/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10188624]

If we had an IQ for IQ ranking for top scientists/mathematicians the way they have pound-for-pound rankings for boxers, who would be at the top?

For instance:
Einstein: 150 IQ, known for general and special relativity, rating 10.0
von Neumann 200 IQ, known for too many to list but nothing special, rating: 6.0
Average person: rating: 5.0
Christopher Langan: 200+ IQ, known for CTMU, rating: 1.0

[Anonymous No.10188646]

>>10188624
>Einstein
Jewish myth.
>von Neumann
Real deal.
>Christopher Langan
Meme without any accomplishment despite claiming to be the smartest person on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10188653]

>>10188646
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10188760]

>>10188624
>who would be at the top?
I don't know but OP would be the laughing stock of the ultra-featherweights.

[Anonymous No.10188806]

>>10188624
Von Neumann did not have a perfect score...It was good. Maybe even 190s good. However, nobody has 200 yet.

[Anonymous No.10188816]

>>10188646
>>Christopher Langan
>Meme without any accomplishment despite claiming to be the smartest person on Earth.
thats the joke you retard

[Anonymous No.10188818]

>>10188806
>perfect score
AHAHAHA

The closest definition you can claim to be "perfect" is around 1/100 billion (number of humans to have ever lived) which is still over 200.

Then there's this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

[Anonymous No.10189012]

>>10188624
Why does /sci/ never talk about this guy?
>IQ in excess of 250
>enrolled and gave lectures on high level mathematics at Harvard at age 9
>possibly the most intelligent human being in history
is it because he was a commie?

[Anonymous No.10189152]

>>10189012
He burnt out before doing anything of value. Also none of the claims about his iq score are verifiable. While he was undeniably a genius, his dochebag parents lied about his iq score for attention.

[Anonymous No.10189157]

>>10189012
fraud

[Anonymous No.10189202]

>>10188624
This man has an IQ of 400 and a rating of 10.0 at least

[Anonymous No.10189212]

>>10189202
this man has the Universal Theory of Everything in his head but he's not telling us it just to fuck with us
That's what a smart person would do
the hair is to protect his theories from being 'siphoned' out of his head by physicists who may be in possession of covert brain scanning devices in the next few decades

[Anonymous No.10189273]

isn't iq biased towards people in hard sciences and mathematics though?

whats to say that Von Neumann was actually smarter than say Foucault or Derrida?

[Anonymous No.10189319]

>>10188624
>>10188806
>>10188818
>>10189012
Modern tests only go up to 160. That score is already so rare that measuring any higher is considered statistically unnecessary. Old tests that went much higher have been out of vogue long enough to be considered irrelevant these days.

Anything above 145 indicates extraordinarily high raw intelligence; at that point it's more prudent to focus on academic achievement than IQ. Even Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Leonhard Euler wouldn't be guaranteed a 160 - but if one of them consistently scored in the 145-155 range (highly possible), would you think of them as less mentally capable than the tens of thousands of others who scored higher?

[Anonymous No.10189322]

>>10189273
Putting aside the fact that Foucault and Derrida are hacks, could any of them do this?
>As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how A Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes.

[Anonymous No.10189329]

>>10189322
Myth spread by the US intelligence agencies to spread FUD amongst the Soviets

[Anonymous No.10189335]

>>10189322
That's a very specific ability that is also kind of useless. It may have been related to his aptitude for mathematics, but it's not a good standard of comparison for overall intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10189340]

>>10188646
I constantly see Einstein called a Jewish meme on here but the only evidence presented against him is some crank calling quantum physics made up to promote Judaism. Why is he a myth?

[Anonymous No.10189346]

>>10189340
He stole all his theories from the patent office. How do I know this? /pol/ told me.

