• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

"Super Genius" comes up with revolutionary new theory for the universe?

Intelligent Design Theory, which investigates the deep relationship between self-organization and evolutionary biology in a scientific context not preemptively closed to teleological causation.

Now that's what I call putting lipstick on a pig!
 
I also have a second cousin who graduated college at age 20 and got her masters in special education at age 22 but overall she hasn't done much with it. She married an artist who does tattoos and she sits home with her fantastic little baby.
 
Having a high IQ doesn't equal always being right.

My IQ was measured to be a fair amount above average (Something in the top 0.5%). My wife still thinks I'm wrong pretty much all the time. ;)

IQ does NOT equal knowledge nor does it equal ability. I'm not even sure it's a useful yardstick for anything. I'm certainly no genius even if Mensa would gladly label me as one.

As for the OP: Any article referring to I.D. as a scientific theory isn't one.
 
I'm not sure how important high intelligence is in truly creative and innovative scientific discovery.

Intelligence is one factor, to be sure, but so is hunger, passion, creativity, dedication, and perseverance.

You also have to be in the right place at the right time. Einstein wasn't the smartest person in the world, but he lived at the just the right moment in history and in just the right circumstances to revolutionize physics.
 
I also have a second cousin who graduated college at age 20 and got her masters in special education at age 22 but overall she hasn't done much with it. She married an artist who does tattoos and she sits home with her fantastic little baby.

I worked with a guy who claimed to have made 800's on the LSAT and had a doctorate in philosophy. He could certainly talk the part. He was a busboy at the time, although he was soon fired for incompetence. He ended up being a clerk at a 7-11.
 
You also have to be in the right place at the right time. Einstein wasn't the smartest person in the world, but he lived at the just the right moment in history and in just the right circumstances to revolutionize physics.

He also had a lot of help from young mathematicians with the General Theory of Relativity. His mathematical skills weren't sufficient to prove the theory, although he knew that it worked. He also needed some new developments in maths for it, like the tensor calculus. He had a lot of trouble understanding it.
 
I want to do Sarah Palin and Martha Stewart at the same time.

Is this wrong, and if so, by how many units of wrong-nitude?
 
I want to do Sarah Palin and Martha Stewart at the same time.

Is this wrong, and if so, by how many units of wrong-nitude?


Two women that I utterly despise.

Please make sure they don't enjoy it (probably impossible for you to avoid, you old dog, you).

ETA: I suppose this depends on what 'do' means to you.

My comment still works for a few meanings that come to mind.
 
Last edited:
And preside at witch treials and practice alchemy, the man must have never slept!

:D
.
And Chancellor of the Exchequer,.... and a hard man on counterfeiting.
Pretty much a superior multi-tasker, if not somewhat inept at alchemy. :)
 
IQ scores typically measure your ability to learn (assuming you assign any validity to them). A higher IQ score generally indicates someone who can grasp new concepts more quickly (all other things being equal...if you don't care or don't try, you still won't learn). They say nothing about the quality of what you learn, how easily you change what you've learned or believe, or how likely you are to be right. A high IQ, in and of itself, doesn't mean you're more likely to be right. It just means you can go through your reasoning chain (whether valid or not) quicker :)

I'm a smart guy and I think a lot of the people here are also. Here's what ails us -- we have a lot of confidence in our ability to think, even when it isn't thinking that is called for but learning. By that I mean you only get out of me what I already have the means to construct. There is no way I could ever recreate a hundred years of scientific observation and results simply by thinking my way through "how things ought to be."

This is what makes philosophy (not the schooled kind, the armchair kind) so attractive. I can make concepts mean whatever I think they ought to. And if this process isn't checked by someone in the know, someone trained, you get a paper like the one in the OP.

The real tragedy is even if he has some excellent ideas, if he cannot communicate it in the language everyone else uses, it can't go anywhere. New ideas have to fit in with old. Even revolutionary ideas have to at least explain the reasons they should replace the old ideas. In short, they have to be built from at least some of the known and understood concepts already on the table.

