The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-30-2000, 02:21 AM
lindsay lindsay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Somewhere I read that there is no such thing as a genius.

Then I saw this report on Philip Pauli, from Denver, CO. His IQ is said to be so high it isn't charted.

Philip was playing the violin by age 1 and 1/2, and also composing simple tunes. He went through all the hard sciences, and of course was a whiz at geometry, algebra and all of those things.

He was the first person to note that the Denver Museum's T' Rex was missing the tail section, and that a 14th century painting had a French helmet instead of the Spanish.

By now he has probably graduated from college, he would be around 12 or so. He had to wait until he was 10 to get into the college. In the meantime, at age 8 he was on an archeological dig for dinosaur bones.

If this kid isn't a genius, then what is he?
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-30-2000, 02:31 AM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Is it physically possible for a one-year-old baby to play the violin?
  #3  
Old 06-30-2000, 02:41 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,520
Where did you read that there's no such thing as a genius? If that's so, then the word has the wrong definition... Define "genius" in such a way that there is such a thing.

That said, this Pauli fellow you mention may or may not be a genius, but he's certainly a prodigy. The difference is this: None of the accomplishments you mention is, in itself, remarkable: The only thing that makes them remarkable is the age of the person doing them. There's plenty of folks who play the violin, graduate from college, and go on dino digs but who are not genii. Let's see if this kid keeps up the pace.

By the way, "IQ so high that it can't be charted" doesn't say much... There hasn't been an IQ test yet devised that is reliable for a person in the 99th percentile or higher, which means that one person in a hundred has an unchartably high IQ. This assumes that IQ even has any significance in the first place.
  #4  
Old 06-30-2000, 02:42 AM
mblackwell mblackwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
In Psychology I think genious refers to someone with an IQ above a certain number. I'm not sure of the number, it might be 160.
  #5  
Old 06-30-2000, 05:52 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,810
Yes, most IQ tests say specifically that they can't measure an IQ above 160. About one person in 31,000 or 32,000 has an IQ above 160. This isn't a very interesting observation in itself. All it says is that you can't do better than answer all the questions in a test right. Obviously a test can't predict which of the people who got all the questions right might get all the questions right on a much harder test.

I think there's another sense in which there's no such thing as a genius. There's no jump between "merely intelligent" people and geniuses. As you look in populations of larger and larger size, certainly you are going to find a few people who are smarter than anyone you've looked at before (learned some things earlier than anyone else, for instance), but you won't find any gap between the smartest "merely intelligent" people and the geniuses. It's like saying that there's no gap between "merely tall" people and giants. There are just people who are farther and farther out on the bell curve.
  #6  
Old 06-30-2000, 09:54 AM
pldennison pldennison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I think we need to return to the old, original meaning of "genius," which was someone who was the sine qua non at his or her vocation (or avocation, I suppose). This modern meaning of "someone with a really high IQ" is silly.
  #7  
Old 06-30-2000, 10:32 AM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
To reiterate what other posters have said, "genius" is an archaic term in psychology, though it still has colloquial utility. "Very superior" is the current verbal description for I.Q. scores higher than 130 or so. True genius, on the other hand, comprises more than what's measured by an intelligence test, as pldennison points out.

There are two reasons that I.Q. tests don't measure I.Q.'s above 160. First, there are very few people in the general population with I.Q's that high. This makes it very difficult to obtain a standardization sample large enough to ensure reliability and validity of high scores.

The second reason is that there is very small demand for a test that can measure such high scores. I.Q. tests are used to classify people as mentally retarded, learning disabled, gifted, and so on. If a child's I.Q is above a certain cutoff, he or she will qualify for gifted programming regardless of whether the actual score is 130 or 175.
  #8  
Old 06-30-2000, 10:34 AM
Phobos Phobos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
dusting off my dictionary, it seems that an IQ test has little to do with "genius", but instead, brain development. The IQ number is determined by dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100. So, it's basically assessing whether your thinking ability is right for your age. (normal=100) I assume "mental age" is asymptotic at "adult", unless wisdom (knowledge) is part of the measurement...which it does not seem to be from the IQ tests I have seen. Therefore, IQ seems to be more applicable to child prodigies and less applicable to identifying genius in adults. (although it can be used to measure adults with less developed intelligence skills)
  #9  
Old 06-30-2000, 11:03 AM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Phobos, the mental age/chronological age ratio isn't used anymore. Today, IQ scores are purely statistical, based on the normal curve.

