Intelligence What characterises people with high IQ's ?

Heliocentric system doesn't have much to do, if at all, with earth being a sphere. Earth being round, and Earth not being a center of our solar system, are two different issues.
Church didn't care for first one and nobody was burned as heretic for saying that earth was round. Some believed it was, some didn't.
The second issue was important however, because it degraded the importance of earth and humans, as a pinnacle of god's creation, therefore belonging in center of universe. People were burned in fire for denying it. Copernicus published his works after his death, Galileo barely survives, Giordano Bruno didn't.


Wrong, look below, this is just a tip of iceberg of math needed to calculate what he proposed.


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

He used math and statistics to prove that earth was a sphere, period. This is exactly how people of high IQ use tools like math and statistics to prove their hypothesis in many scientific fields.
Yetos, don't sell your countryman Eratosthenes short. He was a great scientists.
If he could prove that earth was a sphere and the size of it just from using "three sticks" and no math, he would be a magician or a prophet, but not a smart scientist.

math is a tool of mind,
Gnomon is just ia stick,

he put a vertical stick same time of year same hour in 2 different positions and measure the length of Earth radius aproximately 2% wrong or less according the stadion origin,
the rest are just divisions and multiply,
 
I missed this. Wouldn't you call it a scientific instrument?
And what are these, a part of math perhaps?

It depends, after what degree common logic becomes High Math learning,

Anyway my intension is not to compare Copernikos or Eratosthenes,
millenium of knowldge is dividing them, one is before Algebra and high maths and the other is when Europe started to regain clear thinking,

my intension is show that IQ has nothing to do with high Scientific knowledge, neither with how much you earn, but with the ability to understand and use everyday's.
I mean if someone is a doctor does mean he has bgger IQ than another who works another job,
in our days we may learn complicated things with effort and continous repeat, or just buy diplomas if you have a rich uncle :).
but the simple ideas, the usage and understanding of things has to do with IQ.
when you do IQ test they do not ask you the autosomal of Neanderdalis, neither the chemical type of nitro-glycerine or which share will rise its price,

in the above expirement I described the boy who learned English Alphabet from a laptop, with no teacher to guide him imagine what IQ has comparing with others, and much some will envy him if he get the Bravo word.
maybe he pull back himshelf and leave the more stupid to earn money so to be all huppy.
 
It depends, after what degree common logic becomes High Math learning,

Anyway my intension is not to compare Copernikos or Eratosthenes,
millenium of knowldge is dividing them, one is before Algebra and high maths and the other is when Europe started to regain clear thinking,

my intension is show that IQ has nothing to do with high Scientific knowledge, neither with how much you earn, but with the ability to understand and use everyday's.
I mean if someone is a doctor does mean he has bgger IQ than another who works another job,
.
I'm talking statistics and you are staying in realm of anecdotal evidence.

Anyway my intension is not to compare Copernikos or Eratosthenes,
millenium of knowldge is dividing them, one is before Algebra and high maths and the other is when Europe started to regain clear thinking,
The intention was to show how math and statistics work in understanding the world. Regardless how much time divide them they used same scientific tools like math and statistics to show how things really are. Regardless that their contemporaries were against knew knolage and didn't want to believe them. Their knowledge survived and in later years was proven to be the correct one, proven to be the truth.
It should show you that using same tools and techniques we are on the right way to discover and understand inner working of the world with human nature included.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking statistics and you are staying in realm of anecdotal evidence.

I do not know where and who made the statistics you claim,

But life of Mozart Bethoven Van Gogh, ( I wonder even about Copernicus cause he was a monk if remember well) and many many the others is just anekdotal stories then no need to discuss more,

Seems like all these had very low IQ, and Ann Nicol Smith has bigger.

sometimes statistics are wrong, cause they focus in a purpose, or in wrong base or or or.

if your statistic claim as global rule that a rich grandson who takes an amount of heritage is smarter than a Mozart, no need
I ALREADY REJECT IT AS WRONG

PS
If I accept the statistics you claim Paris Hilton is smarter than a modern inventor or genious,
 
sometimes statistics are wrong,
No Yetosk, math and statistics are tools, tools cannot be wrong! People are wrong because they don't understand statistics, or they don't know how to use tools, or they make wrong conclusions from readings.
 
I agree with termination 'tools',

but I have to say that results are according input,
so if the input before the 'black box' processing are false or not the apropriate for process then result should be false,


Statistics work like a 'black box' machine,

I feed the machine with benzin (data) and machine works and gives a result.

It is for me and you to decide if the data are correct or the result is a global law.

and the statistics you claim say as global law that people who have and earn money have bigger IQ than others then I have to search if describes reality and common logic,

and I ask you,
If a playboy 'bunny' earns more than a guy like Mozart, then following the statistics law has bigger IQ,
if I accept this ok.
But if not, means that the data who enter the black box where not chosen well, or someone with low IQ made a statistic law out of crup data.
Maths are blind like computer, they process what you order them,
if the input are False it will extract FALSE result,
if the result is FALSE then the input are also FALSE.


