I found an article about the most overrated Geniuses of all time, written by a blogger called itsnobody. One of them is Bill Gates. I think if people are talking about computer Genius, it’s likely that Gates is overrated, but I don’t think he’s overrated as a business Genius. Unfortunately a lot of people have trouble recognizing Genius outside of academia.
Another person listed as overrated is Albert Einstein. I’ve always been a huge fan of Einstein so to see him on this list was extremely painful, however if Einstein was overrated, it would help explain why his brain was allegedly so much smaller than you would expect for the greatest Genius of the 20th century.
The reason given for claiming Einstein is overrated:
many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels.
I kind of think the whole concept of overrated Genius is oxymoronic, because being overrated is itself a form of Genius. Even if Einstein was overrated in terms of his scientific output, he was certainly a Genius at self-promotion to have gone down in history as the poster boy for Genius. Indeed the less of a Genius Einstein was in physics, the more of a marketing Genius he must have been to be remembered as one.
ALL the currently over-rated geniuses are jews, because jews control the promotion machine and promote their fellow jews.
LotB, for example, won’t post any comment from someone smarter than himself. pp is the same way but worse.
hitler was right.
pp isn’t white btw.
LotB, for example, won’t post any comment from someone smarter than himself. pp is the same way but worse.
Exactly. Which is why you’re welcome to post here anytime. 🙂
Hahahahaa!!!…
pp channeling his inner oprah
if p is a prime greater than 3 prove that p^2 -1 is divisible by 24.
pp can’t answer this without consulting the interwebs because she’s mathematically incompetent.
and it’s just a 7th grade question at most.
Once you pass my heritability test, then you can criticize my math skills:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/02/get-a-degree-in-heritability/
You’ve had months.
the bomb owes much more to chemists than it does to physicists. but you’d never know that given the jewish monopoly on mass media.
1. the discoverer of nuclear fission was a german gentile chemist, Otto Hahn. he won the nobel for it.
2. the separation of U-235 from other U isotopes was the limiting step in the development of the fission bomb, not a bunch of jewish physicists designing the implosive bomb or coming up with the critical mass.
how much have you heard about how watson and crick (gentiles) were rewarded over their jewess colleague?
the bottom line…
the final analysis…
the upshot…
the fact of the matter…
is…
hitler was right.
LOLwut? Too much Jew-focus here.
Of course, the pet ”Lion” of the JUDAH-sphere… for you, little to nonexistent jew-focus is the right thing to do.
I actually believe Jews are the most interesting people on Earth, despite their faults. I’m not a Zionist, I just tend to think most obsessive anti-Semitic types are weird. They’re usually nerds who’ve failed miserably in life.
No, Mugabe, the bottom line is that Cochran was / is right.
On what**
cockring sucks jewish cock.
don’t be upset mugabe, Cochran is a genius polymath who’s every theory in biology and genetics is going to come out true sooner or later. Do you even under stand the breeders’ equation?
idiot.
cockring isn’t a genius. he’s a moron.
i’ve read his pornography about the ashkenazim. he has absolutely no clue about judaism.
i have no jewish ancestry as far as i know, but i know more about judaism than most jews. there’s even a hebraist (gentile) in the encycopedia judaica with my surname. maybe a relative.
he’s not in the bgi study as far as i know.
i AM.
he doesn’t even understand what “heritability” means.
“he doesn’t even understand what “heritability” means.”
haha that;s just a complete nonsense.
Do you understand the breeder’s equation?
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/pre-k/
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/eugenics-ready-or-not/
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/the-lottery/
read his actual writings before claiming to know anything about it. he understands genetics and heritablity far better than you!
idiot!
i HAVE read him.
and he’s a MORON. a SHORT, FAT, PURBLIND MORON.
the breeder equation is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.
cockring is the opposite of a protean genius.
he’s a HICK.
OK, explain then how the breeder’s equation is useless or how any of Cochran’s insights are dumb? have you even seen his video where he explains it to economists?
why is “the breeders’ equation” meaningless?
1. when the environment is fixed the curve of selection for a given trait will be increasing or flat (as with thorougbreds since Secretariat…there is an asymptote for the trait), but its rate of increase will be decreasing. that is, the children will always equal or exceed the parents on average, but by less and less.
so all the breeders’ equation really says is that the curve of selection can be approximated by a straight line for a given generation and environment.