Quote:
I assume "mental age" is asymptotic at "adult"
You assume correctly, for the most part. Scores on performance tasks on IQ tests decline very slowly after age 20 or so, while scores on verbal tasks remain stable and may even increase slightly. Overall, it's a wash. Full-scale scores are stable in adulthood.


Quote:
Therefore, IQ seems to be more applicable to child prodigies and less applicable to identifying genius in adults.
Hmmm... I guess it depends on how you define "genius." But IQ tests are equally reliable for children and adults, across the entire range of scores.
  #10  
Old 06-30-2000, 11:22 AM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I'd throw the name Srinivasa Ramanujan into the genius hat.

Born in India and living in near complete poverty he taught himself nearly a thousand years of western mathematics. That is to say, he didn't read a book and learn so much as derive most of what constituted advanced mathematics all by himself. He wrote a letter to Godfrey Hardy, a famous british mathematician, who arranged for a scholarship and had Srinivasa brought to England.

Once there he was able to toss out some really interesting (at least to a mathematician) work. The gaps in his education were unfortunately apparent since he didn't write his theorems in a way that most scientists found easily understandable or readable. Even so, some of his work is still poured over today. It's sad to think what he might have achieved if he had access to better resources as a child.

As to the OP and what others have written about prodigies and the like I'd venture to say this guy stands out given that what most people require a good deal of schooling for he had naturally wired into his brain.

Quote:
Ramanujan's knowledge of mathematics (most of which he had worked out for himself) was startling. Although almost completely ignorant of what had been developed, his mastery of continued fractions was unequaled by any living mathematician. He worked out the Riemann series, the elliptic integrals, hypergeometric series, the functional equations of the zeta function, and his own theory of divergent series. On the other hand, the gaps in his knowledge were equally startling. He knew nothing of doubly periodic functions, the classical theory of quadratic forms, or Cauchy's theorem, and had only the most nebulous idea of what constitutes a mathematical proof. Though brilliant, many of his theorems on the theory of prime numbers were completely wrong.

In England Ramanujan made further advances, especially in the partition of numbers. His papers were published in English and European journals, and in 1918 he became the first Indian to be elected to the Royal Society of London.

In 1917 Ramanujan contracted tuberculosis, but his condition improved sufficiently for him to return to India in 1919. He died the following year, generally unknown to the world at large but recognized by mathematicians as a phenomenal genius, without peer since Leonhard Euler (1707-83) and Karl Jacobi (1804-51).
Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica http://britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,64161+1,00.html
  #11  
Old 06-30-2000, 11:52 AM
Phobos Phobos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
[B]
Phobos, the mental age/chronological age ratio isn't used anymore. Today, IQ scores are purely statistical, based on the normal curve.
thanks...it was an old dictionary!
So, now IQ=100 is "average".

Similar to what pldennison said, perhaps there is genius in overall ability (like DaVinci), and genius in one area or in one's vocation (like a math genius, or a comic genius).
  #12  
Old 06-30-2000, 12:08 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,520
Quoth pldennison:
Quote:
I think we need to return to the old, original meaning of "genius," which was someone who was the sine qua non at his or her vocation (or avocation, I suppose). This modern meaning of "someone with a really high IQ" is silly.
Naw, the old, original meaning is the personification of a given man's libido and virility. Much more interesting than any of this silly intelligence stuff, IQ or otherwise, no?
I'd agree about the bell curve thing, although there are a few "disorders" which tend to corellate with higher intelligence-- ADD, autism, and dyslexia, for instance. Still, there's no reason we shouldn't have a special name for the upper tail of the bell curve, is there?
  #13  
Old 06-30-2000, 01:03 PM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Phobos
Quote:
So, now IQ=100 is "average".
Yup. But here's an interesting fact: what's average keeps getting better. When they re-standardize the tests every 10 or 15 years, they always find that the mean score has crept higher.

I think that the last time the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was re-normed, the mean had increased to around 106. So the test publishers have to change the scoring to make the mean equal 100 again. Since 15 years isn't long enough for significant genetic differences to arise in a population, the increase is primarily attributed to improved education.