[Anonymous No.10189372]

>>10189273
>is it biased
that’s not how that works
>what about brainlet pseuds
vocabulary and concept matching tests are more g loaded than raven matrices

[Anonymous No.10190150]

>>10188646
>Meme without any accomplishment
That's what makes him intelligent. Accomplishment is all vanity and gets in the way of life.
The only reason Langan didn't go on to be something great was due to circumstance and lack of money. That's why he worked as a bouncer for 20 fucking years. Meanwhile low IQ rich people and affirmative action nigger waltz their way through life. "Accomplishment" is a spook. It's like laughing at a starved lion in a cage, or seeing an Redwood tree that was planted in the poor conditions with little sunlight or water so it withered away and died. LOL STUPID LION AND STUPID TREE! He could have been something had circumstances been different.

[Anonymous No.10190170]

>>10190150
>Works for 20 years
>Stays poor
It would take no more than a single day for a reasonably intelligent person to set up an investment that would (at least) quadruple their money in 20 years. Working blue-collar for that long and having nothing to show for it isn't just circumstance; it's stupidity.

Also what kind of test did he take? When did he take it? Everything about this guy screams "fraud".

[Anonymous No.10190190]

>>10190170
>t would take no more than a single day for a reasonably intelligent person to set up an investment that would (at least) quadruple their money in 20 years.
Not if you have to eat, make rent and have have other priories. Have you ever starved for a few days?
>Working blue-collar for that long and having nothing to show for it isn't just circumstance; it's stupidity.
Or he didn't care at all and realized that the tremendous amount of effort required to get beyond his current lot simply wasn't worth it and instead was calm, and stoic. He admittedly enjoyed working as a bouncer, and wasn't delusional in his aspiration.
You know one thing I've always noticed about mid-range IQ people? They are super stressed about the future, in constant peril, filled with dread and anxiety about every little thing. Muh 401k! Muh retirement planning! Muh debt! People like Langan don't care and realize how these things are man made abstractions. The system is rigged and he makes a shew of it by not participating in it. This is cause for admiration, not suspicion.

[Anonymous No.10190214]

>>10190170
>Also what kind of test did he take? When did he take it? Everything about this guy screams "fraud".

He took the mega test which is one of the uncommonly difficult IQ tests created by Ron Hoeflin (back then it appeared in the Omni magazine). He did a test that looked very similar to these tests:
http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/ultra/ultra.html
http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/power/power.html
http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/titan/titan.html
http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/smartest/smartest.html

He initially scored 42 out of 48 but in his second attempt he scored 47 out of 48

I don't think the Mega test specifically is available in the internet but who knows..

[Anonymous No.10190242]

>>10190214
I know a guy who scored 47 on 48 on his first shot. Did the test in a single afternoon in his teens.

[Anonymous No.10190257]

>>10190242
Or rather, know of, not know personally. He did an AMA years ago. He maxed out on all the WAIS subtests at the age of 15, which corresponds to an IQ of 160+ at the very least. Hoeflin's test puts him at around 185 I think.

[Anonymous No.10190262]

>>10190190
>Not if you have to eat, make rent and have have other priories. Have you ever starved for a few days?
No. Wrong. I was taking that into account. He should make enough as a bouncer to get a solid investment going.

High-IQ and low-IQ people stress about the future. Some people stress more than others, and it has nothing to do with smarts. IQ correlates with self-fulfillment up to about 130, where the pattern reverses somewhat; this is a well-documented phenomenon. Small studies have also shown that people with higher IQs have more intense anxiety and, unlike with self-fulfillment, there is no ceiling at which the trend reverses.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-intelligence-and-happiness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269637/

Smart people also perform better and are more comfortable in intellectually stimulating environments; the opposite is true for dumb people. This should be self-evident. If someone loves their job as a bouncer, chances are it's not because of all the free time they're given to study complex analysis.

By all accounts, Isaac Newton was an anxious mess of a person. Do you believe he lived his life under stress and paranoia because he was too stupid to think his way out of it?

