Are there any true geniuses here? (IQ over 155)

Post Reply New Topic

190=> 6 standard deviations above the norm => probability<1/1,000,000,000 => there should only be, like, 6 people in the world with such an IQ. What the hell kind of tests are you people taking?

While I have trouble with WC's claim, too, I have to point out that the distribution of human intelligence is probably not a perfect standard distribution, particularly at the tails.

IQ tests are designed to have a Gaussian distribution, centered at 100, usually with a standard deviation of 15. At extreme values, without doing any more research, I'm more or less willing to bet IQ is total bunk.

Did Anthonia take my idea? :O

Well then a true genius can read the physics journals and lecture notes for graduate level physics courses to the idiot. Of course, if the genius understands what he is truly reading, he should be able to put it in layman's terms. Otherwise, he's faking.

For example, Steve Hawking can easily explain some of the most difficult concepts and theories to where the average 9 year old, at the least, could understand what he's saying.

Saw that you got some non-believers here, and thought I should add that I have too. I know a few guys who are incredibly smart but came from a broken home of some sort, and the only support they ever got was from their football coach. They are smart, but they have no idea they are. When I say smart, they obviously weren't smart enough to not get caught, or to not break the law to begin with, but they are capable of learning and thinking on a very high level. What's sad, now that they are adults, it doesn't matter how many times I tell them they should do something with their brain because they are smart, they don't believe me cause the world now looks at them like deadbeats.

My Aspie nephew always called me Tanty Bi when he was 2 or 3. I still go by that with him, although his Aspie self now wants to be completely correct and say, "Aunt Michelle." Yeah, it's my name, like mom... it's just not my birthname. I've been debating to link to my myspace page somewhere in my profile.

everyone who knows me knows me by Millie. My real name is Camilla - Camilla Connolly to be precise - which i actually prefer but am so used to the Millie tag i now succumb to it out of habit.
It did not even occur to me to use a pseudonym for my WP avatar. There is no concealment in me - everything i say here is how i live. i don't understand how to operate any other way - and the few people who know me from WP and who i keep in contact with outside of WP can testify to that.
My website is linked to WP. i am completely transparent in terms of how i live.
So yes, gwynfryn...it is my real name.

If there are any real geniuses... they will not be differentiated by high IQs but the appreciation that they are able to know consciously and confidently that that they can reach their own goals with their efforts.

Like Millie (Camilla) and several others here I've always used my real name all over the internet. I live a transparant life. I understand that a large majority of people here are fearful of doing so and I respect their individual right for privacy but I do find it odd but that's just me.

That is adorable.

I worry about the idea that people might think they're fit to rule the world just because they're smart. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to think too much and come up with some really barmy ideas. Oh, wait, that's what happens.

I do think intelligence is a good thing in a leader, and the best leaders seem to be very bright, but there's no way intelligence is enough all by itself. You need to be people-savvy, and inclusive. And you need enough vision to inspire people but not so much that you lead everyone off a cliff like lemmings. (Do they ever do that?)

I think of geniuses and other creative types as explorers reporting back from the fringes of the known world. Geniuses map new terrain, but it's up to the herd whether they want to go that direction or not.

Nobody should rule the world, anyway. Power corrupts. At the very most, you should rule your family, and even then it's a matter of cooperation with one or both parents having the last word. Beyond that, it's town meetings and democracy, preferentially with a constitution, if anyone is to keep their rights.

The problem with an absolute leader is that even if he's morally perfect, he'll eventually die. Result: Either eventually you'll get someone without the morals, or else you'll get a weak ruler and chaos. None of that is a good idea.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Plato yet... he did think that the world ought to be ruled by "the best"--but that these people weren't just the smartest, but also people capable of military service and manual labor, who had spent most of their lives living like ordinary people. (Obviously his model would never work, but it's nice as a thought experiment...)

You have to wonder about power and money correlating with corruption. Nearly everyone who has money and influence, especially generational, meaning they are "old money" are corrupt in some way. Is it true money and influence corrupts regardless?

ITA



The Wall Street meltdown and other white collar corruption follows a familiar pattern: the corruption is insidious. First it starts with people who think that they are taking advantage in a way that doesn't really create any problems like they've hit on some clever new scheme (credit backed derivatives) where the risk of their unrealistic profits is spread so broadly that if the system crashes due to their pyramid scheme, the risk will be diffuse and absorbed easily by global investors. But they start with helping themselves and taking advantage where they think someone else isn't getting hurt, and then their perception of who is getting hurt and what comprises hurting others creeps and changes as their sense of entitlement and privilege sets in. Eventually, a lot of taking advantage and hurting others is rationalized as okay.

This same pattern of white collar corruption and how the sense of entitlement creeps in and grows, occurs in politics too, not just economics and business. Better to have regular elections and a multilayer democratic process.

As far as "smart" and "not smart" is concerned, that's a shallow way of assessing leaders. A lot of white collar elites are actually pretty stupid but they went to the right schools and had the right families, like George W. Bush. There are a lot of smart people, but they are usually controlled and dominated by narrow, self-serving ones who are the ones who are best at getting and keeping power.

While the stupidity of Dubya is something that "everybody knows", I'm curious to see what evidence actually backs the claim up. He wasn't top tier brains, but about the only stuff I've heard that could possibly be used to quantify his intelligence points to a bright but not gifted intelligence range (specifically his SAT scores, which using the correlation between SAT and IQ corresponds to around an IQ of 125).