similarminds.com :: View topic

similarminds.com

Genius
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

HatchBack176
Advanced Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:49 am Post subject:

Exactly, but it's not 'merely', it's a lower bound, he has an IQ AT LEAST in the 120's. Taking the Putnam is just like taking another IQ test, it established another lower bound, this time much higher.

PitKnight
Advanced Member

Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 680
Location: CT

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:09 am Post subject:

AvereX wrote:

it seems that most can only provide a carbon-copied definition
not to say this is bad
but......
as in Cooper's 3 words to live by thread
I was hoping for an out of the box response
but aside from Jesus
to no avail

I didn't think my answer was too conventional. There were some elements that were along those lines I'll give you that, but it wasn't as "carbon copied" as some of the other ones mentioned here. Besides, we haven't seen your explanation yet I believe.
_________________

samael775
Advanced Member

Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 125
Location: rhode island, usa

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:51 am Post subject:

HatchBack176 wrote:

Exactly, but it's not 'merely', it's a lower bound, he has an IQ AT LEAST in the 120's. Taking the Putnam is just like taking another IQ test, it established another lower bound, this time much higher.

The Putnam is not the same as an IQ test. The Putnam has 12 really hard math problems. IQ tests generally have many questions, and they cover various forms of intelligence. Feynman, like Einstein, was known for his creative methods more than his analytical abilities, two other physicists solved Quantum Electrodynamics at the same time he did, but his method was much more innovative while the others used brute force math, so the Putnam would be a better measure of his intelligence than IQ.

Anyway, are you saying Van Gogh and Beethoven would have had great IQ scores (or weren't geniuses)?
_________________
intp, 5w6 sp, RCux|I|

HT
Advanced Member

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 4998

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:49 am Post subject:

samael775 wrote:

HT wrote:

IQ 160+

Richard Feynman's IQ was in the 120s, and he is known as one of the more brilliant physicists of the century, so I'm not sure how much weight you can put on tests. Plus, IQ only really tests logical and spatial intelligence, so relying on that would probably exempt most brilliant musicians, painters and writers.

Anyway, the best definition of "genius" is someone who is able to excel in a certain field at a far greater level than others, and able to master that field at an incredible rate.

That's just my own little opinion of a genius. Painters are not exempt. Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.
123 IQ is usually labeled as Above Average. Geniuses at that level is out of the question. Geniuses have to be quite rare. 120s is not rare, nor is it common(3.3 million people). 160+ IQ is rare, but there's about 160,000 people with such IQ. That's still a lot of people. To join any IQ Society, it requires at least 125 IQ.
_________________
Wrath Angel
MBTI Subtype: iNtP
Sex: Male

KNL
Advanced Member

Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 1454
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:27 am Post subject:

HT wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.

Nonsense. The concept of IQ was conceived in 1904, so unless da Vinci invented a time machine, such a thing cannot even be reasonably guessed.
_________________
I'm your type. Wink

"Oh, crap, she's got feelings."
"I'd rather be a smartass than a dumbass."
"What can I say, I'm intellectually promiscuous."

HT
Advanced Member

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 4998

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:32 am Post subject:

KNL wrote:

HT wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.

Nonsense. The concept of IQ was conceived in 1904, so unless da Vinci invented a time machine, such a thing cannot even be reasonably guessed.

Good counterpoint! I did a short research. They actually said he has 220 IQ. So dating it up to now, his IQ would still be at least 160, since 100 is always the normal value. I doubt the average IQ went up over 80 points in the past 100 years.
_________________
Wrath Angel
MBTI Subtype: iNtP
Sex: Male

lordofthefood1
Advanced Member

Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:57 am Post subject:

HT wrote:

KNL wrote:

HT wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.

Nonsense. The concept of IQ was conceived in 1904, so unless da Vinci invented a time machine, such a thing cannot even be reasonably guessed.

He could have an IQ of 100 for all we know.
_________________

Behold the world in other people, life is clarity.

HT
Advanced Member

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 4998

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:34 am Post subject:

lordofthefood1 wrote:

HT wrote:

KNL wrote:

HT wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.

Nonsense. The concept of IQ was conceived in 1904, so unless da Vinci invented a time machine, such a thing cannot even be reasonably guessed.

He could have an IQ of 100 for all we know.

