It's not that I'm making it so personal. I just feel its the reason for your biased view of the situation.

Biased? I'm the one backing up my opinion with 4 books on the topic.

A few questions:

Do you think this guy had an IQ of 210 as a baby?
What do you think IQ is actually measuring?
Do you think IQ correlates with innate intelligence?
Do you think IQ correlates with education?

He couldn't have obviously but at the same time yes I believe he was more intelligent than other children.
I think it is a good measure of how easily you can take in information and put it to use correctly.
Yes.
No not at all. I know many intelligent people who are or used to be drug addicted pieces of ****.

You took 3 cases of child prodigy and rendered them useless because I wasn't there. I don't think you wrote those books so they don't matter in this argument iyo. How do you know the books were right?

I always wonder how a remote tribal society would do on an IQ test.

Cheers.
So IQ isn't measuring intelligence? It's just a correlate (presumably a very strong one)?
Correctly being defined as drawing the same conclusions as the people who wrote the test? Or something objective? (I'm thinking mainly of the "Bridge is to water as ________ is to a kitchen?" type questions but also the 'which shape goes next?' kind).
Is there anything else which measures innate intelligence besides IQ testing?
It can still be correlated even if it isn't universal. (Efficiency of engine is negatively correlated with size of car even though there are some small, inefficient cars and some efficient big cars).

I'm curious how you explain the fact that one can boost your IQ through training if it isn't correlated with education.

nice multi quote noob

First of all a person with an iq of 210 on sd15 is not even possible. Second iq only tells us the spread out, it doesn't tell us anything about how large the difference in ability is between someone with an iq of 210 compared to someone with an iq of 130.

Care to post the quote where I stated that?

Lol... Seriously?? Just because I didn't write it it is considered useless? Is that how you work with other subjects???

Again as I stated before nature vs nurture is not settled so I am not claiming there is no debate on this subject but the latest research suggests that our brains have more plasticity then we thought before.

After the initial shock of paper and the patterns of the symbols, I'm sure they would find some way to amuse themselves with it. Stupid tribesmen.

Yeah they are dumb. Just hope they feed and shelter the administers of the IQ test or they are going to die in the jungle and no one will know how dumb the tribesmen are.

My wife just read me an article about a study which apparently showed that men's IQ drops when they talk to an attractive woman and that the drop is directly proportional to how attractive they find her. It didnt say how large the drop was, unfortunately.

Blood goes to areas other the brain.

This is blatantly obvious.

Can't be smart when you're trying to hit that. Can only make shots and a jacuzzi sound so intelligent.

How did they establish that though? Surely you can't take an IQ test and talk to someone simultaneously?

I'm not gonna multitude on my phone. I gave you 3 examples of prodigy. One you said didn't write anything good till he was 15. The other 2 the youngest doctor in the world and Chris who wrote a book at 4 you ignored completely. Then went on about the guy with a 210 iq that spoke before 6 months. You said you didn't believe it and the parents who reported this probably lied. To say it about that case ignoring the others imo is to imply none of them happened at all.

I had similar queries (hence my 'apparently showed'). Unfortunately it was a one paragraph summary in some popular magazine so the method wasn't disclosed. Presumably they had many men take an oral IQ test and then asked them to rate the attractiveness of the girl asking them the questions or something.

I don't really know though, it just seemed relevant.

I only used the "parents might have lied" on the example of the 210 IQ person. And I gave my reasons for why I think it could have been a lie. If you go back to what I wrote you will notice that I did not state that they did lie but that I am questioning the story. I also added that I might be wrong and that it might be possible for a child of that young age to carry on conversations with adults given that the scientific research supports this possibility. I asked if anyone around here knows what the biological limitations are to a 4-6 month old babies. As you can tell none of my assertions were unreasonable.

Going back to Mozart , Chris and other people you might have listed, I clumped them together and explained their abilities/success with the explanations of talent by the 4 books listed. Mozart's case is explained in the books so if you want to go into detail and find out on your own you can read any of these books. Chris I know little of, but anything is possible. So far the guy has not done anything worthy of my interest. He did good on a test, so what? I don't know anything about the doctor, so maybe you can send me a link and I'll look into that one.

I hope your response was "Ug, me no read journal article."

I wish it had been.

I used to go into a sort of fugue where women were involved. I've developed a secondary defense system now, sort of a dissociative thing, after losing a couple thousand to scams.

Found this gem from a interview in one of the linked threads;

so this "mathematical genius" doesn’t figure out how to measure the size of his brain with a tape measure and a ruler to a accuracy of about 10% and the relative size compared to another human with a accuracy better than 3%.
Instead he proposes a method that would be quite complicated and unpleasant (without chopping his head off) to measure the density of his head, giving the volume as a byproduct.

lol he's obviously just good at taking IQ tests

Its been a while since I watched the interview but I seem to recall that he made the comment half jokingly. In any event I think it quite silly to conclude from that comment alone the the man is only adept at taking IQ tests.

Perhaps not, but writing a lot of gibberish that no one understands is not the mark of genius, IMHO its someone who tries very hard to convince people of average intelligence of his intellectual powers.

I used to have a co-worker when getting my PhD that often would make long explanations that made no sense whatsoever. I’m sure that he got a lot of positive reinforcements as a kid with every one telling him how intelligent he was but in the company of people with superior intellects he only made a fool of himself. Just as Langan does.