[Anonymous No.10190270]

>>10190262
Just read your responess. Langan isn't poor. He walked away with at lesat $250k from that game show. There's no telling what other money he's made behind the scenes. He's kept himself away from the public eye on purpose.

[Anonymous No.10190281]

>>10190214
>uncommonly difficult
An "uncommon" IQ test is a badly made test. There's a reason all of the tests used professionally have similar content and scoring systems. They're accessible to everyone. If they weren't, the distribution of scores would be skewed, making percentile data all but meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10190282]

>>10190262
i like how you bring up newton who can't be verified. do you have any modern examples of geniuses being stressed or unhappy. you'll notice only boltzmann killed himself and it was supposedly due to his bipolar

[Anonymous No.10190286]

>>10190282
>Newton can't be verified as being high IQ
>it's very possible he was unhappy because he was an 80 IQ brainlet

[Anonymous No.10190288]

>>10190286
>strawmanning so hard you think i implied newton had a low iq
jesus i see why you posted your picture

[Anonymous No.10190311]

>>10189322
Thats called autism

[Anonymous No.10190320]

>>10190262
>No. Wrong. I was taking that into account. He should make enough as a bouncer to get a solid investment going.
t. David Ramsey bugman who thinks in Dollars and investments.
>quora
Yahoo Questions for Pseuds.
>The Relationship between Intelligence and Anxiety: An Association with Subcortical White Matter Metabolism
n=26
>Smart people also perform better and are more comfortable in intellectually stimulating environments;
That he lacked access too.
>the opposite is true for dumb people.
No source for either of these claims by the way.
>If someone loves their job as a bouncer, chances are it's not because of all the free time they're given to study complex analysis.
Or it is a matter of circumstance.
>By all accounts, Isaac Newton was an anxious mess of a person. Do you believe he lived his life under stress and paranoia because he was too stupid to think his way out of it?
The anxiety and paranoia only manifested in his latest years, and the things that bother him were far more existential than petty human admiration or investments that only will pay off 20 years in the future. Funny how you think these anxieties plague can plague people but not the acute ones of starving and living as a bouncer getting in the way of some investment that is only going to manifest some many years down the road. Please, go back to /r/Finance and pretend that your favorable circumstances are your own doing.

[Anonymous No.10190330]

>>10190282
>bring up newton who can't be verified
The man is responsible for creating an entire field of mathematics. You don't think his life would be studied extensively by historians, or that there would be plenty of documentation *created during his lifetime* to give insight into his psychological profile?

Anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_major_depressive_disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_bipolar_disorder

Count the number of geniuses. You'll be there a while.

[Anonymous No.10190341]

>>10190320
>t. David Ramsey bugman who thinks in Dollars and investments.
>Yahoo Questions for Pseuds.
>n=26
I only gave two sources in the interest of time. There are dozens more, one click away, on Google. When I say something like "this is well-documented" it's because the amount of evidence available is overwhelming and can be accessed immediately by anyone.

[Anonymous No.10190346]

>>10190330
m8 i clearly implied he was a genius and asked for a modern genius that had the same anxiety and/or unhappiness as you said. and again i brought up boltzmann because he was the only genius who killed himself because of bipolar. not sure you think i said bipolar people are geniuses but i approve of your linking of people with depression as not being geniuses
congratz bro you somehow helped prove my point by strawmanning again

[Anonymous No.10190366]

>>10190346
Records of Isaac Newton's behavior in his later years indicate that he suffered from mania, meaning his neuroses would have stemmed primarily from bipolar disorder.

>not sure you think i said bipolar people are geniuses but i approve of your linking of people with depression as not being geniuses
I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people listed in both articles. People with depression and untreated bipolar disorder aren't happy nor are they content.