I am posting a joke about IQ that we use to say when I was student
3 people travel to moon,
they see 3 black sheeps and write their results

A low IQ mathematician say All Sheep in moon are black

a better IQ mathematician say we don't know about the other sheeps we know that only this 3 sheep are black

and a High IQ mathematician say, we only know that the part of the sheeps we look is black, maybe the other side of sheeps is not black

according maths even the 1rst one is statistical correct since 3/3=100%!!!!
as you see even that statistic is correct, but does it focus reality?

I hope with my anecdotal stories to gave another view on the statistics you claim.

so
YES LEBROK SOMETIMES STATISTIC RESULTS ARE WRONG-FALSE according the input data and the purpose they are done, and the field from where the data been extract.


imagine the above mathematicians how surprised they could if the sheep were enough in number to reach Student's Distribution (>27) but out of one flock-herd whose owner likes Black sheeps !!!!! how may statistic result we may extract but possibly all worng.
 
Last edited:
No Yetosk, math and statistics are tools, tools cannot be wrong! People are wrong because they don't understand statistics, or they don't know how to use tools, or they make wrong conclusions from readings.

It used to be a statistical fact that if you smoked, you were less likely to die in a plane crash. That was a FACT. The point was, that if you smoked, you sat at the back of the plane, thats why it was true.
Statistics are not facts, they are probabilities. It is the data sample which is a fact. If you look at the wrong data and ask the wrong question you will get misleading results. Also, there is pretty much 50% chance that when you toss a coin it will land heads - but that doesnt mean it will happen like that. It means that if you throw that coin an infinite number of times it will even out to land heads 50% of the time - but the first 50 million throws could be tails!! I hate statistics because people then base everything on something which is not actually a fact - it is a TREND.

Our societies value people who exhibit high scores in test of logic and pattern recognition (IQ), and therefore these people tend to earn more. But not each and every one of them, there are exceptions to every rule. And the converse is not true - a rich person is not necessarily a high IQ scorer. And when our societies run out of food, it will be the farmers, growers and gardeners who will be highly valued and earn the most. Or the landowners, maybe the distributors and the sellers.
 
It used to be a statistical fact that if you smoked, you were less likely to die in a plane crash. That was a FACT. The point was, that if you smoked, you sat at the back of the plane, thats why it was true.
Statistics are not facts, they are probabilities. It is the data sample which is a fact. If you look at the wrong data and ask the wrong question you will get misleading results. Also, there is pretty much 50% chance that when you toss a coin it will land heads - but that doesnt mean it will happen like that. It means that if you throw that coin an infinite number of times it will even out to land heads 50% of the time - but the first 50 million throws could be tails!! I hate statistics because people then base everything on something which is not actually a fact - it is a TREND.

Our societies value people who exhibit high scores in test of logic and pattern recognition (IQ), and therefore these people tend to earn more. But not each and every one of them, there are exceptions to every rule. And the converse is not true - a rich person is not necessarily a high IQ scorer. And when our societies run out of food, it will be the farmers, growers and gardeners who will be highly valued and earn the most. Or the landowners, maybe the distributors and the sellers.
That's roughly how statistics and probabilities work, and how they should be understood. I'm not sure why you are explaining it to me, though? And what this have to do with my citation above your text?
 
I would say Autism. Keep in mind that geniuses are considered "sick" people. Einstein was diagnosed with some forms of Autism. So was Dirac as I know.I am sure Newton was too, even though autism was not known at that time.It could be many more. If one has in mind the Bell curve, the negative 5% of the curve are the idiots (which is a pronounced form of mental sickness) and the positive 5% of the curve are the very smart and geniuses, which is also a good mental sickness The rest of the curve is what we call normal, (90%) of the people. Autistic have the ability to concentrate.
 
Some of the most brilliant people suffer form Asberger's syndrome.
 
If there is one thing I've learned throughout my 18 years of life is that there is no way to accurately describe a highly intelligent person without sounding mad. The whole concept of describing someone with a high IQ is quite similar to describing an alien sighting, the thought of it is extraordinary (above the ordinary) making it very, very difficult for the average person to understand nonetheless ACCEPT. No point in trying to tell someone you're intelligent, or even show it. Let's face it, if you have a high IQ, you find things in general quite boring and ridiculously easy. That within itself, is freakish to ordinary people due to the fact they can't produce it, making you the out liar. All in all, I believe the best way for someone of high IQ to live is either away from the people, or find someone whom is on the same level as you.

Let's take a look at Lao Tzu. Incredibly intelligent, well versed, and extraordinarily wise. Towards the end of his life, he decides to go off and live by himself. Why? Simple. At a certain point, you come to the realization that your level of thought is too different than those whom are around you. Fortunately, a strong mind comes with incredible independence. Sort of like a creator looking back at his/her creations. You have stopped playing the game, you are no longer interested in the playing the game, you just want to sit back and watch.
 