Chronos
Quote:
I'd agree about the bell curve thing, although there are a few "disorders" which tend to corellate with higher intelligence-- ADD, autism, and dyslexia, for instance.
Actually, something like 80% of autistic kids are profoundly mentally retarded. And I'm pretty sure the relationship with dyslexia derives from the way we define reading disability, so it's not a "real" correlation. But the ADD correlation sounds interesting; I hadn't heard about that before. If you have cites, I'd be interested in seeing them. I'm doing an internship in school psychology next year, so it would be very helpful.
  #14  
Old 06-30-2000, 01:57 PM
jrepka jrepka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
I find the whole IQ concept pretty annoying. We run into this problem of judging people on how well they perform in a testing environment, rather than what they can learn or accomplish.

We've produced generations of people who believe that math is something you're "born with;" that creative, artistic people are "right-brained," and thus incapable of understanding science.
  #15  
Old 06-30-2000, 02:23 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,520
No cites, unfortunately, just word of mouth. Since you seem more knowlegeable than I on autism and dyslexia, I'll take your word on it there. ADD, I suspect, might be a case of better test-taking ability, rather than intelligence per se: A person with ADD will occasionally "hyperfocus" on something, in which case they can't be distracted by anything else, and can accomplish a lot if they're focused on something constructive, such as a test. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for an attention-deficit person to induce hyperfocus, although I've heard some promising things about biofeedback.
The Jargon File hypothesises that ADD may actually be common among hackers (NOT an insult), and that this may account for a good portion of the archtypical hacker personality.
  #16  
Old 06-30-2000, 03:07 PM
SoMoMom SoMoMom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
I have a site! I have a site! http://www.nfgcc.org/ It's seems to be an anti-drug site.

Actually, while I've been researching gifted children lately I've run across this correlation often. It seems that kids that have already learned their alphabet before Kindergarten don't want to sit through the rest of the class learning it. Imagine that! Then they tend to be labeled as ADD or socially immature because of it.

There are more sites out there, but I don't have enough attention span to go find them because I've already read them and I've lost interest now. Do a search on "gifted children" and there will most likely come up some that are talking about ADD. That's what I found.
  #17  
Old 06-30-2000, 04:10 PM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Thanks for the hyperlink, SoMoMom. Gifted kids who are inappropriately placed in classes beneath their ability do indeed exhibit similar behaviors to children with ADHD, and some of those gifted kids are even be misdiagnosed with ADHD, as the website points out. What I asked Chronos for was a citation from the scientific literature showing a correlation between intelligence and an accurate diagnosis of ADHD. Have you come across anything like this in the course of your research?
  #18  
Old 06-30-2000, 05:11 PM
SoMoMom SoMoMom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Oh, you want documented facts and peer reviewed journals and stuff like that. You might try http://ericec.org/ to see what you can find.
  #19  
Old 06-30-2000, 05:54 PM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Thanks again SoMoMom. That's a great reference site. I've saved it to my Favorites.
  #20  
Old 06-30-2000, 06:21 PM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,810
Jeff_42 writes:

> I'd throw the name Srinivasa Ramanujan into the genius
> hat.
>
> Born in India and living in near complete poverty he
> taught himself nearly a thousand years of western
> mathematics. That is to say, he didn't read a book and
> learn so much as derive most of what constituted advanced
> mathematics all by himself. He wrote a letter to Godfrey
> Hardy, a famous british mathematician, who arranged for a
> scholarship and had Srinivasa brought to England.

This is the romanticized version of Ramanujan's life. Here's the facts:

He was born into a Brahmin family. His father was a clerk. Anybody who could as much as read in late 19th century India clearly wasn't poor, and Ramanujan graduated from high school and started college, so he was way above the average in education already. He was recognized as a genius in his early teens, and he entered the University of Madras at 16 with a scholarship. He spent all his time there on math and neglected his other subjects, so he lost his scholarship. Still, other Indian mathematicians recognized how good he was and helped find him a job as a clerk so he could do his mathematical work at night. By the time he wrote Hardy, he had already published a mathematical paper. It was another Indian mathematician who suggested that Ramanujan should write G. H. Hardy, since he knew that Hardy was the only one who might be able to help Ramanujan with his research.
  #21  
Old 06-30-2000, 09:35 PM
August West August West is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Farmington, WI
Posts: 3,533
Sorry,I couldn't resist.

Quote:
Srinivasa Ramanujan <snip>was able to toss out some really interesting (at least to a mathematician) work <snip> some of his work is still poured over today.
I like my Ramanujan poured over pancakes, how about you?
  #22  
Old 07-01-2000, 11:38 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,810
Dumb Ox writes:

> Yup. But here's an interesting fact: what's average keeps
> getting better. When they re-standardize the tests every
> 10 or 15 years, they always find that the mean score has
> crept higher.

