Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP voters are the only ones who think Donald Trump is more i

124»

Comments

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2018
    Grim taken one of the good guys,

    Ex-West Brom and England forward Cyrille Regis dies aged 59

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42687285
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,541

    Mr. B, it's a perennial problem assessing driver quality when the car is so important. Must admit, I'd never heard of him, but if Jim Clark rated him he must've been good...

    You hadn't heard of the Gurney flap, Mr.D ?
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    DAily mail to sold again on virgin trains. Twatterati aren’t going to happy about this u-turn.

    Richard Branson explains the reason for the u-turn thus:

    Freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance for differing views are the core principles of any free and open society. While Virgin Trains has always said that their passengers are free to read whatever newspaper they choose on board West Coast trains, it is clear that on this occasion the decision to no longer sell the Mail has not been seen to live up to these principles.

    I trust that all those on here who heaped opprobrium upon the Bearded One will apologize and beg his forgiveness.
    I dare say the motive is entirely driven by profit and the desire to protect the wider brand. I don't believe for a second Branson had a hand in "banning" the Daily mail, I'm sure it was thought up by an apparatchik at Virgin Trains' PR department as a brilliant way of getting free publicity out of a business decision to stop stocking a product that wasn't selling well. However Daily Mail readers also purchase Virgin Broadband, frequent Virgin Gyms, etc, so someone from the master brand team will have stepped in.
    Yup. It wasn’t so much that VT made the decision, as the accompanying press release that caused the problems for the brand. Master brand franchisers tend to be a little sensitive when it comes to stuff like that.
    The press release should be a case study in how not to do it. It basically branded all customers who read the Daily Mail as racist homophobic luddites, who they want on their trains even less than a homeless guy who hasn't washed for 2 weeks and clinging onto a 3l bottle of cheap cider.
    And it matters not. Who decides to choose how to travel on the bass of which papers are sold on the train? Virgin have now added to the madness of their first announcement by this from the bearded one today.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235

    Scott_P said:

    @PolhomeEditor: Clean sweep for the Corbynite slate - Labour now owned by the far left. https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/952870325733285888

    Poor Eddie Izzard... losing again...
    I didn't see the need to vote. The slate was going to walk it so why bother? I'd have voted for Garnham anyway as she was a comrade at Sheffield University back in the day
    Did you have the right to vote for 3 of the candidates given 3 were being elected? In which case is it reasonably to assume that those taking part would have been <100k? Still a relatively impressive number but somewhat less than the 600k are now being represented.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. B, ah, I've heard of those but had no idea they were named after a driver.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.

    Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.

    On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.

    Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
    What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
    Carter had an IQ measured of 153 and was an engineer. Being a Rhodes Scholar studying PPE as Clinton was does not suggest exceptional intelligence, Hillary got higher law school grades at Yale than Bill and nor necessarily does editing the Harvard Law Review, Obama's first college was Occidental College in California which is not top tier nor Ivy League and entry to that would have been based on SATs.
    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2018

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    DAily mail to sold again on virgin trains. Twatterati aren’t going to happy about this u-turn.

    Richard Branson explains the reason for the u-turn thus:

    Freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance for differing views are the core principles of any free and open society. While Virgin Trains has always said that their passengers are free to read whatever newspaper they choose on board West Coast trains, it is clear that on this occasion the decision to no longer sell the Mail has not been seen to live up to these principles.

    I trust that all those on here who heaped opprobrium upon the Bearded One will apologize and beg his forgiveness.
    I dare say the motive is entirely driven by profit and the desire to protect the wider brand. I don't believe for a second Branson had a hand in "banning" the Daily mail, I'm sure it was thought up by an apparatchik at Virgin Trains' PR department as a brilliant way of getting free publicity out of a business decision to stop stocking a product that wasn't selling well. However Daily Mail readers also purchase Virgin Broadband, frequent Virgin Gyms, etc, so someone from the master brand team will have stepped in.
    Yup. It wasn’t so much that VT made the decision, as the accompanying press release that caused the problems for the brand. Master brand franchisers tend to be a little sensitive when it comes to stuff like that.
    The press release should be a case study in how not to do it. It basically branded all customers who read the Daily Mail as racist homophobic luddites, who they want on their trains even less than a homeless guy who hasn't washed for 2 weeks and clinging onto a 3l bottle of cheap cider.
    And it matters not. Who decides to choose how to travel on the bass of which papers are sold on the train? Virgin have now added to the madness of their first announcement by this from the bearded one today.

