GENIUS FORUMS

There are far more male geniuses than female geniuses. The reason is that the standard deviation of cognitive ability
for men is twice that of females. i.e., the standard deviation for men is about 30 IQ points and for women it is less
than 14. With genius level IQ considered to be 135 it is well within the reach of men out in the second standard
deviation where as for women they need to be out to their third standard deviation to make the grade. Simple
mathematical estimations would suggest that for every female genius there would be 3-4 male geniuses. Same for
morons. For every female moron there are 3-4 male morons.

Read "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life". Truly, an accessible and scholarly presentation
of the subject and statistics of human cognitive ability. Accessible enough even for women to read, but scholarly
enough so that most probably wouldn't finish it.



Source(s):
"The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Herrnstein and Murry

________________
“The perfect Wedding Planning with perfect Wedding Favors ”

The whole connotion of "real genius" to me suggests a working IQ above that of 180.

IQ doesn't even count for anything. You need to scan the brain to see how it is structured, because a scientist with a high IQ is filling in science papers using information given to him from other scientists. Being as I think that most of this information is wrong, all of the answers are wrong.

So a high IQ in 2009, could be a complete fail in 2055. Only a true genius can eliminated the useless information.

I wonder and ponder, how high IQ did Aristotle have?

yana wrote:I wonder and ponder, how high IQ did Aristotle have?

I would call him a dyslexic genius. A genius with errors. Some not his own fault either, and some errors which could come back to haunt us in the future... like end up true.

He would have been a modern day genius if he existed today too. Dyslexic? I don't know about that... interesting discussion.

IQ is based on a false premise: general intelligence.

I did very well on general intelligence tests during my childhood and adolescence. I continue to score above average on standardized IQ tests. Yet, I performed very poorly in school and never completed high-school. My own experience suggests to me that my performance had a lot to do with environment variables and my own willingness to prove my aptitude.

One of the original problems with IQ tests was that across culture and sub-culture the tests proved to be biased. IQ tests at that time relied on specific knowledge. Now they depend on abstract symbols, visuospatial manipulation and logic. But they still overlook the effectiveness at which a person applies themself.

An effect generally called stereotype anxiety occurs when a person taking an IQ test is primed with a stereotype about their ethnicity or gender. For example, in one study chinese women were separated into three groups, those to be primed with gender stereotypes, those for ethnic stereotypes and a control group. They were primed and given math tests. The results showed that the ethnic group performed above average and gender group performed below average. The results of the test were influenced by the comments by the researchers prior to the test.

IQ tests are not very good at taking into account the mental attitude and overall outlook on life of the participant.

There may be variations in specific abilities in people, most likely to the degree that those abilities have been cultivated. But the idea of a general intelligence isn't an objective fact, at least not one that isn't obscured by other variables.

The only real evidence for IQ tests is their effectiveness in predicting certain futures. Still there is no proof that IQs effectiveness is a result of general intelligence or perhaps a common bias.

I mean, I'm excluding cognitive disorders in this discussion and speaking on terms of what are called "normals". There are a lot of people who don't think about philosophy, or don't think they think about philosophy, simply because they believe they are too stupid or perhaps worn out. The mind is really good at deluding itself, its possible to believe it doesn't do something which it does do, its capable of denial. I think its possible for people to deny their intellect and I think it can be habitual.

If there is a "general" intelligence it is a rich landscape with many hills and valleys. When you add up a person's cognitive abilities into an abstracted whole then you distort the truth a bit. Turn it into something that fits nicely in the order of thoughts but ultimately opens the door to the false.

A person might sit down to do an IQ test and say to themselves "I know I'm stupid so don't waste a lot of time on this."

When I went to school as a child I said to myself "This is boring and pointless" but I ultimately didn't go to school that much. Now I have people with degrees telling me they are too simple to have a conversation. Its ironic like that, in the world of academia, I'm nobody, I have no diploma, I amount to nothing. But amongst the people I personally know, people who have diplomas and degrees, I am on a pedestal. For example, an old friend I barely know recently emailed me asking my opinion about H1N1 vaccination. I personally don't buy into the whole intelligence thing, for me its just applying myself to the subject matter. In other words, picking up a book and reading or sitting quietly and thinking. That's not intelligence its an attitude.

Concurrently, there are geniuses here -- by the definition of knowledge of the Absolute -- philosophical geniuses here who are effectively dyslexic when it comes to worldly matters. They have very little idea how the world works.

[quote="Carl G"]Concurrently, there are geniuses here -- by the definition of knowledge of the Absolute -- philosophical geniuses here who are effectively dyslexic when it comes to worldly matters. They have very little idea how the world works.[/quote]

---------

"As above, so below; as below, so above."
~The Kybalion

...meaning, knowledge of the "how the world works" might only serve to enhance one's wisdom if he is already predisposed towards it and has the capacity to think holistically.

Conversely, a scientist who is inclined toward wisdom might benefit from reading philosophical works, though it's not essential in either scenario.