Yes, this is the Flynn effect. Until the early 1980's, nobody had even thought about the question of whether there was any overall change in intelligence through time. Most psychologists, if they thought about it, would have said that there couldn't be significant change because there hadn't been that much change in society, and obviously there wasn't time since I.Q. tests were introduced (in the 1910's) for there to be any significant amount of evolutionary biological change. In any case, whenever they created a new I.Q. test, they didn't even bother to compare its results with previous tests. They just tested it on a large sample group and set up the norms for the test according to how the sample group did.

In the early '80's, a New Zealand academic named James R. Flynn looked at some of the IQ tests that had been used for a long time. He found that when a group that scored 100 as an average on a newly created test took a test that had been normed 10 years before, they got an average of 103 on the old test. He then looked through many different tests from all the countries that had a long history of I.Q. testing and found that this was consistently true. In every country, people's scores were increasing on I.Q. tests by about 3 points per decade ever since regular I.Q. testing had started. (A little more than 3 points in some cases, a little less in other cases, but surprisingly consistent.) In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80 years ago would score a 76 I.Q. then, at the bottom of the "dull normal" range.

Nobody has a good explanation for this. Some people have hypothesized that better nutrition and disease control have meant that it's no longer as common for people to have low I.Q. just because they suffered through the effects of bad nutrition or of disease. This effect is too large for that, though. We have figured out the effect of nutrition and disease on I.Q., and you'd have to assume that most people back then were on the edge of starvation, and that's just not true. Other people have conjectured various changes in society, although none of their theories are really convincing.

I wonder if it means that whatever ability I.Q. tests are measuring isn't really a useful ability.
  #23  
Old 07-01-2000, 01:58 PM
FunkDaddy FunkDaddy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Chronos said:
Quote:
I'd agree about the bell curve thing, although there are a few "disorders" which tend to corellate with higher
intelligence-- ADD, autism, and dyslexia, for instance. Still, there's no reason we shouldn't have a special name
for the upper tail of the bell curve, is there?
Actually, while it's been pointed out that the majority of children with autism are not gifted, the disorder you may be referring to is 'high functioning autism', also known as Asperger's Syndrome (spelling may be incorrect, I don't have any references here). There is some debate over whether this is actually a form of autism or not, but it does have some similar characteristics, and it has also been said that a lot of these children (and later, adults) are gifted.

I do some clinical-assistant type work with a child with Asperger's, and the resemblance to typical autism is hard to pick out at first. He interacts with people, but has an inability to express interpersonal emotion in a constructive manner. He can be very aggressive, but has difficulty explaining why he's angry. He has a good head for science, but finds language arts very difficult. He doesn't understand personal interactions with any certainty, and sees most interactions between the opposite sexes as sexual in nature (unless he's involved, because he can understand his own motives). Basically he can't figure out what other people are thinking or feeling, no matter if they are characters in a play or his classmates.

There has been some talk over whether Asperger's is correlated with high intelligence, and to be perfectly honest, I do not feel qualified to make any statements. In my limited experience, people with Asperger's are definitely not gifted in the area of literature, because of an inability to grasp the more subtle elements.

I don't know enough about dyslexia to make a qualified answer.

And I'm not touching the ADD/ADHD discussion with a ten foot pole.

FunkDaddy.
  #24  
Old 07-01-2000, 02:29 PM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,810
This sentence was not well-written:

> In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this
> means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80
> years ago would score a 76 I.Q. then, at the bottom of
> the "dull normal" range.

I meant something more like this:

> In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this
> means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80
> years ago would score a 76 I.Q. on an I.Q. test now, at
> the bottom of the "dull normal" range.

Incidentally, the problem is not that I.Q. tests are culturally biased. The rise in I.Q. scores actually seems to be higher in categories that are usually considered to be less culturally biased.
  #25  
Old 07-01-2000, 06:13 PM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
There has been a tendency in recent times to pathologise highly gifted kids as Aspergers. It is an interesting syndrome to track through the literature of gifted kids. Hans Asperger's original list of symptoms as far as I have been able to find did not include high IQ as a symptom. When you look at Leta Hollingworth's book, which currently I cannot remember the title of, published in the 1930's anyway, there are kids in there who would definitely qualify as AS using the criteria of Tony Attwood. Miraca Gross' book _Exceptionally Gifted Children_ (a must read if one is interested in EG+ kids) definitely includes at least one child, Ian who would score a dx if he came into the hands of Attwood et al. Formal language, an interest in maps and an IQ of 200 (as measured on the SB LM).