    It wasn't about the announcement they weren't selling it, it was was the way it was done.

    Also it isn't just virgin trains, it is the virgin brand. In the real world, Branson and Stagecoach boss think it does affect their brands, hence todays announcement.

    Branson actually owns few of the Virgin companies, he is like Trump, the Virgin brand is what keeps him very rich. He ain't stupid, he has shut this down and spinning it as "defender of free speech".

    If they had just stuck to we only flog 70 copies of this paper, due to declining newspaper sales, ipads etc, I bet we wouldn't be seeing this reversal.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,830

    Mr. Urquhart, you can't tolerate wrongthink. You'll only encourage more of it.

    The true test of being wiling to tolerate opposing viewpoints is when there's a chance you may be outvoted. It's easy to be tolerant of ideas you dislike, if they're proposed by groups who have no chance of ever winning a vote.

    I think the election of Trump, the Brexit vote, the general rise of populist right wing parties has made some people fear that history is not necessarily on their side, and they are now looking favourably at censorship.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PolhomeEditor: Clean sweep for the Corbynite slate - Labour now owned by the far left. https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/952870325733285888

    Poor Eddie Izzard... losing again...
    I didn't see the need to vote. The slate was going to walk it so why bother? I'd have voted for Garnham anyway as she was a comrade at Sheffield University back in the day
    Did you have the right to vote for 3 of the candidates given 3 were being elected? In which case is it reasonably to assume that those taking part would have been <100k? Still a relatively impressive number but somewhat less than the 600k are now being represented. </p>
    You had 3 votes. My point was that sheep do as they are told. In this election the propaganda was that the slate were for Jeremy and everyone else was against Jeremy. So they win. And people like Eddy Izzard were attacked as Tories...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    edited January 2018
    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. F, indeed, although the rise of censoriousness and seeking to win debates not through reason argument but narrowing the scope of acceptable opinion was already happening.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. kle4, yes. Also, there are at least two different sets of IQ tests (one has 130 as the top 2% cut-off, the other 148).

    I think people give such things rather too much weight, but there we are.
  • Options
    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    An IQ of over 182? Yes, there have been people recorded as 200+, and some of absolutely useless in the real world e.g. Christopher Langan.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,056

    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)

    Now she knew how to answer the Monty Hall problem.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,917
    edited January 2018

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Where are you finding the extra quadrillion people to create the neccesary probability for the deviations ?

    The maximum IQ by definition is around 195 or so.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2018

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.
  • Options

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    Sadly he didn't and ended up dying of a brain haemorrhage aged 44

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    edited January 2018
    Mr. Slackbladder, I know I keep saying we shouldn't take IQ too seriously, but it's nowhere near as stupid (and unnecessary) as midichlorians[sp].

    Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off to walk the dog. One fears, despite being a border collie, she would not exactly break the IQ ceiling...
  • Options

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.

    Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.

    On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.

    Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
    What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
    Carter had an IQ measured of 153 and was an engineer. Being a Rhodes Scholar studying PPE as Clinton was does not suggest exceptional intelligence, Hillary got higher law school grades at Yale than Bill and nor necessarily does editing the Harvard Law Review, Obama's first college was Occidental College in California which is not top tier nor Ivy League and entry to that would have been based on SATs.
    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.
    One suggested set of presidential IQs (through to GW Bush) here:

    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.

    Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.

    On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.

    Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
    What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
    Carter had an IQ measured of 153 and was an engineer. Being a Rhodes Scholar studying PPE as Clinton was does not suggest exceptional intelligence, Hillary got higher law school grades at Yale than Bill and nor necessarily does editing the Harvard Law Review, Obama's first college was Occidental College in California which is not top tier nor Ivy League and entry to that would have been based on SATs.
    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.
    Carter released his measured IQ tests and no Rhodes Scholars are not some sort of super IQ genius, Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar and while a reasonably effective politician I don't think even ge would say he was an intellectual genius
  • Options

    Mr. Slackbladder, I know I keep saying we shouldn't take IQ too seriously, but it's nowhere near as stupid (and unnecessary) as midichlorians[sp].

    Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off to walk the dog. One fears, despite being a border collie, she would not exactly break the IQ ceiling...

