Commenter pumpkinhead recently mentioned that five out of the last eight presidents were left-handed, stating :
This does not make them superior to right handers, it just means that they can more readily tap into to those brain regions that give them that edge over others in a presidential race.
An article by Lance Welton describes a terrifying theory about why humans are supposedly becoming more left-handed:
Between 1968 and 1973, a fascinating experiment took place at the University of Maryland. Led by the startlingly creative scientist John B. Calhoun(1917-1995). Its aim was to understand what would happen if Darwinian selection massively weakened. [Death Squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population, by John B. Calhoun, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1973] In creating this “Mouse Utopia” (pictured right) the experiment replicated post-industrial conditions in the West, where child mortality has fallen from 40% to about 1% since 1800, due to dramatically improved medicine and living conditions. The results were horrifying: increasingly bizarre behaviour patterns, a collapse in reproduction, eventual extinction. Are we in our own “Mouse Utopia” in which Darwinian selection has collapsed? The latest piece of evidence for this: we are becoming more left-handed….
…being left-handed is associated with numerous markers of “developmental instability”—that something has gone wrong; a situation generally reflective of “mutational load.” Left-handed people display elevated levels of depression, autism, slightly lower IQ (an average difference of about one point), outlier high IQ (which often happens due to mutation as it is associated with poor mental and physical heath) or outlier low IQ, psychopathic personality, homosexuality, pedophilia, transsexuality, and of numerous physical conditions, such as allergies. Unsurprisingly, southpaws thus end up with low a lower average socioeconomic status…
So, if Darwinian selection has collapsed, then we should be becoming more mutated and, therefore, more left-handed and higher in all of the correlates of left-handedness, including low intelligence. And this is exactly the finding of a recently-published study by British psychologist Michael Woodley of Menie and his team. [Sinistrality is associated with (slightly) lower general intelligence: A data synthesis and consideration of secular trend data in handedness, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., HOMO, May 2018].
Pumpkin Person 
I didn’t read the paper but how does he explain sinistralité going from 6% in 1830 to 3% in 1890, staying there until 1910, then quadrupling to 12% in 1950, staying there since 70 years now … while child morality has been only free falling ….
It makes more sense to speak about repression of left-handedness.
Btw I am a self repressed right hand person writing very badly with my left hand while using my right hand for everything else (I am really lateralized with the right hand ). I have no left handed around me. I ve never found a robust explanation but there is 0.1% like that …
I didn’t know the pattern was that non-linear. I guess they could salvage the theory by focusing on the big picture & dismissing the details as statistical noise/sampling error.
But you make a good point about repression. Perhaps the rise of left-handedness could alternatively be explained by our greater acceptance of all kinds of diversity, including neurological.
your greater acceptance. Dont say ours.
lance welton is well know to be the author of one of the most dumbest articles i ever read on uns. But, he’s not completely wrong because indeed left handedness correlate with a qualitative diversity of outcomes and it has increased since 50,60 years ago but…
Take the chinese or indian diaspora example. Seems, the % of left handedness among them in their respective nations has been lower than in the West. But the % of left handedness among their respective diaspora seems quite higher and in-line with West ”incidence”. And without take into account pre-civilized communities where this trait is more common.
lance said ”ALL left handers have a anomalous brain lateralization[, while 30% does]” based on his obscure neozelander source…
Based on work made by Chris McMannus, an expert in this area, the increase of left handedness seems has been ciclical, and not just in the contemporary era. Another interesting thing he found is that lefthandedness in Europe tend to be more common in countries as Belgium, Netherlands and Great Britain.
https://leftyfretz.com/how-many-people-are-left-handed/
I don’t know how accurate this stats are.
Oprah my Mamma is lefty.
You will be surprised how many high profile celebrities are left handed.
I know.
ford, bush 1, clinton, obama is only 4, and two of those were VPs. reagan was right handed. just google president’s name + signing bill + images.
1. animals are handed but no other species prefers one hand over the other. they’re 50/50.
2. homos are more likely to be left handed.
Reagan was born left handed but learned to write with his right in keeping with the practices of the times of forcing lefties to write with their right hand.
