GENIUS FORUMS

Marilyn does not just do puzzles for a living. She basically runs her husband's artificial hearts company [ sounds like he might be the highest I.Q. around and gives his wife the credit for laughs ]. And some of her answers are quite awful, yes, and I recommend she should PLEASE refrain from trying to mix maths with idioms!! PLEASE! trying to formulate new idioms from mixing totally different ones is not legitimate! And the Monty Hall puzzle...Someone please axe me! Marilyn also tried to solve a maths problem a while ago and eventually she was proved wrong and handed in an official apology. But hey, no one is perfect. William James Sidis also had his occasional errors. His I.Q. was supposed to be somewhere around from 250 to 300. Anyway, look how he ended up... said he "didn't want to think anymore". When offered the leadership of organising the...what was it? railway system of something he declined because he said he "didn't want to take so much responsibility for so many lives". Ended up earning like nothing for a living.

BTW: I can't dress properly either : ) Stuff I think looks cool people freak out about. Not something I am proud about. I use my mother, evil as she is, to buy clothes for me and then I get compliments.

Katy wrote

Well, identical twins show that genetic clones are not automatically the same, so I really don't see any point whatsoever.

I know you don't see any point, but thats beside the point.

So, not atomatically equal? What does that mean?

Identical twins have the 'exact' same DNA.

Do you have an imagination?

Why are they diff....Hmmm, maybe because of their experiences (something as insignificant as their position in the womb), defects,
...The rest is associated into those categories...

I feel like I'm posting on a Mensa burnouts...

So, point is, it's really just a pretty meaningless number which has somehow, and very unfortunately, gotten to be seen as a big deal.

Well, it's worse than that, actually. IQ didn't just "somehow" become a big deal, it became one because it was introduced during a period in American history when eugenics was taken quite seriously. It was thought that through IQ testing, genetically superior or inferior individuals could be objectively identified and treated appropriately (by eugenic standards).

But you're right. I shouldn't have even mentioned IQ.

MindExpansion wrote: So, not atomatically equal? What does that mean?

It means that if you created a genetic clone of yourself for the purpose of having an equal to talk to about anything, you wouldn't even have that equal to talk to. Identical twins are essentially clones; they have the same DNA. Yet they don't share intelligence, interests or a lot of other things automatically.

As to the rest of your post, it is nonsense. You said you wanted an equal to talk to. I said you wouldn't have an equal because genetically identical people are not automatically equal in terms of IQ or interests. You then turn around and argue that this is because of differences in experiences. Which is what I just said.

Plus why would you want to only talk to your equal? Other people's understanding of things is valuable...

I feel like I'm posting on a Mensa burnouts...

You have the option to do so or not. If it is not useful for you to be here, why are you here?

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:William James Sidis also had his occasional errors. His I.Q. was supposed to be somewhere around from 250 to 300. Anyway, look how he ended up... said he "didn't want to think anymore". When offered the leadership of organising the...what was it? railway system of something he declined because he said he "didn't want to take so much responsibility for so many lives". Ended up earning like nothing for a living.

Someone I can't find the attribution for wrote:A genius is someone who can do anything but earn a living.

I've always liked that quote. I'd add, however, that such a person might also consider the concept of having to "earn" a living deeply problematic to begin with... but that's another story. :)

Unidian wrote:

Someone I can't find the attribution for wrote:A genius is someone who can do anything but earn a living.

Joey Adams - 10th quote down.
.

I wrote

Would it be better if we cloned ourselves and had only our genetic equals to talk to?

What would the bennefits be and the possible downside?

What if you both made a plan and read conflicting material to make it interesting?

I like the world we live in...It's like saying life is to short...Although it's the longest thing we experience....

?

Katy wrote

Well, identical twins show that genetic clones are not automatically the same, so I really don't see any point whatsoever.

I wrote

I know you don't see any point, but thats beside the point.

So, not atomatically equal? What does that mean?

Identical twins have the 'exact' same DNA.

Do you have an imagination?

Why are they diff....Hmmm, maybe because of their experiences (something as insignificant as their position in the womb), defects,
...The rest is associated into those categories...

Katy wrote

It means that if you created a genetic clone of yourself for the purpose of having an equal to talk to about anything, you wouldn't even have that equal to talk to. Identical twins are essentially clones; they have the same DNA. Yet they don't share intelligence, interests or a lot of other things automatically.

As to the rest of your post, it is nonsense. You said you wanted an equal to talk to. I said you wouldn't have an equal because genetically identical people are not automatically equal in terms of IQ or interests. You then turn around and argue that this is because of differences in experiences. Which is what I just said.

Plus why would you want to only talk to your equal? Other people's understanding of things is valuable...

this is useless...

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Unidian wrote:

Someone I can't find the attribution for wrote:A genius is someone who can do anything but earn a living.

Joey Adams - 10th quote down.
.

Thanks. :)

I don't get it...