This business of leaping so far ahead of everyone else that you need an entirely new framework is bogus. But it's a nice bogus, a pleasant, well-mulled-over bogus that gets comfortable and familiar the more you rehearse it in your head. I do that. I know what he's doing there. But it can't be relied on.

I feel sorry for him. Not because of what or how he thinks, but because he is known. My advice to those who discover they have the chops? Be anonymous. Work the system when you want and avoid all attempts to give you the smart guy label. That is, unless you want to do the academic work first.

And Quarky? Stick around. Things will likely get interesting again.
 
Last edited:
As the inner workings of MENSA show only too well.

I know people with supposedly 'high IQ' that I wouldn't trust to boil a kettle.

My recently-deceased boss' widow fits that category.

She is supposedly a Mensa member and is a widely respected Pathologist/microscopist, but outside of her field, conversation with her is downright painful. Every time she should make a response, there is a fifteen to sixty second delay during which she stares blankly before speaking, and even then, cannot be relied upon to utter something reasonably on point or even relevant.

In the disposition of his possessions, she was willing to sell his $30,000+ hot rod for around $8,000, but greedily carted off the double-handful of Quarters from the Coke machine.:boggled:

Cheers,

Dave
 
I'm a smart guy and I think a lot of the people here are also. Here's what ails us -- we have a lot of confidence in our ability to think, even when it isn't thinking that is called for but learning. By that I mean you only get out of me what I already have the means to construct. There is no way I could ever recreate a hundred years of scientific observation and results simply by thinking my way through "how things ought to be."

This is what makes philosophy (not the schooled kind, the armchair kind) so attractive. I can make concepts mean whatever I think they ought to. And if this process isn't checked by someone in the know, someone trained, you get a paper like the one in the OP.

The real tragedy is even if he has some excellent ideas, if he cannot communicate it in the language everyone else uses, it can't go anywhere. New ideas have to fit in with old. Even revolutionary ideas have to at least explain the reasons they should replace the old ideas. In short, they have to be built from at least some of the known and understood concepts already on the table.

This business of leaping so far ahead of everyone else that you need an entirely new framework is bogus. But it's a nice bogus, a pleasant, well-mulled-over bogus that gets comfortable and familiar the more you rehearse it in your head. I do that. I know what he's doing there. But it can't be relied on.

I feel sorry for him. Not because of what or how he thinks, but because he is known. My advice to those who discover they have the chops? Be anonymous. Work the system when you want and avoid all attempts to give you the smart guy label. That is, unless you want to do the academic work first.

And Quarky? Stick around. Things will likely get interesting again.

Does this mean that if he did do the academic work, he could really have been a good scientist, or what? And if so, then that's even more tragic still...

And I saw some conversation somewhere (I think I mentioned this earlier) where he said to some critic that they just weren't "smart" enough to understand the theory. ??? Newton made it so his theories could be understood by others not as "smart" as him. Thus guy obviously can't, if he has any theory at all.
 
Last edited:
And I saw some conversation somewhere (I think I mentioned this earlier) where he said to some critic that they just weren't "smart" enough to understand the theory. ??? Newton made it so his theories could be understood by others not as "smart" as him. Thus guy obviously can't, if he has any theory at all.

If noone is smart enough to understand the theory then what good is the theory?

And if that's the case then the only way he can prove that he's right is to support his theory with proper reproducible experiments. As his theory incorporates an entity that we have no proof for this will probably be a bit tricky.
 
Depends, how many phalli do you have?

Manifold.

Still, I'm talking grudge **** here.

A bit sick, I guess, but at least its pure fantasy.
(it happens on an immaculately set dinning table, during a tea-party rally, if that helps.)
 
My IQ was measured to be a fair amount above average (Something in the top 0.5%). My wife still thinks I'm wrong pretty much all the time. ;)

IQ does NOT equal knowledge nor does it equal ability. I'm not even sure it's a useful yardstick for anything. I'm certainly no genius even if Mensa would gladly label me as one.

As for the OP: Any article referring to I.D. as a scientific theory isn't one.
Even a brilliant mind can go in the wrong direction. You have a gift. Use it wisely.
 
