Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

I'm currently taking a history of psychology course at a local university, and the course introduced me briefly to a fellow named Francis Galton.

He was a pioneer in many ways.

Galton coined the term eugenics, and pioneered the first statistics tests that could be used to compare traits and qualities between races and communities.

He was a prolific writer and inventor.

This thread can be used to introduce other individuals or merely discuss the ideas of the ones presented.

One of Galton's ideas that he published publicly is that he believed the Chinese were a race capable of high civilization, but they were held back by their rulers, which has since been proved true. He also stated that the Chinese should be allowed to colonize Africa, for the failure of that race. Very bold statement for the time, and an idea that would cause a thinker to be publicly ostracized in our present egalitarian idealist society.

Here is his wikipedia info for anyone interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Interesting quote: “Men who leave their mark on the world are very often those who, being gifted and full of nervous power, are at the same time haunted and driven by a dominant idea, and are therefore within a measurable distance of insanity”

Reminds me of Kierkegaard's, recently quoted in "How can a thought be infinite?" (main forum) by Loki:

“The case with most men is that they go out into life with one or another accidental characteristic of personality of which they say: Well, this is the way I am. I cannot do otherwise. Then the world gets to work on them and thus the majority of men are ground into conformity. In each generation a small part cling to their "I cannot do otherwise" and lose their minds. Finally there are a very few in each generation who in spite of all life's terrors cling with more and more inwardness to this "I cannot do otherwise". They are the geniuses. Their "I cannot do otherwise" is an infinite thought, for if one were to cling firmly to a finite thought, he would lose his mind. ”

I have a feeling that Galton's nervous breakdowns in his early twenties came from an anxiety about how he was being "ground into conformity". He had genius, and probably felt strongly attracted to the great boom of invention in the late 19th century, rather than the restrictiveness of studying the human body only in medicine. But I think his inventive mania was a form of madness, like those eco-warrior freak-men who go mad with details on environmental solutions. Very useful to society, like brain slaves, but nevertheless almost totally insane.


.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by cousinbasil »

Ryan wrote:He also stated that the Chinese should be allowed to colonize Africa, for the failure of that race.
The Chinese were seafaring before anyone else. They didn't show much inclination to colonize Africa when there wasn't any power to "allow" them to or not. The failure of "that" race? You mean the blacks. I am not sure the blacks are a race any more than the whites are a [single] race.

But thanks for the thread, Ryan. I'm sure many such people will occur to me.

The first person that came to my mind was Rudolf Steiner. His legacy includes the Waldorf education philosophy. His influences included Christianity, Theosophy (just arriving on the scene as such) and Goethe, to name a few. He was prolific, if nothing else.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Kelly,
But I think his inventive mania was a form of madness, like those eco-warrior freak-men who go mad with details on environmental solutions. Very useful to society, like brain slaves, but nevertheless almost totally insane.
madness maybe, or he may have had so many interests as a polymath, that he felt pulled in so many directions at the same time, and the result is rapid invention, until he finally found his life's work, which appeared to be the study of human's differences through the invention of statistics.

polymath's tend to enjoy solving problems, the challenge of it, there is a masculine drive to do so. there is a certain enjoyment that can come from seeing a need in society, and taking the steps to bringing something new into existence to fill that need, and make the lives of future generations better, it can be a totally sane thing in my opinion. sane and necessary.

It is also interesting that after years of study using statistics he concluded that genetics is more powerful than environment as far as the intelligence is concerned. A debate that still continues today, and one that I have always been inclined to take Galton's position as well.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

cousinbasil,
The Chinese were seafaring before anyone else. They didn't show much inclination to colonize Africa when there wasn't any power to "allow" them to or not. The failure of "that" race? You mean the blacks. I am not sure the blacks are a race any more than the whites are a [single] race.
As an experiment, attend a black church, white church and asian church, and take notes of the differences, and you will realize that each "race" does share some unique behaviors, ways of communicating, and all the rest of it. Behaviors that I believe are hardwired. However, you make a valid point, that there has been a lot of blending of races, which also means a blending of traits as well. The result is that interbreeding is slowly eroding away 'separate' races. Moreover, I'm not sure this is a positive thing because the blending could actually cause the frequency of intellectuals to decrease, not increase.