THAT IS,
it says NOTHING.
2. when the environment is changing the children may actually underperform the parents. for example, if the parents were selected for size and the children endure a famine…
but even more profound is when the genes which made for “tallness” (metaphorically speaking) in the parents’ environment, make for shortness (or make no difference) in the children’s environment.
such subtleties are several miles over cockring’s head and more than several over the heads of his admirers.
True. HBDers demonstrate uniform misunderstanding of selection limits.
Recent discussions have convinced me that rgb is right. It’s actual stupidity. I am free.
Difference is Swank, Mugabe is smart enough to expose the errors of the HBDers. You are not.
You’re just too dumb to realize when it’s happening WN. Go play your banjo.
Swank, I actually read through dozens of your comments looking for arguments against HBD. I actually think HBD hurts white nationalism and am trying to get other white nationalists to drop it so I want intelligent arguments opposing it.
I found no intelligent arguments in any of your comments. Just nebulous nonsensense and pedantic preaching.
But then Mugabe comes along and just hits it out of the park. One smart insightful argument after another with real understanding. His intelligence just shines right through. I doubt you understood a word he said.
then you would have seen my critique about adaptive traits. and if you thought it was nebulous that proves you didn’t understand it at all. Go play your banjo.
so if a trait is selected for it becomes less and less heritable.
the problem is that h^2 and variability in the trait may be redefined with each generation to be the same as they were in the last generation, while in an absolute sense they become smaller and smaller.
so, for example, it may be that thoroughbreds have improved since Secretariat, but the improvement in an absolute sense is trivial…statistically significant but practically insignificant.
in this way the breeders’ eqn (or should it be breeder’s?) can be saved? not really.
for example, steve shoe has claimed many times that human “cognitive ability” has been selected for even after the first emergence of “anatomically modern humans”.
maybe. but this would also mean that the apparent differences in human “cognitive ability” are greatly exaggerated by culture but in an absolute sense are trivial NECESSARILY.
so if a trait is selected for it becomes less and less heritable.
Exactly. I have stated this point re: IQ, and no one understands that it is essentially the same point you have raised regarding the curve. I was talking with Chuck about it and he didn’t get it either. WN doesn’t see the connection.
you’re right. but it’s depressing that you are!
so the claim has been made by pp and others that so far as “cognitive ability” is a thing some environments may have selected for it more strongly than others.
but even if this were the case all one might expect is that the inhabitants of harsher climates would have reached the ceiling for this trait before those of easier climates, but that both would have reached the ceiling by now. as steve shoe rightly observes all, or almost all genes, which have been shown to affect “cognitive ability” affect it negatively.
so the claim has been made by pp and others that so far as “cognitive ability” is a thing some environments may have selected for it more strongly than others.
but even if this were the case all one might expect is that the inhabitants of harsher climates would have reached the ceiling for this trait before those of easier climates, but that both would have reached the ceiling by now. as steve shoe rightly observes all, or almost all genes, which have been shown to affect “cognitive ability” affect it negatively.
Then how do you explain the large race differences in brain size, even within the United States? Shouldn’t all groups have reached their brain size ceiling by now? Or do you think race differences in brain size, even within the U.S. are non-genetic?
I was talking to Chuck in his Genghis Khan suit
And his wizards hat
He spoke of his movie and how he was making
A new sound track
Read more: Lou Reed – Wild Child Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Mugabe just check out this twitter by JayMan
you are ignoring all the evidence in racial diffs showing the efficacy of breeder equation
a DK exchange if there ever was one.
well pp…
for what it’s worth…which may be nothing…
i HAVE read that brain size at birth in the US is the SAME for white and black INFANTS.
i noticed the ridiculously large head size of two of the synthetic organic chemists in my group when i was thinking i’d get a phd in the subject.
one was a white/euro-american catholic. the other was a dark skinned Indian.
conan o’brien isn’t making up the large heads of the irish, or western irish.
o’brien himself is 100% irish catholic, 6’4″, and his mom and dad were a doctor and lawyer respectively.
“wild child” and an interwebs-cast i saw recently are related:
both canadian norm macdonald and british russel brand dropped out of school at 15. macdonald was homeless for a while.
as far as i can tell it wasn’t because they were too dumb to continue.
cockring and shoe have phds…hard to believe.
wise men say…
only fools rush in…
i HAVE read that brain size at birth in the US is the SAME for white and black INFANTS.