    Border Collies are the smartest breed in the world.

    https://www.petmd.com/dog/pet_lover/evr_dg_smart_dogs?page=show
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    It's all relative anyway.....
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    Scott_P said:

    @PolhomeEditor: Clean sweep for the Corbynite slate - Labour now owned by the far left. https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/952870325733285888

    Disappointed with the results but a sign of the times. I obviously didn't vote for any of the top 3.
  • Options
    welshowl said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    It's all relative anyway.....
    Nah, that's incest.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    What about Walter O'Brien (of Scorpion fame)?
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    It's all relative anyway.....
    Nah, that's incest.
    Bet all the 160 plus IQ's put pineapple on their pizza. All of them.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
  • Options

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    Wikipedia suggest the Sidis score might also be a hoax.

    It has been acknowledged that Helena and William's mother Sarah had developed a reputation of exaggerated claims about the Sidis family.Helena had also falsely claimed that the Civil Service exam William took in 1933 was an IQ test and that his ranking was an IQ score of 254. It is speculated that the number "254" was actually William's placement on the list after he passed the Civil Service exam, as he stated in a letter sent to his family.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

    What to believe?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    I have a vague recollection of taking an IQ test at a young age and getting around a score of a bit above average and being chuffed about it at the time. I should have had higher aspirations than being 'a bit above average' even if that was an accurate take!

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    One would hope so. It would be easy to imagine it being very frustrating - the example being you take the slowest and most ignorant person you know, and how you, generally an average person, can get annoyed or frustrated as they take an age to grasp the simplest of concepts, or fail to grasp them at all, but then magnify that out to 'every other person in the world' for our hypothetical smartest person ever.
  • Options
    Blue_rog said:

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    What about Walter O'Brien (of Scorpion fame)?
    His IQ is much discussed.

    The general consensus is that it isn't as high as he says it is.

    PS - Love that show, curses to ITV for dropping it.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Urquhart, you can't tolerate wrongthink. You'll only encourage more of it.

    The true test of being wiling to tolerate opposing viewpoints is when there's a chance you may be outvoted. It's easy to be tolerant of ideas you dislike, if they're proposed by groups who have no chance of ever winning a vote.

    I think the election of Trump, the Brexit vote, the general rise of populist right wing parties has made some people fear that history is not necessarily on their side, and they are now looking favourably at censorship.
    Of course the data clearly shows that it is Tory voters who are most pro-censorship, by a significant margin (see recent YouGov attitudes poll). A recently advertised fact that somewhat undermines your claim.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,917
    edited January 2018
    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    If he is the cleverest man in history, then according to http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx that is around 100 billion souls...

    IQ is defined as a mean of 100 and sigma of 15.

    6.806502σ is given as 1/100 000 000 000 probability which is ~ 102.

    So the IQ of the smartest person ever to have lived should be 202. If that was him then that is his IQ.

    Edit: Sorry should be ~ 200 I think as you need to halve the 1/100m to 1/50m which drops the IQ marginally (Not everyone is brighter than average !)

    So 200 is the max.
  • Options

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    Wikipedia suggest the Sidis score might also be a hoax.

    It has been acknowledged that Helena and William's mother Sarah had developed a reputation of exaggerated claims about the Sidis family.Helena had also falsely claimed that the Civil Service exam William took in 1933 was an IQ test and that his ranking was an IQ score of 254. It is speculated that the number "254" was actually William's placement on the list after he passed the Civil Service exam, as he stated in a letter sent to his family.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

    What to believe?
    There was evidence from others that he could speak all those languages at a young age.

    I remember watching a documentary about him years ago which tended to back up his IQ.

    What happened was in later life he had issues and his aptitude fell.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    I don't see how these numbers are possible. Are these just the result of somebody "estimating" based on their work?
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    List of people with the highest IQs ever recorded (in ascending order)

    Stephen Hawking (IQ – 160)
    Albert Einstein (IQ – 160 – 190)
    Judit Polgar (IQ – 170)
    Philip Emeagwali (IQ – 190)
    Garry Kasparov (IQ – 194)
    Christopher Michael Langan (IQ – 190 – 210)
    Edith Stern (IQ – 200+)
    Kim Ung-Yong (IQ – 210)
    Christopher Hirata (IQ – 225)
    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)
    Terence Tao (IQ – 225 – 230)
    William James Sidis (IQ – 250-300)

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/who-are-some-of-the-people-with-the-highest-iq.html

    The highest IQ ever recorded is of William James Sidis with an IQ score between 250-300. At the age of 5, he could use a typewriter and had learnt to speak Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German and Hebrew. He was denied admission to Harvard at the age of 6 because he was called too emotionally immature. Later, at age 11, they were forced to admit him, after which he gave his well-received first lecture on 4-dimensional physics!