He also had a lot of help from young mathematicians with the General Theory of Relativity. His mathematical skills weren't sufficient to prove the theory, although he knew that it worked. He also needed some new developments in maths for it, like the tensor calculus. He had a lot of trouble understanding it.

A few months ago I saw the Steve Martin play "Picasso at the Lapin Agile". One of the characters was Einstein, just after the publication of Special Relativity but before he was well-known.

I was irked that the play presented him as being a super-genius at math...necessary to the plot, because it's probably difficult to represent physics genius through dialog in a play.

I was also miffed that the play confused special and general relativity, but I guess I just demand too much from my entertainment.
 
So, he solved an IQ test he allegedly saw in a science/science fiction magazine? That's it? Not very convincing, to say the least.

Not to mention that high IQ has little to do with understanding of science.

He may have taken it over and over again until he got very good at it.

That's all IQ tests really show, after all. The ability to take IQ tests.
 
I have a second cousin who has a genius IQ and I helped my cousin raise her. Her abilities were discovered in kindergarten and I called her Whiz kid when I was babysitting her. Shes 23 now and I don't feel overpowered intellectually when I talk to her.

She married a artist who I suppose is never going to break out of tattoo art. She has a beautiful baby and appears to be a good mother. I sometimes wish she had used her deisel powered intellect to more practical use but if she had her perfect baby boy wouldn't exist.
 
Does this mean that if he did do the academic work, he could really have been a good scientist, or what? And if so, then that's even more tragic still...

I think that is spot on. From a materialist standpoint, you might as well think of a good brain like you would think of other genetically endowed advantages in muscle mass, lung capacity or reaction speed. But without proper training, you won't get a star athlete, you just get someone who rocks as an amateur against the locals.

On the upside though, it can be a pleasant place to be -- the fastest kid in the neighborhood. The whole thing has me thinking about the emotional/personality components. There was some analysis on this guy I read that was trying to explain his life choices in view of early trauma, but I'm betting it is more innate than that and has to do with motivation and ambition more than raw talent.
 
I forgot we were on a plane.

Imaginary is pretty easy, as I recall...though complex takes some pondering, while the brain cells die.
 
A few months ago I saw the Steve Martin play "Picasso at the Lapin Agile". One of the characters was Einstein, just after the publication of Special Relativity but before he was well-known.

I was irked that the play presented him as being a super-genius at math...necessary to the plot, because it's probably difficult to represent physics genius through dialog in a play.

He was an extremely good mathematician, urban legends aside. He even taught math for a little while, although perhaps not at the university level. As for research, of course by far his greatest achievements were in physics, but those in turn fed back into the development of modern geometry (for example there's something called an "Einstein manifold").
 
I think that is spot on. From a materialist standpoint, you might as well think of a good brain like you would think of other genetically endowed advantages in muscle mass, lung capacity or reaction speed. But without proper training, you won't get a star athlete, you just get someone who rocks as an amateur against the locals.

On the upside though, it can be a pleasant place to be -- the fastest kid in the neighborhood. The whole thing has me thinking about the emotional/personality components. There was some analysis on this guy I read that was trying to explain his life choices in view of early trauma, but I'm betting it is more innate than that and has to do with motivation and ambition more than raw talent.

But what do you think may have influenced or hindered his motivation or ambition? Could the "trauma" have affected that?
 
But what do you think may have influenced or hindered his motivation or ambition? Could the "trauma" have affected that?

Don't see any reason to assume so. There's enough luck involved in these things---how were you raised, what school did you get tossed into, who did you meet there, what role models showed up and at what times---that I suspect it's futile to try to construct a coherent biopic-style narrative that explains anything.

So, yes, maybe this guy "could have" been an academic. So what? So could scads and scads of other people---including, at the most obvious level, people who succeeded in school but also had the right stuff for non-academic careers. We don't gaze sadly at the campuses of Google, Microsoft, Harvard Law, the Peace Corps, and the service academies, while saying "One of those people might have otherwise solved the mysteries of physics." Less obviously, or further back, there are umpteenity geniuses who have never taken an IQ test at all; umpteenion whose poverty prevented them from becoming literate to begin with; etc.. Anyone of whom (with different strokes of luck) could have wound up where this guy is, or where you are, or where I am.