According to Rushton, a sample of 782 newborns in 1981 had their brains weighed at autopsy (presumably in the U.S. or some other Western country). The white newborn brains averaged 272 grams and the black newborn brains averaged 196 grams. A huge difference.
However 78% of the black babies were premature, vs only 49% of the white babies. When a gestation age of 38 weeks and a body weight at birth of 2500 grams was used to define “full term” in both groups, the racial difference in brain size vanished.
However Rushton argued that if blacks have a genetically shorter gestation, then such controls might be inappropriate.
What is needed is a study of mulatto babies born to white women. If even these average smaller brains at birth than white babies born to white women (before adjustments for “full term”), then it MIGHT suggest that racial brain size differences persist even when part black babies have a white prenatal environment.
We know from the Minnesota trans-racial adoption study that mulattoes born to white women and then adopted by professional whites had adult IQs exactly in-between American blacks and American whites raised by their biological parent(s) and childhood IQs exactly in-between American blacks and American whites also adopted by professional whites, but it would be interesting to look at brain size too, especially newborn brain size.
o’brien himself is 100% irish catholic, 6’4″, and his mom and dad were a doctor and lawyer respectively.
He’s arguably the smartest late night talk show host in the history of the major networks.
Carson received V-12 officer training at Columbia University when he joined the Navy; he wound up decoding encrypted messages; he minored in physics. Granted it was at the University of Nebraska….but he strikes me as sharper than Conan.
how come then, mugabe, in different multiracial society the blacks always are more crimiknal and lower IQ? how come black societies are always lower in achievement and iq the world over?
mugabe brain structure in cortical surface varies by race; no environment effect is involved in that
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
assuming the environment and its variance is constant for the selected generation after generation, then as a trait is selected for, environmental variance explains more and more of the trait’s variance…that is, using the additive independent effects model…the bullshit model.
selection reduces the genetic variance, but has no effect on the environmental variance ex hypothesi.
Icelandic guy, or whatever,…
all you say may be true and blacks may be inferior on average…but those who carry the torch for this and for hereditism generally are dumb. murray and cockring and shoe conform to this rule.
and racists are such pussies.
if you want a homogeneous ethno-nation-state just say so. and don’t say…because science. even the modern day roman empire has had a ridiculous preference for italian emperors. John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope since the Dutch Pope Adrian VI, who served from 1522 to 1523. Francis is 100% Italian.
there are plenty of very good reasons for preferring homogeneity to diversity which have nothing to do with psychology or anthropology or chauvinism. black hutus hated the tutsi so much they killed at least half a million of them in a few months, yet the distinction would have been lost on white American racists.
the problem is that the US, as a new world country, must make a virtue of its diversity and thus a vice of homogeneity, and the US has near global cultural hegemony.
“racist” is now applied to anyone who hasn’t “got with the program”, that is, the American program.
it’s possible to be a “racist” and not to be a douche.
but contemporary “racists” interpret their own prejudices/aesthetics/taste with the “hermeneutics” provided them by the hegemon.
and birth order has no effect on IQ
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656615000525
you’re still thinking in terms of the additive independent effects model.
that there is no uniform effect of some environmental variable doesn’t mean that it has no effect. all it means is that its effect isn’t uniform. that is, the effect can vary with the genome.
so what’s a certain example of this phenomenon?
that is, at the level of the population or a population there is no discernible effect of some environmental variable, yet there is an effect on a small subset of the population.
gluten and diarrhea.
so many pharmaceuticals which kill a very small number of sensitive people.
and the reverse exists too.
in some people smoking is NOT a risk factor for lung, throat, etc. cancer. these people are a small minority to which the “smoking causes cancer, don’t smoke” advice simply doesn’t apply, even though it does apply to the population at large.
and the same is true of gay sex.
for a while those who either never got sick or who got sick but never very sick were dismissed as “statistical outliers”, that is, lucky but expected cases.
the truth was later revealed to be that a small minority of europeans are immune to hiv infection and some others are only weakened by hiv but not killed by it.
the whole aids epidemic in the us has only killed about a half million fags when the population of fags is more like 4.5 m.