This is true because the highest percentages of intellectuals have historically come from the caucasian males, Asian males, followed by the blacks, Hispanics, and natives.

My concern is what happens when you blend all these races together, the percentage of intellectuals levels off, and averages out, which may bring the total percentage down. Hopefully eugenics as a capitalist pay service is introduced before then, and we discover the material configuration of what makes an intellectual.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by cousinbasil »

Ryan wrote:As an experiment, attend a black church, white church and asian church, and take notes of the differences, and you will realize that each "race" does share some unique behaviors, ways of communicating,
I don't wish to sound anything less than Politically Correct, but I know what you mean - and you don't have to limit your "experiment" to attending a church. Try a movie theater in an African American neighborhood. Some black people all like to throw things at the screen.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Ryan Rudolph:
As an experiment, attend a black church, white church and asian church, and take notes of the differences, and you will realize that each "race" does share some unique behaviors, ways of communicating, and all the rest of it. Behaviors that I believe are hardwired.

Carmel:
This is a poor example of "hard wired" behaviour. What you're describing is indicative of learned behaviour. You fail to acknowledge socio-cultural influences by wrongly attributing people's behaviours at church to genetics. If a white family adopted a black baby at birth, the child would learn through mimicking behaviour and as a result, his behaviour at church would be similar to that of his white realtives.

Ryan:
My concern is what happens when you blend all these races together, the percentage of intellectuals levels off, and averages out, which may bring the total percentage down. Hopefully eugenics as a capitalist pay service is introduced before then, and we discover the material configuration of what makes an intellectual.[/quote]

Carmel:
eugenics? really? Anyone who's ever read "Brave New World" should have cringed at that. Do you not see any potential ethical or moral issues that could arise from "eugenics as a capitalist pay service"?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Kelly,
But I think his inventive mania was a form of madness, like those eco-warrior freak-men who go mad with details on environmental solutions. Very useful to society, like brain slaves, but nevertheless almost totally insane.
madness maybe, or he may have had so many interests as a polymath, that he felt pulled in so many directions at the same time, and the result is rapid invention, until he finally found his life's work, which appeared to be the study of human's differences through the invention of statistics.
I don't know, Ryan. I tend to see it as a mania, that he managed to find a socially acceptable use for. My guess is that his nervous breakdowns were a sign of some kind of psychological imbalance, an anxiety disorder perhaps, so that his mania was the typical systematising method of taking control. In other words, he lacked any deep sense of the nature of Reality, and his mania expressed that. The only reason I'm drawing attention to this, is that the mind is full of different and non-unified drives, and the more dominant ones in a person are their real message.


taking the steps to bringing something new into existence to fill that need, and make the lives of future generations better, it can be a totally sane thing in my opinion. sane and necessary.
Wisdom isn't the measure of sanity for you?

It is also interesting that after years of study using statistics he concluded that genetics is more powerful than environment as far as the intelligence is concerned. A debate that still continues today, and one that I have always been inclined to take Galton's position as well.
Yet Wikipedia says he was very keen to leave home and hearth.


.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is also interesting that after years of study using statistics he concluded that genetics is more powerful than environment as far as the intelligence is concerned. A debate that still continues today, and one that I have always been inclined to take Galton's position as well.
I'm not sure how statistics could prove such a thing. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the environment one grows up in makes all the difference in the world when it comes to producing intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful human beings. Thinks like having access to quality healthcare, education, community support, clean air, water, food, and all the rest produces better people across the board regardless of a person's genetic makeup.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:My concern is what happens when you blend all these races together, the percentage of intellectuals levels off, and averages out, which may bring the total percentage down.
I doubt it. I think race might only make a difference in exceptional cases. But I think in 99% of the cases, one's race will make very little difference in their intellectual potential.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Hopefully eugenics as a capitalist pay service is introduced before then, and we discover the material configuration of what makes an intellectual.
What would eugenics as a pay service actually do, and why would you want this kind of service to be capitalized on and profited from? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of humanity to provide this kind of social service to everyone at an affordable price?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Kelly,
Wisdom isn't the measure of sanity for you?
yes, wisdom or sanity of mind should be the primary foundation, but what I was implying is that one can have secondary priorities that overlap on top of wisdom such as invention or scientific achievement. You are probably correct in your assessment of Galton in the beginning, but later on in life, he still was quite inventive and creative in other areas other than philosophy. To me, that is the sign of a balanced polymath, rather then an imbalanced mania stricken mind.