I think these studies/articles are quite problematic because they are conflating multi variant social phenomena with a singular variable of biological diversity. There have been studies pointing towards a greater prevalence of lefties among people with mental disorders, homosexuality etc. I think it is hard to tell what the underlying reason for this is but I have a sneaky suspicion it has a lot to do with creativity(More on that later). Left handed people tend to be more creative, 20% of people in Mensa are left handed(as opposed to the 10% population average), 18% of chess players are left handed, and left handed people tend to be over-represented among those that are highly gifted in math. Some studies have even shown that among college graduates those that are left handed earn a higher income, while despite what some reports show others have even shown an IQ advantage among the population average of about 4 points. My suspicion is that on average there isn’t much difference but once we control for mental disorders lefties come out on top.
So having said that given the greater preponderance of creativity/giftedness it would imply greater openness to experience which may lead some people to develop or be predisposed to a certain lifestyle. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is hard to tell but as with most things we probably get a mixture of both. I would be very careful however in drawing sweeping conclusions about societal shifts from something as trivial as handedness. After all what truly matters is how your brain is wired, not what hand you use. Some people are right brain dominant despite being right handed(30 percent in fact). Is right brain dominance the way to go, probably not. I think balance is key in almost anything we do. So given that today society is overwhelmingly left brained, perhaps we have a lot to gain by allowing things to become more balanced.
”Left handed people tend to be more creative, 20% of people in Mensa are left handed(as opposed to the 10% population average), 18% of chess players are left handed,”
I don’t know how accurate this is.
I read articles which found that left handed males with academic credentials earn more than their right handed pairs while on avg left handedness is correlated with a lot of bad socio-economic outcomes as earn less and be bad in school.
There is a old study did by Camilla Benbow about the features which are common among top graders on Sat based on national sample. The result showed that people who scored highest on Sat tend to be myopic, left handed and allergic.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/04/19/Geniuses-may-be-sniffling-bespeckled-lefties/1427482734800/
“I don’t know how accurate this is.”
It’s quite accurate. All the things I mentioned are quite well documented.
Benbow is one another is Anette and Kilshaw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_and_mathematical_ability
She shows that lefties are over represented among those that are mathematically gifted. My sense is that because most people are left brain dominant, those that have a more balanced full use of their brain tend to do much better. As such it seems there is a greater preponderance of left handed individuals that manage to gain this balance. Now there are still likely a lot more right handed geniuses than left handed ones but that ratio is significantly reduced as we move up in IQ.
There are of course some adverse effects, from what I understand, the right side of the brain is what deals with the unknown. Because of this there is a lot of negative emotion associated with right brain dominance, if you are stuck in your right brain for too long this can lead to depression and anxiety. After prolonged exposure this can lead to all sorts of mental health issues. Hence why there is a greater per capita percentage of people with these sorts of problems among lefties.
First of all, iq alone is not genius, stop to think in this incorrect way. A lot of high iq people who are not geniuses [even otherwise] and we still don’t know about the correct relationship between genius and iq or quantitative cognitive skills. What we know is that creativity, the most important aspect for geniality, is a separated feature and not totally in the domain of quantitative cognitive skills or iq, maybe a qualitative one. Second, i’m not totally convinced about what you’re saying because there are a lot of different results when the matter is left handedness and cognition. Maybe in the extremities, left handers are likely to be prevalent but on avg … Anything can become an ally for intelligence and specially about rationality if this is well understood and well directed as depression and anxiety. And i doubt most of great minds no have a disproportionate rate of both issues exactly because what you said but also because intellectual maturity, accepting that hard truths religions and other belief systems prevent most people to engage, to internalize or accept.