    Wikipedia suggest the Sidis score might also be a hoax.

    It has been acknowledged that Helena and William's mother Sarah had developed a reputation of exaggerated claims about the Sidis family.Helena had also falsely claimed that the Civil Service exam William took in 1933 was an IQ test and that his ranking was an IQ score of 254. It is speculated that the number "254" was actually William's placement on the list after he passed the Civil Service exam, as he stated in a letter sent to his family.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

    What to believe?
    Reminiscent of the famous Sunday Sport headline: Boy, 1, completes Times crossword

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,541

    Mr. Slackbladder, I know I keep saying we shouldn't take IQ too seriously, but it's nowhere near as stupid (and unnecessary) as midichlorians[sp].

    Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off to walk the dog. One fears, despite being a border collie, she would not exactly break the IQ ceiling...

    Border Collies are the smartest breed in the world.

    https://www.petmd.com/dog/pet_lover/evr_dg_smart_dogs?page=show
    I'm not convinced by such lists.
    http://petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html

    There must be a very high variability on breed intelligence, as (for example) I have known some exceptionally stupid Poodles and Labradors (and as for Labradoodles...).

    Wheaten Terriers are sometimes accounted exceptionally intelligent, but score quite low on the list.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,283
    John_M said:

    Anazina said:

    Barnesian said:

    The latest Ashcroft focus groups are interesting.

    The [Brexit] story had just become “background noise. You kind of zone out of it. It’s been going on for nearly two years.” Or, more forthrightly: “I’m bored with it. I’m bored to the back teeth so I switch off. You’ve just got to hope they know what they’re doing.”


    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/cup-overflowed-political-stuff-theres-much-want-take-latest-focus-groups/

    Most of us here are engaged with Brexit and know the ins and outs of it but most people aren't at all, and have only the vaguest idea of what is happening politically. Their views aren't changing, not because they're listening to the arguments and are not persuaded to change their vote, but because they're just not interested. So the status quo prevails but it isn't deep at all.

    A rude awakening beckons.
    But for whom?
    Is that really in doubt? Even Boris Johnson thinks the whole thing will have been a huge waste of time.

    Anazina said:

    Barnesian said:

    The latest Ashcroft focus groups are interesting.

    The [Brexit] story had just become “background noise. You kind of zone out of it. It’s been going on for nearly two years.” Or, more forthrightly: “I’m bored with it. I’m bored to the back teeth so I switch off. You’ve just got to hope they know what they’re doing.”


    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/cup-overflowed-political-stuff-theres-much-want-take-latest-focus-groups/

    Most of us here are engaged with Brexit and know the ins and outs of it but most people aren't at all, and have only the vaguest idea of what is happening politically. Their views aren't changing, not because they're listening to the arguments and are not persuaded to change their vote, but because they're just not interested. So the status quo prevails but it isn't deep at all.

    A rude awakening beckons.
    But for whom?
    Is that really in doubt? Even Boris Johnson thinks the whole thing will have been a huge waste of time.
    Oh I don't know. As long as we end up outside the treaty frameworks that require 'ever closer union', I'd be happy with a Barely-There Brexit.
    What a shame we weren't able to negotiate an exemption from this "ever closer union" of which you speak.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    They probably just saw an armadillo roll up into a ball and go down a slope or something, and copied it. Give it to the first leader who lacked the power or skill to club others to death themselves, but still managed to convince those who could do such things to follow them and rule.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    DAily mail to sold again on virgin trains. Twatterati aren’t going to happy about this u-turn.

    Richard Branson explains the reason for the u-turn thus:

    Freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance for differing views are the core principles of any free and open society. While Virgin Trains has always said that their passengers are free to read whatever newspaper they choose on board West Coast trains, it is clear that on this occasion the decision to no longer sell the Mail has not been seen to live up to these principles.

    I trust that all those on here who heaped opprobrium upon the Bearded One will apologize and beg his forgiveness.
    I dare say the motive is entirely driven by profit and the desire to protect the wider brand. I don't believe for a second Branson had a hand in "banning" the Daily mail, I'm sure it was thought up by an apparatchik at Virgin Trains' PR department as a brilliant way of getting free publicity out of a business decision to stop stocking a product that wasn't selling well. However Daily Mail readers also purchase Virgin Broadband, frequent Virgin Gyms, etc, so someone from the master brand team will have stepped in.
    Yup. It wasn’t so much that VT made the decision, as the accompanying press release that caused the problems for the brand. Master brand franchisers tend to be a little sensitive when it comes to stuff like that.
    The press release should be a case study in how not to do it. It basically branded all customers who read the Daily Mail as racist homophobic luddites, who they want on their trains even less than a homeless guy who hasn't washed for 2 weeks and clinging onto a 3l bottle of cheap cider.
    And it matters not. Who decides to choose how to travel on the bass of which papers are sold on the train? Virgin have now added to the madness of their first announcement by this from the bearded one today.