Some people of genius are ticking time bombs. Brilliance can, in certain instances, have great emotional drawbacks.
 
well//iq tests are meant as guides..they wont get you a job...for those who need intellectual discussions i suggest proz & translators cafe debates on language seem very inspiring...for a profession well must actually try to work..i opted for teaching for a while felt bored and thought of translation...as for bosses true they get on nerves but in due time and with patience one may get to sort of understanding between oneself and an overdemanding or silly boss...there is a fluid intellegence as they say in some psychological books one that has to do with adapting..that is..maturing and accepting the world as it is..i had hard time in so doing but if one did it things will start falling in suitable places..i spent hard time too conforming to the idea that not all people liked what i did-let alone the phrase ( what does transltors do really.they steal others words and thoughts..so i guess by patience and trying several things till you settl eis the only way.teher are jobs out there but waiting for you to discover..some people are good at dealing with kids..so they are or seem like born tutors othera re very giften in public relations..(( one of my colleges was) without even having a university degree..so i agree to with EQ..intellgent people may find difficulty in dealing woth others..as they prefer reading self development may be to social sympathy and dealing with others...one way is to opt for some indivual activities may be transltion or volunteering for a while..to know what you trully like..it may seem hard at first..and taking art courese or creative writing courses meanwhile..if not..( needle work..all this will increase self confidence...and in turn find somethig to talk about-hopefu;;;y
 
i like the phrase ticking bomb..Sylvia plathe called it "bell jar"was haunted for ever by the specter of depression...some autistic children are very genius in certain way..yet social contact seems so...well in ways undeveloped, which leads to misery..yet., if encouraged to be of use to others.the talent may be a gift..(i don't know how to classify my self..but my former depression led me to translate articles on depression..so i guess there is a reason for every thing out there..you may know later..but..true precocity in kids make them suffer so, and likewise highly intelligent adults...some use it positively( be a computer scientist or something others..no..)
 
Have any studies been made co relating specific genetics and IQ. Anyone?
 
I am completely with you guys! I relate to every point also, especially the masculinity part which surprised me very much. I have an IQ of 158 or more, so I always found it strange that a hard-ass like me enjoyed the intellectual debates in university and was a member of the Collegebowl team, which was mostly nerds. MY aggression always gave me the intellectual firepower they lacked. I have always been the super-aggressive guy in martial arts and armed combat that needed almost no practice to rise to the top, and who could teach others to excel also. Here is the weird thing... I LOVE humanity! I hate guns, and I am working to help our country be more disaster prepared, along with designing survival equipment. These qualities are usually mutually exclusive and its made me feel strange all my life, but I've learned that the smartest people are often that way.
 
I have noticed the same thing. High IQ societies have noticed that people with well-paid but highly specialised jobs, like lawyers, doctors, computer scientists, etc. usually have above-average IQ, but rarely beyond what is considered exceptionally gifted (over 135). Their IQ is more likely to be between 110 and 130.



I think it is an excellent reason not to trust a "scientist's opinion" about a field that is not strictly their speciality. It always makes me laugh when people quote a physicist about a philosophical matter and say "see, this guy is intelligent and he believes in god !". :blush:

The philosophical spirit (i.e. thirst for knowledge and understanding in every field) is probably the most characteristic of exceptionally gifted people.




Personally I see two main reasons :

1) boredom : exceptionally gifted people being in general well versed many subjects, and often find more mundane conversation boring. Even when talking about more specialised topics, the exceptionally gifted might already know more than almost anybody else he meets, if he has taken some time to learn about that particular topic at one point in his life. In general, as knowledge accumulates with time, (specialised) conversation will become more and more difficult with ordinary people. When meeting other people becomes less exciting, or downright boring, why spend time and energy with them ? Of course there is always a need for having fun in a non intellectual way (but that is usually possible only with friends, not strangers).

2) anxiety : it is one characteristic of people with higher IQ to be more (intellectually) sensitive. It is this heightened perception of the world that leads to strong, passionate interest in so many fields. You could say that high IQ people are like supertasters, that find great sensory satisfaction even in the plainest foods - except that in the case of gifted people it is for rational matters, not taste. This usually translates as being also more anxious or nervous (especially for younger people), which affects face-to-face socialising in a negative way. The Internet is a blessing for such people.

Thank you for expressing so clearly why a scientist or psychologist may not be qualified to speak of spiritual things.
Frankly, to me the issue is simple, we know less than 1% of what is out there in the universe... admittedly. How, then, can a person with less than 1% of knowledge concerning the universe, be qualified to make a statement about the existence, or non-existence of God? To use the reasoning of a 2-year-old... what if God's hiding behind the moon?
The point is that no one has anything more than an imperfect understanding of things, and therefore NOONE is qualified to say that God does or does not exist. I have a verified genius IQ score and I believe in God. I think there is more than enough evidence to support my beliefs. Most historical geniuses did in some form or another.
I would even argue that Jesus of Nazareth was the most brilliant man who ever lived, based on the success of His ideology. No other person has ever had enough intelligence to affect history more than that Man.
If anyone can think of another person who has thought up an ideology that has had a bigger impact on earth please do tell.
 

This thread has been viewed 868129 times.

Back
Top