[Anonymous No.10190369]

>>10190341
...
>>10190330
This contradicts your initial bewilderment at Lagdan's lack of success and severely undermines your argument that "if he was smart, he he wouldn't be poor". He had a bad upbringing (dead father, abusive step father) no money, teachers and students hated him, college screwed him out of a degree only to go on and worked as a bouncer for 20 odd years. Severe cases of depression results in total despondency where the person is paralyzed and unable to do anything which could easily apply to Langan. The logical response to this situation wouldn't be further aspiration but less, and again validates his lack of success in life. Most of the people on the lists you have had favorable circumstances to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10190375]

>>10190366
newton and boltzmann both at the tail end of their lives. this is also significantly after their greatest achievements. not sure you know what an outlier is or perhaps what being an outlier does to your brain. but yeah i counted 2 on the depressive list: newton and boltzmann. unless your standard is extremely low for genius and contains actors, rappers, painters, and other people of those types. i only picked up on those two names because their links were purple btw

[Anonymous No.10190386]

>>10190369
Alright, I wasn't privy to his life story until just now, and I'll concede that he may be intelligent enough to get a 4-year degree and take up a profession more cerebral than bouncing. I don't buy that he's a genius, though, because frankly he hasn't done much of note other than run his mouth about how great he is. Doesn't inspire a lot of faith knowing that his biggest proponent is himself.

[Anonymous No.10190393]

>>10190375
>i only picked up on those two names because their links were purple btw
Glad to know you're not invested in this conversation at all so I can chalk your asinine claims up to laziness instead of stupidity. Thanks for wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.10190396]

>>10190393
haha! after i brought forward boltzmann as an example and you brought forward literally nobody. are you even aware of yourself?

[Anonymous No.10190397]

>>10190386
He aced the pre-1995 SAT. Only a few hundred students out of millions did that every year. So let's not pretend he isn't capable of white collar work.

[Anonymous No.10190400]

>>10190396
literally nobody after i asked*
sorry i rush my comments out because your comments are so incredibly retarded it's hard not to instantly think of a response

[Anonymous No.10190426]

>>10190386
>I'll concede that he may be intelligent enough to get a 4-year degree and take up a profession more cerebral than bouncing.
Even sub 100 IQ individuals can attain a university degree; this isn't a concession of anything and if you think it is, then you're not very bright yourself.
> I don't buy that he's a genius, though, because frankly he hasn't done much of note other than run his mouth about how great he is.
He doesn't. He always admits his ignorance on topics he doesn't know about. He doesn't try to be a pseud and isn't trying to impress anyone. He makes a mockery of measures of success, which makes him look pompous to those who believe in their validity. He always claims to be just a bouncer or a farmer in most of his interviews.
It's actually very modest. A man of his intelligence and strength willingly plays the role of a bouncer, accepts it despite knowing society and all it's faux conceptions like property rights once didn't exist and this was once a jungle where he would have been on top.
You're low IQ and need achievement based for proof of validation. You fail to see the innate potential in promising individuals and fault them as stupid or unintelligent. I think you're biased because 1) You had favorable circumstances or 2) You adhere to political beliefs where this current system is infallible and gives everyone a fair shake at life. It's like you watched too many Benyamin Shapiro videos on poor people.

[Anonymous No.10190443]

>>10190426
>He doesn't. He always admits his ignorance on topics he doesn't know about. He doesn't try to be a pseud and isn't trying to impress anyone. He makes a mockery of measures of success, which makes him look pompous to those who believe in their validity. He always claims to be just a bouncer or a farmer in most of his interviews.
So where does claiming to have the highest IQ in the world fit into this?

[Anonymous No.10190454]

>>10190443
Also, fun fact, Stephen Hawking took an IQ test to reaffirm his intelligence after an incident that led to his ALS diagnosis. You know what he did with his results? He kept them to himself, like a real genius.

"People who boast about their IQ are losers."
--Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.10190456]

>>10188624
Dumb Iq poster

[Anonymous No.10190457]

>>10190443
If you can't follow the line of discussion that led up to this point (even quoted it), then it's a waste of time to discuss it further.