    I'm surprised there hasn't been a revolt of Private Eye readers. Clearly that's the best-value train read, £1.50 for lots of content, yet 'banned' (i.e. not sold) on Virgin Trains. Disgusting!
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    He was from Germany...I thought Trump approved of those type of countries?
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
    That someone is an under-achieving narcissist who has taken an IQ or lie-detector test to prove they were not lying about how smart they are so now could someone please, please, please give them all the rewards they deserve and expect to fall into their lap?

    Like many gifts, intelligence is something where more is better but only up to a point, beyond which it is pointless at best and counter-productive at worst (unless you want to be a maths genius who can't take care of himself). Success depends on other things like persistence, charm, empathy and the old school tie.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
    Success depends on other things like persistence, charm, empathy and the old school tie.
    Damn, I am in big trouble.

    Anyone have an old school tie I can borrow, so I'm not 0 for 4?
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    Wasn't he offered the presidency of Israel?

    His indirect impact on politics is of course even bigger when thinking about the practical consequences of E=mc^2 (and one of his more direct impacts in that respect was his letter to Roosevelt in August 1939, highlighting the possibility of a German bomb).
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    TOPPING said:

    John_M said:

    Anazina said:

    Barnesian said:

    The latest Ashcroft focus groups are interesting.

    The [Brexit] story had just become “background noise. You kind of zone out of it. It’s been going on for nearly two years.” Or, more forthrightly: “I’m bored with it. I’m bored to the back teeth so I switch off. You’ve just got to hope they know what they’re doing.”


    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/cup-overflowed-political-stuff-theres-much-want-take-latest-focus-groups/

    Most of us here are engaged with Brexit and know the ins and outs of it but most people aren't at all, and have only the vaguest idea of what is happening politically. Their views aren't changing, not because they're listening to the arguments and are not persuaded to change their vote, but because they're just not interested. So the status quo prevails but it isn't deep at all.

    A rude awakening beckons.
    But for whom?
    Is that really in doubt? Even Boris Johnson thinks the whole thing will have been a huge waste of time.

    Anazina said:

    Barnesian said:

    The latest Ashcroft focus groups are interesting.

    The [Brexit] story had just become “background noise. You kind of zone out of it. It’s been going on for nearly two years.” Or, more forthrightly: “I’m bored with it. I’m bored to the back teeth so I switch off. You’ve just got to hope they know what they’re doing.”


    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/cup-overflowed-political-stuff-theres-much-want-take-latest-focus-groups/

    Most of us here are engaged with Brexit and know the ins and outs of it but most people aren't at all, and have only the vaguest idea of what is happening politically. Their views aren't changing, not because they're listening to the arguments and are not persuaded to change their vote, but because they're just not interested. So the status quo prevails but it isn't deep at all.

    A rude awakening beckons.
    But for whom?
    Is that really in doubt? Even Boris Johnson thinks the whole thing will have been a huge waste of time.
    Oh I don't know. As long as we end up outside the treaty frameworks that require 'ever closer union', I'd be happy with a Barely-There Brexit.
    What a shame we weren't able to negotiate an exemption from this "ever closer union" of which you speak.
    You made me shed a nostalgic tear for Cameron. Just as the wounds were healing, dammit.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    Wheels are overrated. The Incas built an empire without them.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
    Success depends on other things like persistence, charm, empathy and the old school tie.
    Damn, I am in big trouble.

    Anyone have an old school tie I can borrow, so I'm not 0 for 4?
    Other things that correlate with success are height, good looks and sheer dumb luck.
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success

    Ended the war in Vietnam, repaired relations with China, created the EPA, lowered the voting age to 18, desegregated southern schools... Nixon was the most successful US president since WWII, arguably earlier.
    Also handled the Yom Kippur war very well.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    Wheels are overrated. The Incas built an empire without them.
    Yes, but it was quite hilly in those parts. Plus the road network was frankly abysmal.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2018

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    More importantly, do you put pineapple on your pizza?
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    He was from Germany...I thought Trump approved of those type of countries?
    He should. Trump's own family history is in large part German.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    kle4 said:

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
    Success depends on other things like persistence, charm, empathy and the old school tie.
    Damn, I am in big trouble.

