Give me an example of a person you would call smart...

Anyone who can process information easily and draw a valid conclusion with the information hes given. Why not answer the questions I asked? they arent rhetorical.

Stephen Hawking.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e-is-no-heaven

ok so basically anyone who can do the job is smart?

I need to understand what your definition of a smart person is because we are not going to agree on anything if we both are not understanding each other..

In order for IQ to be useless, the same would need to apply if they had equal experience/study.

Cool, so instead of people actually posting this guys math up here, and then trying to decipher it (which I'm sure could easily be done seeing as in the first 10 pages 10 people claimed to have an IQ of 130+), this turned into a mixed thread of Fanatical Atheism vs Atheism as a whole and a general debate into the validity of an IQ test.

I am dissapoint.

This is a religious forum not mathematics and science, I don't think we got enough people here who can decipher his math... I haven't done serious math since I graduated from college 7 years ago and even with my understanding of math I would probably struggle with his first line... I propose you post his MATH on the science/math forum and we can see where do these guys take it...

Well I was under the impression that instead of trolling above and beyond the call of duty, some of the very "eloquent" intellectuals here would actually take the initiative. So, where exactly do I find this equation?

this is his website

http://www.ctmu.org/

you can search for it there and then post it on the math forum, let me know one you do so cause I'm not gonna lie, I would love to hear any decent physicist or mathematician voicing his opinion on this "theory"

BTW the smartest man in the world is Korean.

Kim Ung-Yong. IQ = 210

So I went there and I swear my IQ jumped 10 points just trying to follow along.

It seems he's created an equation that solves a few paradoxes by not solving them at all, and he's rationalizing the existence of God by the existence of reality itself, a concept that is just as unexplainable.

That's the jist of what I've picked up, along with a migraine.

D(S) where S is global reality.

I guess D(S) is expanded into: [d(S) Éd d(S)]

I don't know.

Like I said, migraine, but I'll see what the mathematicians think.

Don't get angry at me though if they figure it out and the world blows up this Saturday.

Well... whats his religion so i know what to believe?

lol...

btw.. according to wiki..

"Shortly after birth, Kim began to display extraordinary intellectual ability. He began speaking at 4 months, could converse fluently by 6 months, and was able to read Japanese, Korean, German, and English by his second birthday. "

Is it even possible that a 4 month old can speak(what kind of speech was it?words, sentences?) converse fluently by 6 months? Is that possible considering what we know about brain development in infants?

I mean who verifies this information? Can we believe the parents that they are not lying about this?

People that smart also know how to use internet search engines.

Yeah i find that hard to believe.

My daughter is almost 9 months old and has been repeating some sounds like DADA, MAMA, PAPA, BAPA, TATA, and few others(in addition to her constant Gibberish) for the past 3 months now, but this is far away from actually creating meaningful conversations. I know all kids have their own timing of development but some things just should not happen and I wonder what does the science have to say about 4-6 month old babies and their limitations in development...

Actually, come to think of it, a kid speaking at 4 months and conversing at 6 months is more than remarkable. I don't know anything about children (I don't have any and am rarely around any), do they even have the vocal cords and stuff to be able to speak at 6 months? lol.

Kinda funny. I guess some people are just born to develop faster than others. I always thought I was pretty smart, school was a place where I went and got straight A's, and I *NEVER* studied. Then I got to college and got my ass handed to me.

Anyway, I was actually watching this video on Chris Langan, and he seems to have some really good ideas, many things I've thought of myself, even the whole breeding thing.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9749889442679#

It's an interesting thing to listen to if you have an extra 30 minutes. He indeed seems like a really sharp guy, and someone I'd like to have a beer with. His idea of "God", religion, etc is pretty interesting, and he doesn't come off like some kind of nut.

I'm still not sold on the God idea though.

BTW this made me go search for the "Omni IQ test" and I came across some of the questions which were insanely hard. I consider myself pretty smart (yeah yeah, I know many of you would disagree) and looking at some of those questions made my head hurt.

I'm trying very hard not to just call you alot of things right now. Are you comparing your daughter to a man who had an iq of 210? I wonder why his development was any different that your daughters? Maybe because he was born a ****ing genius. People don't understand and want to believe that there the same as other people. Chris wrote a book at 4. Mozart wrote a symphony at 3. Is it normal? No. Because your not talking about normal people.

Im alright with not being as smart as most people. Still find it hard to believe someone was talking at four months. If he did, he did though. Makes no difference really.

Again you are driving me insane already , you should read more on why Mozart was writing symphonies from young age , go actually read about him and you will find out that his earliest stuff was actually written by his father then he didn't write anything supstentialy great till age of 16 if I'm not mistaken, if you only took a moment and listen to what I am saying about what the latest research states you would stop spewing nonsense. Do me a favor read the following books and then come back to talk to me.
Talent is overrated
The talent code
Outliers
Bounce:mozart,federer,Picasso and science of success

Also, again i stated questions regarding the possibilities of a 4-6 month old babies according to the scientific understanding of the development of infants. It is quite clear that there are some biological limitations that restrict us from performing specific functions at particular age. And yes I am comparing my daughter to a man who claims to have a high IQ , none of us know for sure if his story is real. And I'm talking about the communicating at 6 months part. You seem to be defending him as if you've been there and have seen it on your own. I got no clue if babies at the age of 6 month can speak sentences. According to a baby development guideline that does not sound real. So I think it's nothing outrageous to question it, especially outrageous in such way that you want to call me names.