i always thought alcohol was a good one. some people can drink it like water without any trouble. some people seem to function better when they drink.
right.
of all mind altering substances alcohol is the worst and the best.
its physical effects can include cerebellar atrophy, wk, dts, cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, throat cancer, bright’s disease, etc.
and…
lower risk of atherosclerotic disease and longer life and lower mortality rates and lower rates of dementia, etc.
heavy drinkers live longer than non-drinkers. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html
the effects both immediate and long term vary enormously. some people become violent under the influence, while others just fall asleep. some can develop cerebellar atrophy drinking very little, others can drink like fish and never show any discernible effects on the cerebellum. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/7/449.short
Most undernourished alcoholics and half of the well‐nourished alcoholics, compared to one‐tenth of the controls, showed a significant reduction in cerebellar volume (p≤0.01, both).
so half of the well-nourished alcoholics showed nothing.
Alcoholics reported a mean daily intake of ethanol of 177±8 g over a period of 27±1 years.
that’s a lot!
specifically it’s 3/4s of a 750 ml bottle of 40% abv liquor.
Neither smoking or alcohol have any effect on life expectancy once one controls for IQ. And the effects of alcohol on brain size are likely on short-term.
*only
how can you say mugabe that Iq can have disparate non uniform environmental effects when there is no evidence of that but tons of evidense for the stability of iq and heritability across environments and no shared environment effect
and mugabe if you say that IQ isn’t mostly genetic then what about the high IQ of african immigrants which is obbiously high due to the special history of self-selection and selective breedign:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/theres-more-to-human-biodiversity-than-just-racial-differences/
and also take the solid connection of the stable factor IQ to other stable factors like crime offending:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X
if intelligence genes were neutral and randomly distributed, so each subpopulation draws a different fraction of beneficial variants, then you would expect to find the luckiest subpopulation where there are the most subpopulations like Africa or Papua New Guinea. You would not necessarily see more African or New Guinean geniuses because their environments are often so terrible that they may be losing as much as an SD off their mean phenotypic IQ to iodine deficiency, parasites, etc. (For example, the single most extreme iodine RCT is one done in an African country.) Because of the normal distribution, this majorly reduces how many will be far enough out on the tail to count as ‘genius’.
That said, it’s not clear that the assumption here of random distribution is correct. This leads into the whole question of whether some groups are more heavily selected for intelligence (in which case the selection can easily overpower that diversity effect; imagine a binomial on 10,000 variants vs the breeder’s equation over a few generations…), what role latitude plays etc.
You can learn a lot from this podcast, “Mugabe.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/jul/17/genetic-screen-science-podcast
I need more time to think about this.
John F. Kennedy
The Beatles
Jerry Seinfeld
George Washington Carver
Sigmund Freud
Malcolm Gladwell
Stephen Jay Gould
Jesus Christ
Kenny G
Jacques Derrida
Robert Gabriel Mugabe (the commenter)
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Cornel West
Andy Warhol
Elvis Presley
Ron Unz
Steven Pinker (slightly)
George Will
Myron Scholes
Warren Buffett (slightly)
Andrea Dworkin
John Hollinger
Ron Paul
I think two factors are at play: over-ratedness of intellect/talent and public notoriety. I had to include Warren Buffett and Stephen Pinker even though they’re not that overrated, just because they’re so prominent in their fields and well-known to the public.
Racial breakdown:
12 Gentiles
10.75 Jews
3.25 Blacks
I guess these are the best self-promoters.
Where da Asians at? They’re too modest.
Oh wait…Deepak Chopra.
Do subcontinentals count as real Asians?
LOL. You sound like a stand up comic warming up the audience: “where my asians at?”
Not a lot of East Asians get recognized as Geniuses, especially given their high IQs & big population
Not sure if it’s because they’re underrated & bad at self-promotion or if they’re just less creative than their IQs would suggest
Le Corbusier
The Beatles?!
Kenny G???
Mugabe,
many eastern europeans are hyper brachicephalized. But generally this types, ”baltic” types, are ”servant”, middle to lower classes.
If alcoholism was rampant in Ireland in XIX, then may be possible that many them had born with alcohol ”phetal” syndrome. Epistatic combination, greater head need other traits to produce complex intelligences profiles.
Yes, PP, seems, literalize statistical averages.
My list probably contains way too many non-scientists to be taken seriously.