    Anyone have an old school tie I can borrow, so I'm not 0 for 4?
    Other things that correlate with success are height, good looks and sheer dumb luck.
    I'm 5 ft 7.

    I'm going to hope for dumb luck. And work on the charm and persistence, those two can be improved upon at least :)
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    He was from Germany...I thought Trump approved of those type of countries?
    He should. Trump's own family history is in large part German.
    Herr Drumpf.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,283

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    Would you like to join our pub quiz team...?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2018
    Interesting article on sexual harassment in the Guardian today from Laura Kipnis, author of Unwanted Advances. She tells the story of one of her own #MeToo moments, at the hands of an aspiring politician:

    By goosed, I don’t mean he touched me on my butt, but in my butt, through the thin skirt I was wearing.

    https://order-order.com/2018/01/15/denis-macshane-put-finger-bum/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    edited January 2018

    kle4 said:

    These IQ levels seem akin and about as meaningful as Midiclorian levels in Star Wars.

    I view IQ levels much in the same way I view lie detector tests.

    They tell you something but not what you think they tell you.
    Success depends on other things like persistence, charm, empathy and the old school tie.
    Damn, I am in big trouble.

    Anyone have an old school tie I can borrow, so I'm not 0 for 4?
    Other things that correlate with success are height, good looks and sheer dumb luck.
    Plus motivation and fitness and teamworking skills which many with the highest iqs are sometimes lacking in. Exceptionally high IQs are useful in a few fields like academia, the commercial bar, surgery, engineering and programming but beyond that in most fields other factors matter just as much
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    Your high intelligence was no doubt the reason you became bored with mainstream education at an early age. The very bright rarely prosper in routine-based systems. It is a shame that those with particularly bright minds aren't allowed more freedom at schools to develop their ideas and imagination.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Pulpstar said:

    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    If he is the cleverest man in history, then according to http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx that is around 100 billion souls...

    IQ is defined as a mean of 100 and sigma of 15.

    6.806502σ is given as 1/100 000 000 000 probability which is ~ 102.

    So the IQ of the smartest person ever to have lived should be 202. If that was him then that is his IQ.

    Edit: Sorry should be ~ 200 I think as you need to halve the 1/100m to 1/50m which drops the IQ marginally (Not everyone is brighter than average !)

    So 200 is the max.
    It's the *expected* max. The actual one could be a fair bit higher (or, less likely, lower), as very small subsets become more random. There's no reason why the first 100bn shouldn't contain the most intelligent person in the first trillion. Unfortunately, she was a peasant in the sixth century.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    More importantly, do you put pineapple on your pizza?
    God no. Awful idea.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Anazina said:

    DAily mail to sold again on virgin trains. Twatterati aren’t going to happy about this u-turn.

    Who cares? If you don't like the Mail, don't buy it. The biggest problem with the shops on their trains is that the selection of newspapers and magazines is utterly shite. The Mail and a range of crap sleb magazines – no decent broadsheets nor decent men's and women's magazines. A gallery of crap.
    There's always WH Smith's at London Euston :lol:
    Will WH Smith's at Euston survive the HS2 rebuild?
    Is HS2 even going ahead? Hopefully Carillion aren't involved...
    Of course they are.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    Wasn't he offered the presidency of Israel?

    His indirect impact on politics is of course even bigger when thinking about the practical consequences of E=mc^2 (and one of his more direct impacts in that respect was his letter to Roosevelt in August 1939, highlighting the possibility of a German bomb).
    The first president of Israel was of course Chaim Weizmann who as a Manchester chemist and mate of Churchill's had solved the shell crisis (the army was firing them faster than we could manufacture replacements) for the Admiralty in the first world war. The Balfour declaration may have been a consequence. Churchill was a bit of a thicko at school, iirc.
  • Options
    Anazina said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    Your high intelligence was no doubt the reason you became bored with mainstream education at an early age. The very bright rarely prosper in routine-based systems. It is a shame that those with particularly bright minds aren't allowed more freedom at schools to develop their ideas and imagination.
    I'd never seek to blame anyone else. You are only in school for a few hours of any day and I went to an above average comprehensive. I was briefly able to motivate myself to get into Cambridge and then when I got there spent all my time DJing and playing cricket. Both extremely poorly. I'm self aware enough to know that I tend to laziness.