Carmel,
This is a poor example of "hard wired" behaviour. What you're describing is indicative of learned behaviour. You fail to acknowledge socio-cultural influences by wrongly attributing people's behaviours at church to genetics. If a white family adopted a black baby at birth, the child would learn through mimicking behaviour and as a result, his behaviour at church would be similar to that of his white realtives.
I think you are over exaggerating the power of learned behavior. The brain is hardwired to behave a certain way, and each gender, and each race evolved in different environments, which placed different emphasis on behavior, and that is the source of culture. Culture is caused by long term environmental hard wiring. Moreover, if one has a powerful intellect from the outset, when exposed to irrational group think - they intuitively know something is wrong and amiss, and they leave the situation. For example: From an early age, I felt the singing and excitement of church was rather boring, lame and I could never get into it. It was blind excitement directed at something I couldn't get into.

Carmel,
eugenics? really? Anyone who's ever read "Brave New World" should have cringed at that. Do you not see any potential ethical or moral issues that could arise from "eugenics as a capitalist pay service"?
There are ethical issues that arise with any new technological development, but this isn't an argument for not allowing the technologies to come into existence. Do you think we should abandon the space program because new ethical issues will arise when we reach the potential to make contact with other life forms?

Nick,
It seems blatantly obvious to me that the environment one grows up in makes all the difference in the world when it comes to producing intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful human beings. Thinks like having access to quality healthcare, education, community support, clean air, water, food, and all the rest produces better people across the board regardless of a person's genetic makeup.
But if you give humans the perfect environment, many show no or little interest in philosophy or anything higher, how do you explain it? Whereas in high school, this mind had a strong interest in trying to understand the meaning of life, the work of philosophers and so on. Some individuals are programed with an open philosophical mind, and some are not. And there must be a genetic difference, a material basis that explains the qualities of an intellectual from an early age.
But I think in 99% of the cases, one's race will make very little difference in their intellectual potential.
Here's an exercise for you to ponder. Imagine what the world would look like without the intellectual movements of both the Greeks and the Europeans. Subtract guys like Darwin, Newton, Gailleo, Einstein, Socrates, Heraclitus, Diogenes, Kierkeguard, Schoenhaucer, Plato, Artistotle, Kant, John Locke, Hume, Satre, Decartes, Husserl, Niestsche, Galton, Freud, Yung, and so on... and so on... what do you have left?

Lao Tzu, Confucious, the buddha...and some others.

Are there even enough intellectuals left to cause any significant intellectual movements? Would Science or Democracies even exist as they do presently or would they be a shell of what we have now? I suspect without the influence of the Greeks and the Europeans, most of the world would probably resemble a cross between Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Sudan.

I just take things one step farther. Many GF forum members agree that men and women are largely different species, their brain structures are quite different. Well, the same could be said of different races. Each has evolved over thousands of years in different environments, each requiring different cognitive abilities to survive, so the result should be some slight difference in cortical arrangement, enough of a difference to alter certain types of hardwired behaviors.

For instance: races that were forced to adapt to climates at higher latitudes had to work their pre frontal cortex more often, as to survive winters in cold climates requires quite a bit of long term planning, strategic planning, and problem solving. The result is that the pre frontal cortex, which is largely responsible for decison making, planning, logic, and higher cognition was worked far more than races who lived near the equator where the challenges didn't put as much pressure on their mental abilites. The secret of an intellectual maybe revealed as an individual whose pre frontal can exert dominance over the limbic system, and not the other way around.
What would eugenics as a pay service actually do, and why would you want this kind of service to be capitalized on and profited from? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of humanity to provide this kind of social service to everyone at an affordable price?
You are correct Nick, that would be the fair way to do it, but we both know things never arise fairly, especically in the beginning. It will be overpriced, corrupted, and only accessible by the rich. However, over time, it should become cheaper and more accessible to the middle class and lower middle class, just like every other emerging technology. I'm assuming the rules of how technology have progressed will continue into the future.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Ryan:

I think you are over exaggerating the power of learned behavior.

