What characterises people with high IQ's ?

[Yetos]

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,

[LeBrok]

Gnomon is just ia stick,

I missed this. Wouldn't you call it a scientific instrument?

divisions and multiply,

And what are these, a part of math perhaps?

[Yetos]

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.

[LeBrok]

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.

[Yetos]

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,

[LeBrok]

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.

[Yetos]

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.

[alibaz]

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.

[LeBrok]

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?

[albanopolis]

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.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Some of the most brilliant people suffer form Asberger's syndrome.