The results do not really bear that out, do they?
Moderator Note
waddlingeagle, keep this kind of political nonsense out of this forum.
Moderator Instruction
Let’s drop further discussion of Trump in this thread.
Colibri
Comments Moderator.
I’m going with Wesley Clark, the poster, not the general, assuming our poster is not the general. It takes some kind of genius to be answered directly by Cecil himself. Congrats on getting your question answered!
Watson and Crick were not particularly geniuses. They made a revolutionary discovery, but where did their supposed genius come in?
The real problem, of course, is defining “genius”. Cecil mentions Beethoven in his column, so artistic genius must be on the table along with scientific genius. Elvis Presley? John Lennon? Leonard Bernstein? John Williams?
I guess I might define “genius” as the ability to develop novel creations of great value. Is Spielberg a filmmaking genius? Jackson Pollock a painting genius? Barack Obama a political genius? Thurgood Marshall a legal genius? Warren Buffett a financial genius? Why not?
If we limit the discussion to science, we run into precisely the problems Cecil lays out.
Powers &8^]
It really strains the credibility of Cecil’s column as well as this thread that Marilyn Vos Savant hasn’t even been mentioned.
(ducks and runs for cover)
Being right once does not a genius make you. 
I think Cecil missed the simplest explanation: Supergeniuses have always been really, really rare. To find a physicist the likes of Einstein, you have to go all the way back to Newton. To find another, you have to go all the way back to Archimedes. And you can’t find a fourth. Now, I’m not sure how to compare a genius in other fields to a physics genius, but it’s at least safe to say that it’s unremarkable if, at any particular time, there isn’t one, because there usually isn’t one.
Or, of course, one could draw the line of “supergenius” lower. But lower it enough, and it starts getting really easy to name plenty.
Here’s few from a 20-century discipline:
Edsger W. Dijkstra Edsger W. Dijkstra - Wikipedia
Donald Knuth Donald Knuth - Wikipedia
Bjarne Stroustrup Bjarne Stroustrup - Wikipedia
And what comes to high IQ I’ve always wondered about MENSA: Does it prove to have high IQ if you pay for the proof of high IQ? Eg. stupidity and intellect are not opposites.
Paul Erdős is a pretty clear example of a 20th century mathematical genius.
I think the answer is simply that supergeniuses are very common now, so none stand out.
Take the example of Newton. Fantastically smart guy, and using the relatively new Scientific Method (at least some of the time) he was able to make great strides.
Now, if you’re fantastically smart, and familiar with the scientific method, join one of the queues.
The era of Einstein is probably when the change happened. He was still able to trigger a scientific revolution (although we do something of a disservice to some of the other great minds who made contributing insights). But then he lost plenty of arguments on QM, most famously the set of debates with Niels Bohr.
The era of the “mega-sage” if it ever really happened, was drawing to a close.
Sadly the popular imagination still wants to imagine some eccentric dude in his shed becoming the master of many fields of science at the same time, and cobbling together a warp drive.
Not to mention that the (maybe even bigger) role of Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of the DNA structure has been largely ignored simply because she died before the Nobel Prize was awarded, and Nobels aren’t awarded posthumously.
Political genius maybe. Military genius, not so much.
Sorry, guys. I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I know you don’t want to catch my political cooties and that is why I generally keep them to myself.
My point is not political, however. What I am trying to say is that super-geniuses, generally thought to be the people with IQs over 175, are rare only in proportion to the rest of the world’s population. There are still some 7-10 million of us, so welcome to our not-so-exclusive club. I suppose most of them are hiding out in China. For reasons.
What in the world do you mean by “IQ over 175”, and how is that a useful criterion? There’s no IQ test in use that can distinguish between IQs over 160. Anyone who says they have an IQ higher than that (and most of those who say they have one in the 130-160 range) is deluding themself.
In any case, using the definition of I.Q. scores in which a standard deviation is 15 points, there are only a couple thousand or so people with an I.Q. of 175 in the entire world today, not several million. Using the definition in which a standard deviation is 16 points, it’s a little over ten thousand people. So, waddlingeagle, your calculations are off. Incidentally, it’s not true that over half of the world’s population live in China either, so it’s not true that most of them are in China. The population of China is only about a fifth of the world’s population.
You assume IQ is evenly distributed around the world.
So <ahem> newspaper columnists who claim extraordinarily high IQs are deluding either themselves or the public, or both?
Yup.
First point: waddlingeagle, do you have any evidence that intelligence is not evenly distributed around the world? No, it doesn’t count if you show that people in one society where people are much richer and hence much more educated and well nourished and free of disease than those in a second society score better on I.Q. tests than the people in the second society do. In other words, you have to show that the difference is genetic rather than environmental. If all you’re saying is that the people in some societies score better than the people in other societies on I.Q. tests, that’s true. It’s not clear that that fact proves anything about actual intelligence.
Second (unrelated) point: Marilyn vos Savant claims to have once been tested as having an I.Q. of 228. That’s because the test she was measured on used a different definition of I.Q. score than the modern definition. The old definition of I.Q. scores used quotients, while the modern definition uses standard deviations. The scores aren’t really comparable for extreme values.