But I do think it’s a definitive list of overrated intellects.
I agree that Sidis, Hawking and Michio Kaku are overrated.
Sidis IQ was measured by his father (psychologist)…Never trust an IQ estimation of a parent…
https://impressionableintellectual.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/combining-theories-of-giftedness-and-brain-function/
The title of this post is ”The Most overrated geniuses”…
Well, i expected a list-at-least.
But not, just other gossip jew-friend post.
Mugabe is completely right but i think, generally, geniuses are quasi-always those who have a combination of brilliant intelect AND, AND, little-to-virtually nonexistent non-conformity with stablishment.
If you have a greater creative, intelectual or scientific potential AND non-virtually-existent developed (smart) empathy, then you have great chances to make part of ”history” marxist-didatic books. But if you are FAIR, HONEST and a truth-harmony follower, then, sorry, but the chances for you, at least, will be the criminal in the ”human history”, because you are in the ‘wrong” side, like WN today.
PP defend Einshtaijn, probably, the most overrated of this official geniuses, LOL.
http://www.science20.com/the_conversation/intellectually_gifted_kids_and_learning_disabilities_often_go_hand_in_hand-154285#.VRY5zv5d-x4.twitter
Teachers and psychologists (or psychologues) are on average one of the most disturbedly stupid smart types. Teachers continue to force all childrens to conform with a uniforme school curriculum. They commit exhaustively the same mistakes, ”commit a mistake one time is normal, but commit the same mistake many times is stupidity”.
Einstein was a genius.
In 1905 he had one of the most amazing years of productive scientific endeavour ever, 4 papers on different aspects of physics (one of which won him the Nobel Prize – and it wasn’t even for special relativity, which was too controversial, but on the photoelectric effect).
However, all this work was partly built on the “shoulders of giants” to quote Newton.
In 1916 he published his paper on general relativity and I don’t think any physicist would argue that the work was in any way derivative. At the time Rutherford thought maybe 5 people in the world could understand it. Despite a century passing it is still conceptually one of the toughest areas of physics, not taught at undergraduate level (most advances that old are). It was a towering intellectual achievement and the big question to me is that if Einstein had not made this breakthrough, how long would we have waited for it.
I cannot be sure of course, but I would hazard a guess at between 10 to 50 years, I cannot think of another advance in any science since 1800 that was as unexpected, uniquely the work of one person and that as far as I am aware no one else was even close to working on.
So you have Feynmann, alleged IQ in the 120s. Einstein, higher IQ but probably not more than 160, totally outclassed by contemporaries like Von Neumann (people seem to agree he was the brightest star), Dirac and Oppenheimer (who never had any fundamental contributions but people say was brilliant), just 3 examples. Which begs the question – what is genius? As Santoculto would say it isn’t IQ.
It is a basic level of intellectual competancy (2 SDs minimum normally, Feynmann was an outlier because of nuture I believe), nurture, drive, creativity and luck in my opinion.
Bill Gates is a genius too, but this comment is too long already.
nurture doesn’t matter
I know it seems nurture doesn’t matter in most of the literature but…
Feynmann was raised to be a great scientist and he achieved that even with a lower IQ (although with a ferocious work ethic).
The Polgar sisters were raised (as a deliberate experiment) to be world class chess players and they all were.
Prodigies are raised to excel at something and they generally do until they burn out.
The other explanation is that the Polgars were the successes and there are thousands of failed chess prodigies who never made a high level despite studying from the age of 5. Maybe, maybe not.
I am not saying that g has no role, it is obviously the prime element, but when we look at the world as it exists I feel there is more going on. If g contirubuted 75% of intellectual achievement, the 25% adjusted by nurture would still be large enough to raise an also ran to a significant force in a specific field of endeavour.
The real question is if Einstein , Feynman & Neumann had never been born, how would history have been different?
Feynmann – physics behind by a couple of years, Von Neumann – specific areas of physics behind by 5-10 years, Einstein – physics behind by 2-5 years and one specific area of physics behind by 10-50 years.
So although I mainly reject the “great man” theory of history (more an acolyte of Braudel and Hobsbawm etc), in a few instances I think the human race may have moved forward through one persons actions.
Not so applicable to political figures however, they have much less room to manoeurve against historical forces, generally.