--

"84,000 paths" to wisdom? There are many more than that, as any good mathematician/guru could tell you. :)

Carmel wrote:Conversely, a scientist who is inclined toward wisdom might benefit from reading philosophical works, though it's not essential in either scenario.

Essential to what? To their specialty?

I am speaking of genius, not scientist (although every genius must be a scientist in the highest sense). And, I would venture that philosopher without worldly knowledge is not a genius but a savant. Same for a worldly expert without philosophic (some might say spiritual).

Carl:

Essential to what? To their specialty?

---

Carmel:

No, to wisdom. It's not essential to wisdom to learn multiple disciplines, but I believe that it could enhance one's wisdom to do so.

...and sometimes, seemingly different fields of study reach the same conclusion.
i.e. In Physics, as in Zen, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I believe an interdisciplinary approach to wisdom is the ideal, but it's just one of many paths and may not resonate with others.

Carmel wrote:

Carl wrote:Essential to what? To their specialty?

No, to wisdom. It's not essential to wisdom to learn multiple disciplines, but I believe that it could enhance one's wisdom to do so.

I don't follow. Nothing is essential to wisdom. Wisdom itself has no requirements or wishes.

If you mean to say to gain wisdom thus be genius, I would disagree; as I said, non-holistic is partial, therefore its carrier is not genius but rather savant. Of course, some wisdom is no doubt better than none at all.

And of course we are speaking of developed genius, not merely innate intelligence.

Carl:

Nothing is essential to wisdom. Wisdom itself has no requirements or wishes.

Carmel:

I tend to agree that it has "no requirements". Wisdom doesn't require intelligence, nor genius, but these could be beneficial to gaining it. Some wisdom is purely experiential or possibly innate... "Out of the mouth of babes..."

edit: removed a phrase

Carl G wrote:I am speaking of genius, not scientist (although every genius must be a scientist in the highest sense). And, I would venture that philosopher without worldly knowledge is not a genius but a savant. Same for a worldly expert without philosophic (some might say spiritual).

I agree with this - the need for worldly knowledge and a wide variety of experience.

I know that Daviid Quinn sees it differently - he felt that you should strive entirely for enlightenment in your youth, and then everything you did after that would be from that context.

I personally don't think most people are ready for real philosophy before they are 30. Before that age, they are too prone to certain types of cognitive biases.

It's worldly knowledge and a wide variety of experience that made me realize the importance what's happening during ones youth. If a real and tangible connection with truth is not started pre-teen, no matter how vague and fantastic it might be regarding the concepts that were available back then, it never will start growing later, unless by some literal brain-washing or great trauma.

In a way I'm growing backwards now. Learning to see what I already knew back then but without the lack of power, without constantly being overshadowed by all the imaginative interpretations I was giving it all.

Carl G wrote:

Carmel wrote:

Carl wrote:Essential to what? To their specialty?

No, to wisdom. It's not essential to wisdom to learn multiple disciplines, but I believe that it could enhance one's wisdom to do so.

I don't follow. Nothing is essential to wisdom. Wisdom itself has no requirements or wishes.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying Wisdom is indifference?

Not at all. Since wisdom is inanimate, wisdom itself does not require anything of the world or any body in it. Nothing is essential to it. It is simply itself, like anything else.

Carl G wrote:Not at all. Since wisdom is inanimate, wisdom itself does not require anything of the world or any body in it.

But Wisdom does require an entity, doesn't it? Meaning, some thing or person that generates consciousness, correct?

Nothing is essential to it. It is simply itself, like anything else.

I'm not sure I see it that way. I don't see it as some independently existing thing, but rather the result of the required causes. So there are some essential ingredients required for wisdom to arise.

I think of wisdom as a thing, just as an apple is a thing. An example of wisdom -- an eternal truth -- is A = A. This wisdom needs nothing from me or from anything. It just is.

Carl G wrote:I think of wisdom as a thing, just as an apple is a thing.

I see things as the expression of other things.

An example of wisdom -- an eternal truth -- is A = A. This wisdom needs nothing from me or from anything. It just is.

I think wisdom needs consciousness. There is no knowledge of A=A without consciousness, and there is no consciousness without the things required to generate that consciousness.

Perhaps we are speaking of the difference between truth and wisdom, wisdom possibly being seen as truth refracted through consciousness. I suspect we basically agree, but differ in defining terms.

Ah, I see what you mean. I would agree that the truth (the whole totality of all there is) needs nothing for it to be, including consciousness. But Wisdom requires certain circumstances.

Wisdom is knowing the truth, it's just very hard to confirm if you are wise, or not! :)

Wisdom is knowing the truth and keeping your mouth shut !

Pincho Paxton wrote:Wisdom is knowing the truth, it's just very hard to confirm if you are wise, or not! :)

I'd say it's about as hard to confirm you are wise as it is to confirm you know the truth. ;)

kunga wrote: Wisdom is knowing the truth and keeping your mouth shut !

Shut your mouth then!

:)