Attwood uses a scatter of scores on the WISC III to dx AS. Interestingly enough Weschler himself says this is a wrong use of the test. One of the symptoms of AS is the formal or pedantic usage of English. However IMO HG+ kids who use an adult vocab appropriately are not necessarily AS.

The ADHD link - I haven't ever found decent research which supports the idea that most ADHD people are HG. IME EG+ kids in an inappropriate environment can look ADHD. One way of looking at IQ scores is to consider them as a measure of processing power. What might take a child of average IQ several repetitions to learn a kid of IQ 160+ can learn on the first go round. Then they get bored. Then all hell breaks loose <G>

Primaflora
  #26  
Old 07-01-2000, 10:29 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,520
Um, PrimaFlora, would you mind explaining the meaning of some of theose TLAs? Your post looked very interesting and informative, but I couldn't read half of it!
  #27  
Old 07-02-2000, 01:09 AM
Dumb Ox Dumb Ox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Primaflora, who is Tony Attwood? I've never heard of him, and his methods sound somewhat, well... unorthodox.

FunkDaddy said
Quote:
Actually, while it's been pointed out that the majority of children with autism are not gifted, the disorder you may be referring to is 'high functioning autism', also known as Asperger's Syndrome...
Good point. Asperger's is indeed referred to as high-functioning autism, but this does not mean that Asperger's kids function higher than the general population. Rather, this term is used to denote that Asperger's kids are higher functioning than autistic kids.


Quote:
There is some debate over whether this is actually a form of autism or not...
Currently, both autism and Asperger's are classified under Pervasive Developmental Disorders, along with Rett's Syndrome and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.
  #28  
Old 07-02-2000, 02:38 AM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:

Um, PrimaFlora, would you mind explaining the meaning of some of theose TLAs? Your post looked very interesting and informative, but I couldn't read half of it!

Ack! Sorry. Ookay AS =Aspergers Syndrome. HG is highly gifted, IQ of over about 150. EG is exceptionally gifted IQ over about 160. PG is profoundly gifted, an IQ over 180.

SB LM is the Stanford Binet LM - it is an outdated IQ test which is used when ceilings are hit in the WISC III. The use of the SB LM is controversial - it is championed by people like Gross and Silverman who are doing research in the area of EG+ kids.The WISC III is one of the most commonly used IQ tests developed by Weschler. It has a ceiling of 140 or 160 depending on who you believe . Weschler himself says that it is not a good test to use at the extremes - it is a test which is designed to test for normal IQ.

Did I get them all? Sorry again.

Primaflora
  #29  
Old 07-02-2000, 03:15 AM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
[QUOTE][B]
Primaflora, who is Tony Attwood? I've never heard of him, and his methods sound somewhat, well... unorthodox.

well bear in mind that I am seriously not a fan of the man. Tony Attwood is the author of _Asperger's Syndrome_. Check out http:www.attwood.com

another view of Attwood and his stance on highly gifted children and AS is at

http://student.uq.edu.au/%7Es319886/asperger.htm

please note that this essay is primarily concerned with the issue of mis diagnosis of gifted kids and Aspergers, rather than the mis diagnosis of kids in general

Primaflora
  #30  
Old 06-07-2010, 06:43 PM
Napachild Napachild is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Genius IQ

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblackwell View Post
In Psychology I think genious refers to someone with an IQ above a certain number. I'm not sure of the number, it might be 160.
I was always taught that genius starts at 140. My IQ is supposedly 137. Its been so long since I have been in school or worked in an office I'm not sure of things like I once was.
  #31  
Old 06-07-2010, 06:46 PM
Napachild Napachild is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Violin Baby

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_mcl View Post
Is it physically possible for a one-year-old baby to play the violin?
If they can grip well by one year, I'd say yes!
  #32  
Old 06-07-2010, 07:54 PM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,810
Napachild, there's no standard definition of "genius" using the I.Q. score. Look at this Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

It quotes a couple of early researchers in I.Q. testing. One (Terman) says that genius begins at 140 I.Q. and one (Hollingworth) says that it begins at 180 I.Q. However, this was relative to the old ratio definition of I.Q. Using the new deviation definition, these scores would translate to 136 and 162. These definitions were never generally accepted though. 160 is merely the highest score possible on any standard modern I.Q. test. It's possible for someone to theoretically have a higher I.Q. (Indeed, given the population of the world and the fact that one person in 31,500 will have an I.Q. at least that high, we can expect that at least 200,000 people in the world have an I.Q. that high or higher.) It's just not possible to measure it on any standard modern I.Q. test.
  #33  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:09 PM
Knorf Knorf is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There's plenty of folks who play the violin, graduate from college, and go on dino digs but who are not genii.
And there are plenty of people who know that "genii" is not the proper plural of "genius." Unless you really are referring to a magic spirit of lore that takes on human form and give service to the person who called it.