Every piece which ”yellow journalism” had push, i will distrut. Einstein ( possible) deity mythology resemble the myth of ”human equality”, as well holocaust. What is the truth, generally don’t need to be proved or brainwash.
”don’t be upset mugabe, Cochran is a genius polymath who’s every theory in biology and genetics is going to come out true sooner or later. Do you even under stand the breeders’ equation?”
Some people born to be the follower, others not.
I hate followers groupies, like PP said, they are less intelligent. PP said people like Lion of Judasphere und Turkish nickname are less smarter than him because they are followers.
Huh? I said people who are docile and domesticated and worship the dominant race are less smart (generally speaking), but I never mentioned Judah-sphere, Cochran or “Turkish nick-name”.
Judah-Sphere and Cochran are very smart btw.
My theory is based on when wolves were domesticated into dogs, their brains got smaller.
You said that followers tend to be less smart when you analyse the iqs of hbd bloggers and hbd commenters. Hbd bloggers = average iq 125, hbd commenters (and many them which are followers) = average iq 115. Remember**
Oh that’s what you’re referring to. Yes, in any organization, leaders tend to be smarter than their followers, but there are lots and lots of exceptions. And many commenters (especially on HBD blogs) are not mindless followers, but question what they read.
I’m not a mindless follower.
PP said it.
I wasn’t referring to Judah-sphere, who is anything but mindless
I’m the most critical thinker on this website.
”Oh that’s what you’re referring to. Yes, in any organization, leaders tend to be smarter than their followers, but there are lots and lots of exceptions. And many commenters (especially on HBD blogs) are not mindless followers, but question what they read.”
But those who are always talking about their idols are groupies, right**
Talking about Bill Gates and Informational Technology….
It appears that the Native Americans in Pre-Columbian Latin America, namely the Aztecs and Mayans had a form of cryptic language or ciphers, which would be the precursors of today’s IT security, when it comes to passwords and encrypted messages.
Every racial group, including the Arabs and Indians had cryptology, with the exception of blacks, who of course never developed a form of written language in the 1st place. Basically, Native Americans are a lot smarter than blacks.
You know what Mugabe? you are proven more wrong by the day. This aper https://labs.la.utexas.edu/harden/files/2013/05/Psychological-Science-2015-Engelhardt-0956797615577209.pdf
proves that the same genes of iq are bhind executive functions as well, so basically we have a strong 100% heritability for a trait that’s basically the g factor
”So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115)”
This article was written by you PP**
Lol, super simplistic explanation. Try lower empathy and environmental specific circumstances, is better.
In the head of iqtards, every piece of human behaviour need to be related with iq.
Bill Gates scores super high in iq tests, so**
”This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations.”
But ”contributions” of all nature are based on simple (to complex) observations, period.
Like PP, this guy think iq = intelligence, simplistic iq hypothesis. Is little bit complicated to say ”this guy is,was a genius or not” just by speculations about iq scores. Interesting that seems only in the west that this word is used because in the east, ”genius” look very egocentric and megalomaniac to be used.
Most of old wisdom of east seems dead now, but at least they has been less megalomaniac than ”westerners”.
West have more geniuses than east because, in part, have more recognized geniuses, while in east, this word was even used.
The article about Watson & Crick was written by blogger itsnobody, not by me:
https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-top-10-most-overrated-geniuses/
Yes, i know.
https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/debunking-the-atheist-claim-the-less-religious-and-atheistic-are-more-intelligent/
Lol, well, the average atheist, on average (double double) will be ”smarter” based on iq tests and by rational-literal-intuitive-logic than ”religious”. I’m ”religious” because
– I believe in ”God”, some extreme conscious ”force” that produces everything and any human vocabulary have the appropriate word to describe correctly this force,
– But i don’t believe in the Gods created by humans as allegories of natural and uncommon phenomena.
What i’m**
A atheist or a religious**
Those who believe literally or quaaaasi-literally in sacred bubble or other archaic literature, on average, no doubt that will be less smarter, specially based on ”rational-literal-intuitive-logical perspective”.
Humans are individually complex and smart humans are still more complex, then, people may to say ”i believe in God”, but in a complete different way than others, what i think happens with some subgroups of smart religious.
Based on neutral perspective (literal, holistic, literal, intuitive), is smarter separate what humans think and what makes sense, per si.