    But I do agree theoretically that high intelligence should, if we are to make the most of all talent, be treated as a special educational need. Being sat alone in a separate classroom at 10 because you've finished the primary school curriculum probably wasn't the ideal scenario. But, again, that was certainly not the fault of my school or teachers who had 34 kids in the class who all had different needs.

    As for Topping's remark... I do enjoy a quiz!
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,320
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Urquhart, you can't tolerate wrongthink. You'll only encourage more of it.

    The true test of being wiling to tolerate opposing viewpoints is when there's a chance you may be outvoted. It's easy to be tolerant of ideas you dislike, if they're proposed by groups who have no chance of ever winning a vote.

    I think the election of Trump, the Brexit vote, the general rise of populist right wing parties has made some people fear that history is not necessarily on their side, and they are now looking favourably at censorship.
    Same applies for Corbyn, and to a lesser extent Sanders as well.

    Mainstream politicians got lazy. They not only stopped arguing their case from 1st principles but stopped really thinking about them.

    As soon as voters started became very frustrated around the lack of corporate and government accountability over issues of concern to them (inequality, tax avoidance, profiteering, immigration, and national identity) they were in a very poor position to respond, and tone deaf too.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105

    There's no reason why the first 100bn shouldn't contain the most intelligent person in the first trillion. Unfortunately, she was a peasant in the sixth century.

    She got to Special Relativity 1400 years before Einstein.

    But then got burnt as a witch for her pains.....
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,320
    You need both logical and emotional intelligence, a good work ethic, and a fair amount of self-awareness to be very successful. Not to mention a few breaks.

    Intelligence, I would argue, is a measure of the brain's ability to learn and process new information, and not a measure of one's willingness to do so, nor a test of objectivity.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    Wasn't he offered the presidency of Israel?

    His indirect impact on politics is of course even bigger when thinking about the practical consequences of E=mc^2 (and one of his more direct impacts in that respect was his letter to Roosevelt in August 1939, highlighting the possibility of a German bomb).
    The first president of Israel was of course Chaim Weizmann who as a Manchester chemist and mate of Churchill's had solved the shell crisis (the army was firing them faster than we could manufacture replacements) for the Admiralty in the first world war. The Balfour declaration may have been a consequence. Churchill was a bit of a thicko at school, iirc.
    The BBC drama-doc on Churchill's WW1 exploits is worth a watch imo.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b037w3bj/churchills-first-world-war
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,320
    Anazina said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    Your high intelligence was no doubt the reason you became bored with mainstream education at an early age. The very bright rarely prosper in routine-based systems. It is a shame that those with particularly bright minds aren't allowed more freedom at schools to develop their ideas and imagination.
    I went to a private school for gifted children for a number of years but, unfortunately, a number of them had behavioural problems as well.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,283

    Anazina said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    Your high intelligence was no doubt the reason you became bored with mainstream education at an early age. The very bright rarely prosper in routine-based systems. It is a shame that those with particularly bright minds aren't allowed more freedom at schools to develop their ideas and imagination.
    I'd never seek to blame anyone else. You are only in school for a few hours of any day and I went to an above average comprehensive. I was briefly able to motivate myself to get into Cambridge and then when I got there spent all my time DJing and playing cricket. Both extremely poorly. I'm self aware enough to know that I tend to laziness.

    But I do agree theoretically that high intelligence should, if we are to make the most of all talent, be treated as a special educational need. Being sat alone in a separate classroom at 10 because you've finished the primary school curriculum probably wasn't the ideal scenario. But, again, that was certainly not the fault of my school or teachers who had 34 kids in the class who all had different needs.

    As for Topping's remark... I do enjoy a quiz!
    From everything you are saying on here I believe you are far too well qualified, intellectually, to post on PB. While the rest of us are winging it, you actually know what you are talking about.

    Otherwise, you do well on the Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord scale.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I went to a private school for gifted children for a number of years but, unfortunately, a number of them had behavioural problems as well.

    You should have picked private schools that did not have behavioural problems (or at least, a more grammatically oriented English teacher)

    :D:D:D
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    The hoax said Clinton's was 182?! Is that even possible?
    Yeah, some people have an IQ of 250 to 300.
    Really? IIRC, Einstein's was estimated as between 190-210.
    What did he ever achieve....
    Sod all in business or politics, and his private life was a bit of a mess by the standards of his day. On the other hand, his personal brand was surely as well-known if not as lucrative as Branson's or Trump's. So we can give Einstein 6 out of 10, maybe 7. Not bad for a refugee from one of those shithole countries.
    He was from Germany...I thought Trump approved of those type of countries?
    He should. Trump's own family history is in large part German.
    Trump's German ancestor Johann moved to the US in 1840 - so we are a few generations on from him. His Mother was born in the outer Hebrides.