I have not seen babies communicate at 6 months fluently. I have seen kids at 5 or 6 read Shakespeare and understand it while feeble minded adults thought they were playing or something because they couldnt comprehend why this could happen when there quite average child couldn't read Hop on Pop. Stop using the word talent over and over to describe intelligence. Baby development guides do not account for someone with an iq of 210 because it is a statistical abnormality. I don't believe most weapon training covers nuclear bombs because most people will never handle them. Imo you really really want to be right. I bet you are a rather unintelligent person who achieved more than was expected of them. That's just coming from the tone of what you write and the sheer disbelief that people can naturally be more intelligent than you without working hard for it. If that's true awsome for you. I don't think being smart makes anyone a better person.

A reasonably bright kid with the right exposure (ie parents forcing them to study when they'd rather play video games) can get the gist of Shakespeare. (No, they won't fully understand it - much of Shakespeare is allegory, inside jokes, obscenities, double entendres, and references to current affairs or history, so even if you taught a kid perfect Shakespearean English they wouldn't be able to really understand him.)

But a 4-month-old baby can't speak any more than a 3-week-old fetus can breathe. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with biology. At 4 months a baby doesn't even have language centers in its brain. (And even if it did by some miraculous series of mutually reinforcing mutations, that wouldn't make the baby smarter. On the contrary, the baby would probably just have health problems - freakishly fast physical growth tends to do that to people.)

Although, this does touch on one reason I think people should be very suspicious of child IQ tests: just because a child is developing faster than the children around him doesn't mean that he'll always be as far ahead. Child IQ scores simply aren't as stable as adult scores. They don't mean the same thing, either - a 210 IQ for a child means "this child performs as well as expected for a child 2.1 times his age." A 210 IQ for an adult means "this person is 7.3 sigmas above the mean."

In other words, a 6-year-old with a 200 IQ can solve the same problems that the average 12-year-old can solve. That's really not such a big deal, particularly since children are quick learners and can be trained to solve some of those problems by rote. This doesn't imply that the person has a 200 IQ as an adult by any means. And not only do studies show that IQ is less stable for children then for adults, but the longitudinal studies done on adults that indicate IQ stability are done on people of generally average intelligence and without controlling for numerous factors (such as SES). And the landmarks studies show higher variance among outliers even within their relatively restricted range ("outlier" meaning something like a relatively modest 130 in this context).

Furthermore, many of these achievements are just absurd. Any child can learn multiple languages, children are extremely good at learning languages. Take a child of average intelligence and place him in a household in which three languages are spoken, that child will become fluent in three languages. This isn't a big deal at all. If the parents are obsessive and place the child in an environment where ten languages are spoken, or where a new language is spoken every couple of months, the child will learn ten languages.

So it's utterly meaningless. What it indicates is that the parents were crazy enough to force this child to learn all this **** instead of actually living a decent life. Unsurprisingly, children who are force-fed "smart-sounding" knowledge when they're young, and then forced to spit it out as they get older in order to impress everybody, tend to go on and do very little of note. They just get isolated and ****ed up, and usually go into some quiet field that appeals to them, where they do a modest job and hopefully find some happiness.

(Obsessive parents can arguably make their kids successful by pushing them into a specialization - everybody from Terrence Tao to Tiger Woods falls into this category - but the whole "I'm going to teach my kid Greek because then he'll sound all smart" is useless.)

In other words, IQ as a measure of the intelligence of these young prodigies is as broken and unreliable as it gets. We currently have no way to measure a kid's potential past a relatively low point, they need to get older for that. Their brain structures literally haven't finished growing yet. Performance of the prototype is correlated with performance of the final product, but it's not a great correlation in the outlier ranges.

As far as learning extra languages go; Learning an extra language isn't necessarily a sign of higher intelligence (though it certainly can be), but bilingual environments can also most likely increase certain verbal intelligence, thus increasing academic provess (and also likely scores in IQ tests) later in life. Research indicates this. For those interested a google scholar search for "bilingual children" should suffice.

There are rare published scientific reports of other gifted children speaking individual words, not just baby talk, at the age of 5 months. So in the Kim Ung-Yong case, if the parents were slightly off on the estimated age and they were referring to an individual word, it may be plausible. Also some words are a little easier to articulate.

Einstein, who did not talk until 3 years of age and was suspected of being learning disabled (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962).

It is not that I want to be right it is that of what I have read about versus your opinion based on most likely zero research. I have given you titles of 4 books that explain well the subject you are arguing with me about. Keep in mind that the debate over nature vs nurture is still not closed. So if you got time read the books and then come back and let me know what you think.

And no I don't claim to be more intelligent then most people, I never stated anything like that, but your "evaluation" wasn't correct. I'm not an unintelligent neither very intelligent in the ranks of Stephen Hawkin and other very intelligent people out there. But it doesn't matter since we are not discussing my intelligence, so I got no idea why are you trying to make it so personal.