Carmel:
No, not at all, as I gave absolutely no opinion about learned behaviour vs. genetic influence, thus far. I was simply pointing out that your example of behaviour at church was a poor one. Using my example of the adopted black baby, say his adoptive parents raise him in a conservative Roman Catholic environment. He would not suddenly break out into old gospel songs in the middle of a conservative Roman Catholic service, hence behaviours at church would be indicative of a learned behaviour, not genetic.

Ryan:
The brain is hardwired to behave a certain way, and each gender, and each race evolved in different environments, which placed different emphasis on behavior, and that is the source of culture. Culture is caused by long term environmental hard wiring. Moreover, if one has a powerful intellect from the outset, when exposed to irrational group think - they intuitively know something is wrong and amiss, and they leave the situation. For example: From an early age, I felt the singing and excitement of church was rather boring, lame and I could never get into it. It was blind excitement directed at something I couldn't get into.

Carmel:
It's never a matter of Nature vs. Nuture. It's always Nature and Nuture.(genetics and environment) This is exceedingly obvious.

Ryan:
There are ethical issues that arise with any new technological development, but this isn't an argument for not allowing the technologies to come into existence.

Carmel:
That wasn't my point. What I'm curious to know is the specifics of this eugenics program. My intention was to try to get you to think about possible ethical issues and address those. Your comments about eugenics, thus far, have been extremely vague.

Ryan:
Do you think we should abandon the space program because new ethical issues will arise when we reach the potential to make contact with other life forms?

Carmel:
non sequitur. This is a separate issue.

Ryan(to Nick):
But if you give humans the perfect environment, many show no or little interest in philosophy or anything higher, how do you explain it?

Carmel:
A "perfect" environment is certainly no guarantee that one will be caused to be a genius. As you seem to imply, raw IQ needs to be factored into the equation. A man or woman with an average IQ will never be a genius. i.e. Einstein wasn't a scientific genius solely because he was caucasian or a male , nor because he had an ideal environment. The fact is, his IQ was 160. It's exceedingly rare for anyone, regardless of race or gender to have an IQ that is that high.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Nick Treklis wrote:What would eugenics as a pay service actually do
It's already in force, but calling it "eugenics" is a biting irony.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:You are probably correct in your assessment of Galton in the beginning, but later on in life, he still was quite inventive and creative in other areas other than philosophy. To me, that is the sign of a balanced polymath, rather then an imbalanced mania stricken mind.
He's probably an underrated scientist, but I wouldn't call him a philosopher. Even calling him a social scientist is pushing his luck.

Or a beginner-philosopher, perhaps.

Ryan to Nick wrote:Some individuals are programed with an open philosophical mind, and some are not. And there must be a genetic difference, a material basis that explains the qualities of an intellectual from an early age.
Yes, I think there's a lot to be said for genetics. People are animalistic because that's the kind of men that women go for: soldiers, politicians, salesmen, criminals, and bullies. But still, a virtuous man can have fools for children, so genetics isn't everything.


Here's an exercise for you to ponder. Imagine what the world would look like without the intellectual movements of both the Greeks and the Europeans. Subtract guys like Darwin, Newton, Gailleo, Einstein, Socrates, Heraclitus, Diogenes, Kierkeguard, Schoenhaucer, Plato, Artistotle, Kant, John Locke, Hume, Satre, Decartes, Husserl, Niestsche, Galton, Freud, Yung, and so on... and so on... what do you have left?

Lao Tzu, Confucious, the buddha...and some others.
That's ignorant, Ryan. There is a tradition in the Taoist, Buddhist, and Hindu vehicles of being deliberately nameless and selfless, to embody more purely the truth about no-self. One teaches without drawing attention to one's personal life, but by focussing on the truth.