    So he is far more Scottish than German!
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,994

    You need both logical and emotional intelligence, a good work ethic, and a fair amount of self-awareness to be very successful. Not to mention a few breaks.

    Intelligence, I would argue, is a measure of the brain's ability to learn and process new information, and not a measure of one's willingness to do so, nor a test of objectivity.

    You need any two out of the following three: luck, contacts and self confidence. Brains and hard work are useless bollocks.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited January 2018

    Pulpstar said:

    John_M said:

    Mr. Eagles, not heard of William James Sidis before. I hope he managed to stay well-adjusted, I imagine it could be quite difficult coping with being smarter than everyone else by a huge amount.

    The claims made about William Sidis's IQ were made by his sister, who seems to have been a bit of a fibber. He was very clever, but it's doubtful he was the cleverest man in history. I'd cast my lot for the hominid who invented the wheel.
    If he is the cleverest man in history, then according to http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx that is around 100 billion souls...

    IQ is defined as a mean of 100 and sigma of 15.

    6.806502σ is given as 1/100 000 000 000 probability which is ~ 102.

    So the IQ of the smartest person ever to have lived should be 202. If that was him then that is his IQ.

    Edit: Sorry should be ~ 200 I think as you need to halve the 1/100m to 1/50m which drops the IQ marginally (Not everyone is brighter than average !)

    So 200 is the max.
    It's the *expected* max. The actual one could be a fair bit higher (or, less likely, lower), as very small subsets become more random. There's no reason why the first 100bn shouldn't contain the most intelligent person in the first trillion. Unfortunately, she was a peasant in the sixth century.
    That reminds me of an argument that the reason we fail to detect other intelligent civilisations out there is because maybe there are not any other yet, maybe we are the first and will become the "mysterious ancient civilisation" for others to stumble across in time to come.

    The argument is that lifetime of the universe is vast - 100 trillion years or some such. It started 14 billion years ago so therefore only 14x10^9 / 10^14 = 14 / 100000 = 0.014% of the universe's estimated life (assuming no issues arise with false vacuum instability).
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options

    rcs1000 said:


    I've Googled for Carter's measured IQ and cannot find it. Could you provide a link please?

    Also, I don't mean to be rude, but the Rhodes Scholarships (which are for postgraduate study) are among the most prestigious in the world. You need to be both extremely bright, and extremely hard working to win one.

    It is a hoax.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

    But then an expert did his own calculations and said Carter's IQ was 153
    Mine was measured at 176 and I have never had a particularly successful life. I think getting bored of education from the age of 13 and being profoundly lazy has limited any benefits.

    The only use is that I can read the questions on quiz machines very quickly which makes playing them with me rather boring for others.


    But can you get the answers to the quiz right?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,320
    Dura_Ace said:

    You need both logical and emotional intelligence, a good work ethic, and a fair amount of self-awareness to be very successful. Not to mention a few breaks.

    Intelligence, I would argue, is a measure of the brain's ability to learn and process new information, and not a measure of one's willingness to do so, nor a test of objectivity.

    You need any two out of the following three: luck, contacts and self confidence. Brains and hard work are useless bollocks.
    I disagree. That can get you through the door, but it doesn't keep you there in most instances.
  • Options

    Marilyn Vos Savant (IQ – 228)

    Now she knew how to answer the Monty Hall problem.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

    But what was Monty Hall's IQ?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,975
    Nigelb said:

    Does the Dunning-Kruger effect* also apply to racism ... ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42685356
    "I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed."...

    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
    (link broken for some reason...)

    Linking this up with an earlier conversation, it's the same with IQ. The more someone witters on about their high IQ, the less intelligent they are. ;)
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,975

    Nigelb said:

    Does the Dunning-Kruger effect* also apply to racism ... ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42685356
    "I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed."...

    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
    (link broken for some reason...)

    Linking this up with an earlier conversation, it's the same with IQ. The more someone witters on about their high IQ, the less intelligent they are. ;)
    And a brilliant sign of intelligence is realising that there's a new thread ...
This discussion has been closed.