That's 100% impossible. He's way too intelligent for 100 at this year. I hope you know who you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

If he has 100, then we ought to have 50 or 60 average at most.
_________________
Wrath Angel
MBTI Subtype: iNtP
Sex: Male

lordofthefood1
Advanced Member

Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:25 am Post subject:

HT wrote:

lordofthefood1 wrote:

HT wrote:

KNL wrote:

HT wrote:

Leonardo Da Vinci has 200 IQ.

Nonsense. The concept of IQ was conceived in 1904, so unless da Vinci invented a time machine, such a thing cannot even be reasonably guessed.

He could have an IQ of 100 for all we know.

I know who Leonardo da Vinci is. Maybe I was bringing up a point that I don't think IQ is a useful indicator of intelligence. Did you think of that? It measures how good you can do on an IQ test.
_________________

Behold the world in other people, life is clarity.

HatchBack176
Advanced Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:19 am Post subject:

samael775 wrote:

1.
The Putnam IS the same as an IQ test. You take the scores from a test, then you check to see if they correlate to some significant percentage with a bunch of other cognitive tests. The common factor ends up being something called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm (this guy makes a prediction about the Putnam using an already well-calibrated IQ study, the Putnam correlates well)

2.
I don't really care about genius status. I care about methodologies like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ
http://gigapedia.info/search:gigapedia?q=triz
http://www.ideationtriz.com/TRIZ_tutorial_1.asp
Having 1 math genius is good, having other math geniuses for her to talk to is even better. Having a widely learn-able skill-set is the best.

I'm not sure what their IQ's would be, but if I could give some advice I wouldn't waste my time trying to model them. The skills they brought to the table have been surpassed and are widely learn-able.

HatchBack176
Advanced Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:23 am Post subject:

Extra Random Stuff: ===================
When researchers look into the brain and ask what brain structures/processes closely approximate this g factor or maybe even subsume it. They see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_intelligence#Development_and_physiology
(researchers usually split it up into 2 different factors, crystallized and fluid. I see fluid as the more primal)

Quote:

Fluid intelligence involves the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and other systems related to attention and short-term memory.

To C.Beck: the conscious parts of Facilitators and Contributors, not surprisingly.
Fluid intelligence then ends up closely correlating to working memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory
In my opinion the most fruitful and interesting research correlating everything comes from Randall Engle's crew.
http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/page_down_today.htm

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad.creativity.html
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/
===================

samael775
Advanced Member

Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 125
Location: rhode island, usa

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:23 am Post subject:

HT wrote:

samael775 wrote:

HT wrote:

IQ 160+

Robert Oppenheimer called Feynman "by all odds the most brilliant young physicist [at Los Alamos]", while mathematician Mark Kac said "There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'...Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." Do you believe them, or a test?

Da Vinci was an inventor too, he probably would do well at an IQ test. But I highly doubt James Joyce and Michaelangelo would do the same. IQ doesn't measure creativity.
_________________
intp, 5w6 sp, RCux|I|

HatchBack176
Advanced Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:27 am Post subject:

lordofthefood1 wrote:

I know who Leonardo da Vinci is. Maybe I was bringing up a point that I don't think IQ is a useful indicator of intelligence. Did you think of that? It measures how good you can do on an IQ test.

The proof is in the pudding. You've heard of Google, right? You've heard of SAT's right? You've heard of GRE's, right? Nothings perfect but you're a bankrupt company or research university if you don't use reliable indicators of intelligence.

HatchBack176
Advanced Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:32 am Post subject:

samael775 wrote:

If Mark Kac was alive and standing in front of me, I would slap him with a neuroscience textbook until he understood what I meant. We've come a long way in being able to describe very smart or very creative people without having to appeal to something supernatural. Feynman himself took steps in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

samael775
Advanced Member

Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 125
Location: rhode island, usa

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:44 am Post subject:

HatchBack176 wrote:

samael775 wrote:

Sorry, I took the quote out of context:

"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre."

Here's another one, from Al Seckel:

"Several conversations that Feynman and I had involved the remarkable abilities of other physicists. In one of these conversations, I remarked to Feynman that I was impressed by Steven Hawking's ability to do path integration in his head. "Ahh, that's not so great", Feynman replied. "It's much more interesting to come up with the technique like I did, rather than to be able to do the mechanics in your head." Feynman wasn't being immodest, he was quite right. The true secret to genius is in creativity, not in technical mechanics."
_________________
intp, 5w6 sp, RCux|I|

Display posts from previous:

	similarminds.com Forum Index -> General Discussion	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 3 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

test