It's also a mistake to imagine, I think, that physics is stalled because we're missing the IQ-200 person---the mythical Einstein-figure---who will cut through the problem that our current crop of IQ-150 dullards have gotten stuck on. (With apologies for using IQ as a shorthand for raw intelligence.) I really doubt that that's how it works. Maybe we need to get four of the current 150-folks in a room together. Maybe we all need to sit back and wait for accelerator data.

Maybe we need 1000 patient-but-not-genius sniffer dogs. Each dog spends a decade working their way down one of 1000 otherwise-identical blind alleys, one of which has the answer at the end. Making one of the dogs into a genius superdog ... well, maybe they can explore three alleys per decade instead of just one. Maybe that's how it works.
 
So, yes, maybe this guy "could have" been an academic. So what? So could scads and scads of other people---including, at the most obvious level, people who succeeded in school but also had the right stuff for non-academic careers. We don't gaze sadly at the campuses of Google, Microsoft, Harvard Law, the Peace Corps, and the service academies, while saying "One of those people might have otherwise solved the mysteries of physics." Less obviously, or further back, there are umpteenity geniuses who have never taken an IQ test at all; umpteenion whose poverty prevented them from becoming literate to begin with; etc.. Anyone of whom (with different strokes of luck) could have wound up where this guy is, or where you are, or where I am.

It's also a mistake to imagine, I think, that physics is stalled because we're missing the IQ-200 person---the mythical Einstein-figure---who will cut through the problem that our current crop of IQ-150 dullards have gotten stuck on. (With apologies for using IQ as a shorthand for raw intelligence.) I really doubt that that's how it works. Maybe we need to get four of the current 150-folks in a room together. Maybe we all need to sit back and wait for accelerator data.

Maybe we need 1000 patient-but-not-genius sniffer dogs. Each dog spends a decade working their way down one of 1000 otherwise-identical blind alleys, one of which has the answer at the end. Making one of the dogs into a genius superdog ... well, maybe they can explore three alleys per decade instead of just one. Maybe that's how it works.

Very good picture of modern humanity and the joint efforts, aided by excellent communication tools, that actually push the boundaries of what we know. This business of a genius who wanders in and radically changes the world on a Saturday afternoon is a myth.

That said, there may be particular, exacting problems that are well described where informed, gifted vision could make a big difference. It depends on the problem. Historically, I think the genius label (at least in the sciences) is bestowed when there is a clear problem that is solved. So you might say that genius is defined, not only by innate talent, but the opportunity and context to express that talent.

As far as the psychology goes, I don't know enough about it to say why a man might take this track instead of that. I've bought into a materialist worldview, so I put a large importance on personality as inborn (with the usual nuances and room to maneuver). But that's just my bias.

One thing to consider is that our world has some advantages in the genius department. The increased population and better communication. I can imagine that someone primarily using the internet could contribute -- as far as I know, this is fairly recent. All the access.

I haven't read or seen much where he gets into specifics about why he quit college. College is usually where we detect merit and fertilize it. It might have been similar to the situation a rich kid faces -- Why do I need this? Why should I put up with this? I remember how painful classes were in high school, the drudgery. If he felt that way in college, I can see how it would appear to be a matter of 'moving on with your life' to quit.

I only rarely got the feeling in college that I was wasting my time. Not because the lectures were all that great, but because I had access to the professors. I got to pick their brains and try to challenge them. It was wonderful to have excellent minds who could drop me to the mat and make me admit I was full of ****. If he couldn't find any peers (which is hard to believe) I can see how it would grind. Especially when there is stuff to learn that doesn't seem worth learning.
 
Maybe we need 1000 patient-but-not-genius sniffer dogs. Each dog spends a decade working their way down one of 1000 otherwise-identical blind alleys, one of which has the answer at the end. Making one of the dogs into a genius superdog ... well, maybe they can explore three alleys per decade instead of just one. Maybe that's how it works.

Then, it would seem that the same effect could be obtained simply by adding three more dogs.
 
As far as the psychology goes, I don't know enough about it to say why a man might take this track instead of that. I've bought into a materialist worldview, so I put a large importance on personality as inborn (with the usual nuances and room to maneuver). But that's just my bias.

