While you're probably right, I'll give those people the benefit of the doubt and say that their intent with the meaning of "successful" was probably towards achievements of a human importance, not personal gains.

[QUOTE=Dean Moriarty;10665078]As an additional bonus, you'd have found out he did some more things besides "taking an IQ test well"./QUOTE]

"More things" so what? Has he done anything remarkable.

I read his pathetically flawed analogy between mice in a house and humans on earth.

His CTMU is not orginal in premise. Regurgitate old ideas with his newly defined terminology doesn't make it any more flavorful.

Almost all scientific papers are either wrong or a recombination/rephrasing of old ideas/application of an existing framework in a new context. Gorilla's share over 98% of our DNA, so even a small novel twist can be quite fruitful. Most crackpots and science fiction writers are more original than most Nobel laureates.

I find his CTMU quite remarkable, and his writing clearly shows he can do more than "taking an IQ test well", that's exactly what you asked for. I don't agree with everything he writes and there are some parts I don't fully understand. If you're right in your statement that everything is a regurgitation of old ideas (which I doubt), could you link me to more info on what he defines as conspansion and telic recursion (thus outside the context of his theory)?

People wanting him to spend his time/energy on projects of "human importance" (lol!) mistake their arbitrary moral preferences for a genuine metric of intelligence.

Frankly, I doubt this guy will solve anything meanful in real life.

As far the point of the thread.

I would say even if he really is the "smartest" which i highly doubt that still doesn't give enough significant reasons to following his stated beliefs.

The qualities for leadership are much more than intellengence. Humanity, discipline, trustworthiness, and humility are all critical qualities in a leader which this guy has yet to demonstrate.

I asked you to clarify a statement you made. I don't understand why you are ignoring my reply to you while responding to something I wrote answering someone else. Wtf is going on?

Lol, no way.

A new scientific theory must reproduce every correct prediction made by the old one, crackpots' theories aren't subject to these constraints and are thus generally more original. The very point was made to illustrate that "originality" in itself isn't a useful metric. It's probably wise not to quote/consider things out of their context.

I think you're using originality in a different manner (which is fine). I think Max's point (and if not his, then mine) is that crackpot theories are generally less original because they must rely on the intellectual repertoire of those creating the theory. For example, the Christian theory that God created the world in seven days, etc., is markedly similar to creation stories from other cultures. Why? Because that's the limits of their understanding. Now, the theories of evolution, space-time, and the Big Bang, not to mention multidimensional universes, are comparatively much more complex, detailed, and "original" compared to anything proposed by these more primitive theories.

Ask a layman for a theoretical model of the atom and its sure to be less "original" in its conceptual framework than the quantum mechanical model developed by the Nobel laureates of the first half of the 20th century. Exceptions may occur, and I understand your point that people can make up crazy ass stuff and not be bounded by reality. The problem is that their scope of reality is generally much, much less than Nobel laureates, who can stay within the confines of experimental reality and still dream up ideas, models, applications that are beyond the realm of crackpots to even evaluate, let alone formulate.

If you need another example, consider time travel. A crackpot theory of time travel is likely to be a hand wave with little detail compared to that of the theoretical physicist who can invoke a whole world of quantum and relativistic possibilities beyond anything a layman could ever dream.

Conspiracy theories also fall into this basket, as 9/11 shows. Consider the modeling and analysis of the airliners crashing into the towers, weakening the steel girder insulation, generating temperatures well below melting points but sufficiently hot enough to greatly weaken steel, and then the successive collapse of each floor. The theories are generally more 'interesting" than "whoa, not hot enough to melt steel, must have been a government conspiracy to blow it up, how they pulled off such a massive cover up beats the hell out of me".

I know this is tangential, but reiterates an important point regarding the creative limits of theoretical formulations offered by those with limited knowledge on the subject.

Just because Nobel Laureates don't waste time on highly original purely crackpot theories doesn't mean they wouldn't be "good" at creating them.

"people used to defer to bordogo more cause he was intelligent"



borodog you forced people to defer to your intelligence because you used loaded words and phrases and made references without explaining yourself.

I'm obviously referring to their tangible output, I thought that was clear from the context?

lol, this is exactly the stuff i am talking about. this could be phrased so much simpler, "the smart elite, no matter how intelligent, cannot replace a huge number of less intelligent people"

also i don't agree with your point -- which you say is so obvious. your point is far from sure.

So what is your retort when a society essentially chooses (or even acquiesces to) a political institution to act on their behalf (and even use force) for a small subset of such allocations? I think you'll rely on the brains of an elite to tell them their wrong, and if that fails, you'll use force yourself if practical, and if that fails, you too will acquiesce.

The idea that intelligence can be measured quantitatively is silly.

Also - from what was said in the YouTube videos, it appears that Mr. Langan did not realize that he was intelligent until he took the magazine IQ test. I do doubt that he would have chosen the career path he did had he been aware of it. It makes me wonder how much of his perceived "genius" is placebo.

The idea that quantitative measurements have no qualitative value is also silly.

Yes, they may have some correlative significance, but that's not terribly useful.

Really? How many people who fall into the bottom 10% on SATs or IQ tests do you think are legitimately "smart" (by however you define it)? And how many in the top 10% do you think are dumb?

Why is it that you think intelligence can be measured on a linear spectrum?

I never made such a claim.

It seems as if you did.

Edit: So your position is there is no difference between beings for which you can make qualitative categories of smart or dumb? If that's the case, thanks for contributions to the thread. Duly noted, although entirely without practical value.

My position is that the concept of intelligence is vastly oversimplified, especially when examined through quantitative, one-dimensional metrics such as IQ.

Do you not think that attempts at categorization would improve our understanding?

I already stated "smart" however you define it. Recall it was you who stated that quantitative tests have correlative significance in assessing intelligence.

I merely inquired why they aren't useful by asking you to assess whether you think top scorers on quantitative tests are "smart" however you define it. And whether poor scorers are generally "dumb" however you define it.

So, are they? And if so, doesn't that make such correlation useful? And if not, then what do you mean by correlative significance between quantitative and qualitative assessment of intelligence?

You seem to be making two contradictory claims.