Also, there is a high level of conscientiousness in those traditions, which would prevent many men of the same standard as those you mention, from choosing to be known for their works. I remember the story of the monk who, after many years of practice and diligent study, conducted a small memorial service for laymen, during which he noted he started to sweat (from some kind of agitation), and immediately withdrew to re-apply himself. The level of conscientiousness is high, so that a monk would be determined never to be known for any teaching unless it was pure.

Nevertheless, there is still a huge genealogy. If you've ever read Hakuin, you'll know of all the monks in the Zen koans, and the lists of Dharma fathers. There were also many Hindu sages, from as far back as 4000 B.C. responsible for the Vedic literature, like the Bhagavad-Gita.

Notice too, that most sages would not have bred. Yet sages still appeared. What does that make of the argument for genetics, eh?


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

A man or woman with an average IQ will never be a genius
IQ has little to do with genius.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Kelly Jones wrote:
A man or woman with an average IQ will never be a genius
IQ has little to do with genius.
Carmel:
I was referring specifically to scientific genius, i.e. with the reference to Einstein. Average IQ(100) Joe or Jane will never become a scientific genius regardless of his/her environment.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

But a specialised mind can't be a genius, which is the ability to see how things really function - i.e. the ability to see causal relationships. Or rather, the specialised talent has a small degree of genius. The true genius has a large degree, that's what makes him a genius.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

That may be, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

The topic seems to be drifting in the direction of how genius develops, in the sense of the strongest causal factors. As IQ has nothing to do with genius, I don't see that a point could be made there. If you're talking about consciousness (as in, intelligence, sensitivity, a logical mind, curiosity, and imagination), then that would be a good factor to discuss. But consciousness isn't at all the same as IQ. IQ is a measurement of your ability to be trainable to do IQ tests, and rely on standardised education. They don't test raw intelligence, but how one manipulates information in a trained, preset way.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Kelly:
The topic seems to be drifting in the direction of how genius develops, in the sense of the strongest causal factors.

Carmel:
Yes, we're in worldly matters where people discuss things like politics, science, scientific genius and the causal factors related to genius.

Kelly:
As IQ has nothing to do with genius, I don't see that a point could be made there.

Carmel:
You're not the authority on the matter, nor are you the thought police, Ryan and I were discussing the causal effects of genetics and environment and how they relate to genius, scientific or other wise. We're allowed to do that.

Kelly:
If you're talking about consciousness (as in, intelligence, sensitivity, a logical mind, curiosity, and imagination), then that would be a good factor to discuss. But consciousness isn't at all the same as IQ.

Carmel:
Indeed, Einstein had all of those qualities, but if his IQ had been 100 as opposed to 160, he would never have become a scientific genius.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But if you give humans the perfect environment, many show no or little interest in philosophy or anything higher, how do you explain it?
I don't think any humans have been given a perfect environment if I think I know what you mean by that, so we don't really know for sure whether they would show interest in philosophy or anything higher. Personally I think that if the public school system made logic, philosophy, and compassion a part of the core curriculum alongside language, math, science, and social studies we would churn out a much higher number of individuals who show great interest in those things you mentioned.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Whereas in high school, this mind had a strong interest in trying to understand the meaning of life, the work of philosophers and so on. Some individuals are programed with an open philosophical mind, and some are not. And there must be a genetic difference, a material basis that explains the qualities of an intellectual from an early age.
Yes in exceptional cases, one's genetic make up will make it more likely that they show an interest in those things. Still, most people are never really exposed to what proper thinking at it's core truly is, and if they were it would likely override any genetic predispositions. That's not to say that every single person would end up becoming a perfect Buddha, but we would surely have a much more thoughtful, compassionate, and wiser human race.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:For instance: races that were forced to adapt to climates at higher latitudes had to work their pre frontal cortex more often, as to survive winters in cold climates requires quite a bit of long term planning, strategic planning, and problem solving. The result is that the pre frontal cortex, which is largely responsible for decison making, planning, logic, and higher cognition was worked far more than races who lived near the equator where the challenges didn't put as much pressure on their mental abilites. The secret of an intellectual maybe revealed as an individual whose pre frontal can exert dominance over the limbic system, and not the other way around.
Like I said, race may play a role in exceptional cases, but for the most part I think it's largely irrelevant.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:You are correct Nick, that would be the fair way to do it, but we both know things never arise fairly, especically in the beginning. It will be overpriced, corrupted, and only accessible by the rich.
Well I wasn't really speaking to how things might turn out. It's the way you worded it that made you sound like you were supporting the idea that I was objecting to.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, over time, it should become cheaper and more accessible to the middle class and lower middle class, just like every other emerging technology. I'm assuming the rules of how technology have progressed will continue into the future.
I don't know. The poor are becoming more poor, and the rich are becoming more rich. People are having trouble just paying for basic necessities. At this rate only a handful of people would have the ability to afford such a service even if it becomes relatively cheaper.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by cousinbasil »

