult to get into I'm sure. But perhaps more suited to his abilities. Just guessing though.
I don't even understand what this means.
It means I think Harvard had different entrance requirements, and perhaps those requirments were suited to his talents. I doubt he could get in with todays requirements. If I remember correctly, education for children was pretty useless, and all ages were in one building where they would do simple things on a slate. Perhaps 11 year olds of today would be able to get into the Harvard of back then.
|
wicked could you cite your source(s) ? i'm just curious as to where i can read more
|
the difficult of true history comes out...
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
humans are so disgusting... bunch of monkeys, the lot of you
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
On October 21 2004 20:43 fenixdown wrote:
Poland, a fucktard that spread +800 sons over the world is a criminal and should be punished for the huge damage his dick did to the world.
offtopic:
That dude has no idea what he is talking about. I'll bet that both Rurik and Romanov dynasties of Russian czars combined never had that many children.
We do know, however, is that Poles invaded Russia using fake self-proclaimed heir to the Russian throne(False Dmitry) as excuse. =) As a matter of fact, during pretty short period of time, Poles supported 3 fake hairs to the Russian throne (all were claiming to be Dmitry, son of Ivan The Terrible). So I wonder, if you count all those "children" Poles made up, is it going to exceed 800? =)
|
well, just to make the point that the "smarter" thing isn't the "most intelligent". Spread ur genes out there like a crazy is not smart, is lack of interest for this world and his enviromental problem (what I call to be just a dick) and sorry for this offtopic dude.
|
While we're on the topic of IQ... I read awhile ago that the person with the highest IQ was a russian kid with hypersynapsis, he had one of 400+ i'm pretty sure he died before reaching adulthood, I know IQ tests only go up to 250 or something, but I'm sure there is some type of special one to test geniuses or something?
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 :-/.
|
0_0: mozart lived to be 35, not half bad for his time. Most 'geniuses' nowadays live to be in there 60s or so, in fact, most geniuses over time lived well over their expected age. So I don't know where you got that from.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
stop fuckin lying to yourselves
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
|
Fair enough, I've never cared enough about russia to ever study its history >.<
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*
|
|
|
Hes not that smart
|
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...
|
On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
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.
|
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
|
actually i have a ripleys book that the smartest person was a korean kid..at the age of 10 months he can speak fluent english and korean , 3 years old he graduated from uni and got a phd for something forgot..6 years old he designed a space shuttle thing ..blah blah
|
This thread is incredibly silly.
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.
|
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.
|
I saw a website with the top 10 people of highest IQs in history. Most were germans, one American, Bobby Fischer. Just thought it was interesting.
|
Everyone that's intrigued by this post / story should see "a beautiful mind" with Russel Crowe. It's about a genious and how his life goes. Quite good.
|
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.
|
I guess u can saw lot's of great minds on socialist nations because there everybody has the "same opportunities" so intelligent and smart people is easily found while on on other political-economical systems that's not the case, u can be a fuckin genius but if ur family is poor (specially on 3rd country) ur chances to give something back to the world is little.
|
On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
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.htmland... 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.
|
On October 22 2004 02:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: Show nested quote +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.
The majority of that post was redundant. If you can count you can do the math section of an IQ test, if you can't, then you clearly don't have the intelligence if you can't logically come up with a way to count. You don't need established laws of mathematics to be able to do the math in an IQ test. Most of it is Logic and Problem Solving in pictures, which you don't need formal education to do. The only barrier in testing would be language, or if you were never taught language they would have to do it by association, the same way they would test a baby.
And I said that hard work will overcome intelligence, so the last part of your post was completely useless. That is why a disciplines culture like china, japan and korea all seem alot more intelligence on average in comparison to the majority of other countries.
Afterall, even though I have the ability(IQ), I would not know nearly as much about half the things I know if I didn't have some interest and willing to put the time into learning.
|
On October 22 2004 11:47 TvP On Guillo wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
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.htmland... 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.