[Anonymous No.10190459]

>>10190457
kek i was going to point it out because i thought you were going to
>>10190443
>He makes a mockery of measures of success

[Anonymous No.10190482]

>>10190454
Calling someone a loser is ad hominem attack, and is even more pathetic to extrapolate this and apply it to Langan.
It's hypocritical considering Hawking was born to a family of long line of wealthy physicians. They told him what to do in life, helped him plan for his future, arranged for university. Even with his ALS/ALS-like disorder he had immense support.
Langan had nothing. Zero resources. Nobody to help him out. His tale is more tragic than Hawkings and shows that intelligence is no guarantee of a successful outcome. I'm certain Langan could have been an incredible specialist in whatever he could have studied; instead, he fell off into obscurity.

What double standards.
If a poor intelligent person criticizes anyone, with a track record of 'successes' he's jealous!
Yet they're free to criticize him, calling him loser (a clear ad hominem attack that goes beyond an actual critique of success and circumstances). It's sickening.

[Anonymous No.10191601]

Op is an idiot. Boasting about thinga he does not know or understand. Your just wrong about the whole IQ thing. New evidence and sources on einsteins IQ is to be predicted to be around 190 and that makes him one of the smartest men to have ever lived. It's based on ones productivity, complexity and sophistication. So you cannot standarize on IQ alone. You must count on real achievements and how fast and how good they are. Btw I think Nikola Tesla would have topped it all. It's about how abstract they were. And that's creativity, intution, thought process and how imaginative you are. And IQ does not show that very much. So OP you take that shit post and go home and believe whatever you believe alone. No one here needs and wants that scrubb.

[Anonymous No.10191663]

>>10190150
A man who supposedly slept through the SAT and still managed perfect scores wasn't able to secure a scholarship, even at a mediocre college? He worked as a bouncer for 20 years and never thought about saving up a little money just to be able to pay for his first semester and prove to the administration that he deserved nothing less than a scholarship? Hmm.

[Anonymous No.10191783]

>>10191663
He's smart enough to know that investing in a college education during an era approaching societal collapse is a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10192065]

>>10191601
Are you illiterate or just retarded? Let me guess you're one of those idiots who got 120 on some internet IQ tests and thinks Langan is a god now right? What would change about Einstein's accomplishments if his IQ was 200 instead of 150?

[Anonymous No.10192100]

>>10189212
made me laugh

[Anonymous No.10192110]

>>10189340
I never checked, but most of the work was basicly just stuff by Poincare and a few others and he didn't even cite them(supposedly).
I could believe it because the names that were given were all great people whose names always come up in connection to relativity, but I doubt he didn't cite them and name them as a main source.

[Anonymous No.10192117]

>>10192065
They'd become pretty reasonable achievments for someone with that IQ.
But that's the thing about Euler, there are probably people here with better recollection and pattern-detection skills than him here, but the nigga had such sheer problem-solving skill that he'll be remembered forever as fucking Euler.

[Anonymous No.10192120]

>>10192117
IQ and achievements alone are not enough to have a fair normalized ranking, you have to take time into account

Since Euler picked the low hanging fruits he goes from a 10.0 to 8.5

[Anonymous No.10192165]

>>10191663
Langon did get a scholarship. They screwed him out of it and then his vehicle broke down.

[Anonymous No.10193105]

>>10190386
>>10191663
desu im willing to bet there are far more people with amazing iqs do nothing of note than have great achievements their IQ suggests they have the potential for.

[Anonymous No.10193330]

>>10193105

>Tfw mega high iq turbo autist
>Dedicate entire life to accurately recreating medieval battles with animated Lego

>Achievements will never be recorded in the annals of history or recorded by the great historians

[Anonymous No.10193341]

ok STEM nerds

explain to me why i should accept Von Neumann, Einstein, Newton as higher intellects than Focault or Derrida or Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.10193362]

>>10193341
who?

[Anonymous No.10193483]

>>10190454
probably got like 124 and was ashamed to say it publicly desu