Kelly Jones wrote:The topic seems to be drifting in the direction of how genius develops, in the sense of the strongest causal factors. As IQ has nothing to do with genius, I don't see that a point could be made there. If you're talking about consciousness (as in, intelligence, sensitivity, a logical mind, curiosity, and imagination), then that would be a good factor to discuss. But consciousness isn't at all the same as IQ. IQ is a measurement of your ability to be trainable to do IQ tests, and rely on standardized education. They don't test raw intelligence, but how one manipulates information in a trained, preset way.
This is a common misconception, that genius has nothing to do with IQ. IQ is clearly not a measurement of one's ability to "be trainable to do" IQ tests, since almost nobody who takes them, genius or otherwise, trains to do them. Yes, they measure the results of one's education, no matter if it is standard or special in some way. The IQ test usually offers a variety tasks that measure aptitude as well. Some IQ tests involve reading, some do not and must be administered differently. IQ is nothing more or less than a statistic - you give the same tasks to a large sampling of people and get a normal distribution of test scores. That you get a normal (i.e., bell-shaped or Gaussian) curve means you are measuring something. To say that something is uncorrelated to ("has nothing to do with") genius means you have your own special definition of what genius must be. Since the test measures a wide variety of skills, your definition of genius must be fairly specific if what it represents is not somehow included in this variety.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Carmel wrote:Kelly: As IQ has nothing to do with genius, I don't see that a point could be made there.

Carmel: You're not the authority on the matter, nor are you the thought police, Ryan and I were discussing the causal effects of genetics and environment and how they relate to genius, scientific or other wise. We're allowed to do that.
I think your point was that raw IQ was an important cause relating to genius. So the point for you to make here, logically, would be a precise, detailed explanation of that relationship, a point involving an explanation of why its a consideration more important than genetics or environment. I'm just offering my view here. If you think this isn't a rational approach, explain why not.

Kelly: If you're talking about consciousness (as in, intelligence, sensitivity, a logical mind, curiosity, and imagination), then that would be a good factor to discuss. But consciousness isn't at all the same as IQ.

Carmel: Indeed, Einstein had all of those qualities, but if his IQ had been 100 as opposed to 160, he would never have become a scientific genius.
Your reply doesn't actually deal with what the IQ measurement refers to, nor what genius is.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

cousinbasil wrote:K: The topic seems to be drifting in the direction of how genius develops, in the sense of the strongest causal factors. As IQ has nothing to do with genius, I don't see that a point could be made there. If you're talking about consciousness (as in, intelligence, sensitivity, a logical mind, curiosity, and imagination), then that would be a good factor to discuss. But consciousness isn't at all the same as IQ. IQ is a measurement of your ability to be trainable to do IQ tests, and rely on standardized education. They don't test raw intelligence, but how one manipulates information in a trained, preset way.