How does this "materialist" worldview imply the personality is "inborn", and so presumably unchangeable? And if it is not changeable, then does this mean that it is also wrong to go and fault someone for a perceived "flaw" in their personality, as they really could do nothing about it? So perhaps if that's so, then it's not good to insult people on the net for some perceived "flaw" of theirs.


I only rarely got the feeling in college that I was wasting my time. Not because the lectures were all that great, but because I had access to the professors. I got to pick their brains and try to challenge them. It was wonderful to have excellent minds who could drop me to the mat and make me admit I was full of ****. If he couldn't find any peers (which is hard to believe) I can see how it would grind. Especially when there is stuff to learn that doesn't seem worth learning.

And that just reminds me yet again of where he said he thought he had more to teach the professors than they had for him, even when that was most likely wrong (at least insofar as the idea they didn't have anything he needed to know goes).
 
Last edited:
And that just reminds me yet again of where he said he thought he had more to teach the professors than they had for him, even when that was most likely wrong (at least insofar as the idea they didn't have anything he needed to know goes).

I agree that he was likely wrong, but here's my hypothesis about the sort of thing that leads to Langan's "they don't have anything to teach me" stance:

Professor: " ... so that's how we know the Earth is round."
Langan: (thinking very hard; having flash of insight)
Langan: "Professor, if that were true than the Australians would be upside down and would fall off."
Professor: "Good question! Let's try to work it out. Upside down with respect to what?"
Langan: "With respect to up. Face it, you're wrong, you just got pwned."
Professor: "I don't think so. Would you like to draw the free-body diagram for an Australian?"
Langan: (walks out)
Langan: "I'm so smart, in five seconds' thought I totally outsmarted this guy ten times my age. Why am I wasting my time here?"

It could be the product of a tiny bit of brains, a whole lot of arrogance, and a dose of Dunning-Kruger.
 
I used to work with autistic and brain damaged teens. We called them 'retarded' back then.

Anyway, one of these guys was a freaking genuis...it just took him 4 times longer than it should have to respond to anything.

He flunked all the i.q. tests, because of the time factor.

With patience, however, from the smartie-pants side, he could have solved so many of our problems.
 
How does this "materialist" worldview imply the personality is "inborn", and so presumably unchangeable? And if it is not changeable, then does this mean that it is also wrong to go and fault someone for a perceived "flaw" in their personality, as they really could do nothing about it? So perhaps if that's so, then it's not good to insult people on the net for some perceived "flaw" of theirs.

I think current ideas revolve around changing within an envelope of possibilities coupled with a sort of default. So, for instance, I could make myself become left handed (having been born a righty) and it would take some applied effort, but whether or not I could ever manage to play the harp properly might depend on my finger span, something I couldn't change.

I don't know how plastic human personality is in this way. Could I create a tyrant out of a pleasant little girl with the right psychological drivers? If mental gifts in the form of IQ are expressed at an early age, I suspect other mental events might be as well, although, as I said before, I am not at all well-read in developmental psychology and how trauma shapes personality.

We do know that personality degrades with physical brain events like a steel rod through the noggin or chemical treatment. So the argument is one about possibilities and whether or not we become less malleable with age.

Getting back to the OP though, I'm going to give his paper a shot because of his lauded IQ. It's a good exercise, along the lines of the Unibomber Manifesto -- not that I think going in there is anything criminal or wrongheaded, but rather that it is a worldview from someone who's brighter than I am.
 
Have i mentioned how smart I am here?
I can't remember.

Am i smart as hell, or did i just say that, on the interwebs, and then couldn't remember if I had?

I know! Ask me a genius type question, and I'll see if I can answer it.

I like Necco wafers. I'm finally over the compulsion to arrange them by colors.
I think that was simply going to lead to gambling. Necco wafers are gateway-candy.

They are the same size as Vegas chips, but more delicious, and far cheaper.
 
I remember reading about this guy quite a while ago when he created quite a stir with his knowledge and theory. I couldn't understand it, so I don't know.

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

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan has developed his own "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4]
 
Back
Top Bottom