How do you propose we measure IQ correctly? Give the Guineans a boost of 60points?
Its interesting how nobody would argue if people said Africans were better at running/sports than others eh...?
|
On October 22 2004 11:51 Element)FrEaK wrote: Show nested quote +On October 22 2004 02:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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. The majority of that post was redundant. If you can count you can do the math section of an IQ test, if you can't, then you clearly don't have the intelligence if you can't logically come up with a way to count. You don't need established laws of mathematics to be able to do the math in an IQ test. Most of it is Logic and Problem Solving in pictures, which you don't need formal education to do. The only barrier in testing would be language, or if you were never taught language they would have to do it by association, the same way they would test a baby. And I said that hard work will overcome intelligence, so the last part of your post was completely useless. That is why a disciplines culture like china, japan and korea all seem alot more intelligence on average in comparison to the majority of other countries. Afterall, even though I have the ability(IQ), I would not know nearly as much about half the things I know if I didn't have some interest and willing to put the time into learning.
I would say that logic and problem solving require alot more of an education than simple language. Few people remember that logic and rhetoric were academic practises in ancient times (one of the only academic practises), the condition that we take it for granted today is because our entire method of communication is based on its historical advancements, while at the same time we lose its basic theoretical concepts and come to accept it as a part of human nature.
Furthermore I can attest from experience that the assertion that people of oriental countries are smarter is an illusion in N America. This is something people are unlikely to see, because of our modern equation of academic success with intelligence. While probably a better indicator than raw "IQ"s, the measure of academic success especially in mathematics, etc. ignores completely the unimaginativeness and ultimate simplicity of their thinking. In China, where I was born, very many people are able to do math problems well ahead of their Western counterparts, yet their ability to think and for self-expression as well as liberty of mind is retarded probably for the duration of their lives.
|
Einstein's brain was physically different from that of a regular human... might be the cause of greater intellect...
autistic story; some girl from my grade school (old one) was like..13~14 and went to quebec on vacation for 2 weeks and came back fluent in french... she can speak perfectly.. fucknig ridiculous!
|
Thats why I said they seem alot more intelligent than average. Discipline has its advantages and disadvantages, one of its greatest disadvantages is, quite often but not always, a lack of thinking for themselves.
And ya, you are right about the logic and problem solving, at least more right than I am. I'll give you that. I still think neither of us is entirely right, it is somewhere in between.
|
Best way to do an IQ test is at an early age.
|
On October 22 2004 11:47 TvP On Guillo wrote: Show nested quote +On October 21 2004 23:54 Hydrolisko wrote: On October 21 2004 08:51 TvP On Guillo wrote: On October 21 2004 02:17 Hydrolisko wrote:
Average IQ by nation
China, Japan, Korea (Eastern Asia Countries) 103-107
United States 98
Mexico 87
African countries 70
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.htmland... 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.
and so what?
Are you talking to me or the author of the book? I didn't write this book.. You're talking like you're speaking to the author. I'm just listing what i found with research.
and um.. til the day you write a book that completely refutes and obliterates this book, i'll believe that book for now.
You talk like you know everything about IQ, much more than the author of this book. Sounds like me when I was 14. "Everything I think or say is right, everything else is wrong!!"
|
On August 30 2003 15:41 WickedDreams wrote:
In 1925 his book 'The Animate and the Inanimate' was published. This was a scientific work in which William predicted black holes years before anyone else.
He was not the first, black holes were predicted long time ago ^^
link
|
What is more important? To be smart or to achieve something?
|
Just because they never 'achieved' anything for us (society) doesnt mean they didnt achieve anything at all.
He wrote a book on his favourite hobby - thats a great achievement for him as an individual.
|
Why don't we hear anything about this man in media, schools, etc?
|
Why don't we hear anything about this man in media, schools, etc?
|
This story is true. Look him up, there's a ton of stuff on him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