This is a common misconception, that genius has nothing to do with IQ. IQ is clearly not a measurement of one's ability to "be trainable to do" IQ tests, since almost nobody who takes them, genius or otherwise, trains to do them.
You misunderstood the point. The training isn't for IQ tests, per se, but for the kinds of information, and how to manipulate that information. For instance, a person who had never been through a standardised education, learning spelling, geometry, arithmetics, and so forth, would not fare well in an IQ test. Such informtion would be utterly foreign to them, even if they were very intelligent in other ways of manipulating information. The IQ test doesn't measure intelligence directly.

Yes, they measure the results of one's education, no matter if it is standard or special in some way. The IQ test usually offers a variety tasks that measure aptitude as well. Some IQ tests involve reading,
Reading involves having already learnt a standardised language.
some do not and must be administered differently.
There is some form of communication in these, which involve having already learnt a standardised language.
IQ is nothing more or less than a statistic - you give the same tasks to a large sampling of people and get a normal distribution of test scores.
And all those people cannot be measured together in a reliable way unless all of them have had equal opportunity to access the standardised language or learning, that is, they've all been through a basic schooling. If a candidate has not had that schooling, they would fare poorly in an IQ test, even if they are actually an intelligent person.

That you get a normal (i.e., bell-shaped or Gaussian) curve means you are measuring something. To say that something is uncorrelated to ("has nothing to do with") genius means you have your own special definition of what genius must be. Since the test measures a wide variety of skills, your definition of genius must be fairly specific if what it represents is not somehow included in this variety.
Genius is the ability to understand deeply in what way things ultimately exist. A natural manifestation, and even consequence, of genius is a high level of rationality, because the genius perceives the fundamental simplicity of causation. They don't become confused by a million categories, but perceive in one simple swoop the interrelationship of all things. A product of that perception is that all their reasoning is direct, plain, and insightful.

IQ, on the other hand, does not measure genius, but rather the ability to follow standardised rules of how to perceive and manipulate data. It is like a game that one must learn to play, with restrictive rules. For instance, a genius would see many alternatives to how to play the game, and respond with even more intelligent answers, because they see solutions that the test-setters (not being true geniuses) have not. But their answers would give them a poor score.


.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

cousinbasil:
This is a common misconception, that genius has nothing to do with IQ. IQ is clearly not a measurement of one's ability to "be trainable to do" IQ tests, since almost nobody who takes them, genius or otherwise, trains to do them. Yes, they measure the results of one's education, no matter if it is standard or special in some way. The IQ test usually offers a variety tasks that measure aptitude as well.

Carmel:
That's true. IQ tests, real ones, not the silly online tests, are specifically designed to measure aptitude and not prior knowledge. I've seen the WYSE test for children and there are no words whatsoever. It measures the child's aptitude for reasoning skills and aptitude to perform abstract problem solving, tests are different for various ages.

cousinbasil:
Some IQ tests involve reading, some do not and must be administered differently. IQ is nothing more or less than a statistic - you give the same tasks to a large sampling of people and get a normal distribution of test scores. That you get a normal (i.e., bell-shaped or Gaussian) curve means you are measuring something. To say that something is uncorrelated to ("has nothing to do with") genius means you have your own special definition of what genius must be.

Carmel:
"Genius" is most definitely a subjective term around here. Who we consider to be a genius certainly reflects our own values. For example, not only was Einstein a scientific genius, but he was humble, deeply altruistic, a true humanitarian and he promoted those values, whenever he could.

Conversely, a few people regard Weininger as a genius, a man who was blatantly racist, sexist and anti-semitic. Weininger was a deeply psychologically disturbed, suicidal individual, as one critic termed it, his book was indicative of one who was in the throes of a "psycho-sexual panic". Some critics have theorized that he may have been schizophrenic. I'm inclined to think that they're right, after having read one of his books(Sex and Character).

So, it's easy to see, that a compassionate humanitarian would regard Einstein as a genius and bigots would regard Weininger as a genius. Don't need to be Einstein to figure that one out.;)
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

I'm always deeply suspicious when the word "humble" or "humility" is touted. It always sounds rather like a boast.

Similarly, when I hear people promoting compassion and love, I am reminded of the words "good always turns bad within samsara" --- and, sure enough, am soon to be a witness of their demonstration of hatred and intolerance.

All too human.



.
Locked