If you're referring to someone who has exceptional intellectual capacity or ability, the plural is "geniuses."

Otherwise I am in agreement with your post.

Last edited by Knorf; 06-07-2010 at 08:10 PM..
  #34  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:18 PM
orcenio orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh, you better believe there's such a thing as a genus. You're lookin at 'em...





























































*jazz hands*
  #35  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:29 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I'd throw the name Srinivasa Ramanujan into the genius hat.

Born in India and living in near complete poverty he taught himself nearly a thousand years of western mathematics. That is to say, he didn't read a book and learn so much as derive most of what constituted advanced mathematics all by himself.
Wendell Wagner already addressed this, but Ramanujan wasn't living in a hut somewhere cut-off from the rest of civilization. He went to school, read textbooks, talked to professors, and all the usual things. He had a mathematical education. He just happened to also be very talented at mathematics, and, as often happens, managed to derive many things on his own without or before being aware of the previous similar discoveries of others. He had idiosyncratic interests, so there were large swaths of math he never bothered to acquaint himself with; the same is true of every mathematician. And of course he went on to do much great mathematical work that was wholly original. But the idea that he re-developed "a thousand years of Western mathematics" entirely from scratch? No, people in India weren't that ignorant of the rest of the mathematical world...

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 06-07-2010 at 08:34 PM..
  #36  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:41 PM
friedo friedo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napachild View Post
If they can grip well by one year, I'd say yes!
I'd say not. Babies are instinctively able to grasp objects almost from birth, but no one-year-old has the arm and upper-body strength necessary to hold and control an instrument as big as they are for more than a few seconds. Nor do they have the manual dexterity to manipulate individual strings with any kind of precision, or delicately control a bow.

(Unless, of course, they mean "playing" the violin as a percussion instrument against a sibling's head. That they could do.)
  #37  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:45 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
I just noticed this thread is actually a 10 year old zombie, resurrected by Napachild.
  #38  
Old 06-07-2010, 08:58 PM
Knorf Knorf is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable View Post
I just noticed this thread is actually a 10 year old zombie, resurrected by Napachild.
Hah! Indeed it is.


BrrrrAAAAAINS!

BraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAaiiins!
  #39  
Old 06-07-2010, 09:32 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Here's a 6 year old piano prodigy.

Re Philip Pauli he'd be 20 now but he seems to have fallen off the map./ This all I could find.

Last edited by astro; 06-07-2010 at 09:36 PM..
  #40  
Old 06-07-2010, 11:23 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,520
Quote:
And there are plenty of people who know that "genii" is not the proper plural of "genius." Unless you really are referring to a magic spirit of lore that takes on human form and give service to the person who called it.

If you're referring to someone who has exceptional intellectual capacity or ability, the plural is "geniuses."
When English adopts a word from another language, it's acceptable to form the plural either according to the rules of the original language or those of English. I am aware that "geniuses" is a perfectly valid plural form, but I happen to prefer to use the Latin form.

Next up: "bacteria" vs. "bacteriums".
  #41  
Old 06-08-2010, 02:28 AM
Knorf Knorf is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
When English adopts a word from another language, it's acceptable to form the plural either according to the rules of the original language or those of English. I am aware that "geniuses" is a perfectly valid plural form, but I happen to prefer to use the Latin form.
NOT necessarily. The usual usage in English is different. "Genii" refers to spirits, "geniuses" refers to people.
  #42  
Old 06-08-2010, 06:30 AM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napachild View Post
I was always taught that genius starts at 140. My IQ is supposedly 137. Its been so long since I have been in school or worked in an office I'm not sure of things like I once was.
Since you're a "near" genius, you might have read something about NOT reopening very OLD threads on the Board. These are called zombies, and we prefer you start a new thread and link to the old one, unless you have new information that answers the original post.

Closed.

samclem Moderator, GQ
Closed Thread



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.