Well I think we are verging very close to semantics on this issue. However genius as it is understood by most people is extremely highly correlated with IQ, it is not the same thing though. The correlation I would imagine would be 0.9+. So with that said this is the best description of genius I can think of: Someone who has produced something uniquely useful to society that is of such exceptional quality that very few could have achieved this or someone who exhibits the qualities necessary and is primed to produce such a thing. Not the most concise definition, I know, it needs a little work but that in a nut shell is what defines a genius for me. By definition this exclusively covers people of exceptional abilities. In any case here is a response I gave on this very same issue about a week ago:
Genius is an utility/achievement based descriptor. For example if you can solve a rubiks cube in 2 minutes that might mean that you have superior visuo-spatial IQ perhaps at the 160 level putting you in the 1 in 100k an extremely high IQ by any metric but does that make you a genius? Most decidedly NOT! We reserve the word genius for those that have exhibited or are primed to exhibit something of great utility to humanity. Hence why we say someone has genius level IQ and refrain from labeling them a genius just yet until they have proven to be worthy of that label, typically high achievements in STEM research or particular musical or literary works, or achievement in other high value professions. So no, I reject this equivocation, a high IQ is just that, and an extremely high IQ is just that. A genius level IQ means that you have an IQ that gives you an increased potential of achieving genius status. I prefer the following scale.
gifted 120 – 129
highly gifted 130 – 144
near genius level 145 – 159
genius level 160 – 174
extreme genius level 175 – 189
contract with the devil 190+
Now can we get a genius with an IQ of 135, sure if they have the achievements to prove it, but the chances are significantly reduced while more than likely they may be extremely talented in certain areas and sub par in others thus producing a low composite IQ(by genius standards). Hence why we say genius level, implying that this is the level at which we observe the greatest number of geniuses.
Winfrey
So to make my argument a little more concise people with a high IQ are not all geniuses but geniuses are invariably ALL people with high IQ’s(145+ with extremely rare occasions of some in the 130s). How can we work this out, well how many kids do you know from youth that exhibited extreme intelligence but later on in life did not produce anything of any real worth? I’m sure we can all name a few and how many “geniuses” do you know that have an IQ in the 120s, probably none. The problem is that most people don’t agree on what the definition of genius is, while a lot of people use that term very loosely. In my mind it is the combination of high computational ability(IQ) and exhibiting the qualities necessary to produce greatness. Some call this creativity, others might say that character plays a role, temperament might be important too, work ethic etc I think it is all those things but without a high IQ you might as well be trying to get up mount everest walking backwards, better stay home instead. Worth noting is the fact that the average IQ of Nobel Prize winners is 145. Also worth noting is that among them are peace prize winners and people that won for something that is trivial at best. IMO a better assessment of the correlation of IQ with genius is to take the most prominent geniuses of all time and try to work out their IQ. Or if you want to limit this to the last 100 years, then look at people like Einstein, Hawking, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Niels Bohr etc
”Well I think we are verging very close to semantics on this issue. However genius as it is understood by most people is extremely highly correlated with IQ, it is not the same thing though. ”
No, we still don’t have this certainty. Again, nope. When you says genius and iq is the same thing, you are just repeating a inaccuracy if genius is first of all high creativity, which is not the same thing than iq, because creativity is qualitative while iq is quantitative. Creativity is basically the quality and potential of reasoning itself and not pre-aquired skills as vocabulary. It’s not what you have but how you use it.
”The correlation I would imagine would be 0.9+. So with that said this is the best description of genius I can think of: Someone who has produced something uniquely useful to society that is of such exceptional quality that very few could have achieved this or someone who exhibits the qualities necessary and is primed to produce such a thing. Not the most concise definition, I know, it needs a little work but that in a nut shell is what defines a genius for me. By definition this exclusively covers people of exceptional abilities.”
So iq is not the same thing as genius based on your definition which i agree. I believe genius is must correlated with very high score in any cognitive skill, qualitative or quantitative, so, it must have a umbalanced profile and not that rounded high iq. Geniuses has been known to be exceptional in some areas but deficient if not very deficient in anothers, they are just like savant people but without significative general mental deficience.
”Genius is an utility/achievement based descriptor. For example if you can solve a rubiks cube in 2 minutes that might mean that you have superior visuo-spatial IQ perhaps at the 160 level putting you in the 1 in 100k an extremely high IQ by any metric but does that make you a genius? Most decidedly NOT! We reserve the word genius for those that have exhibited or are primed to exhibit something of great utility to humanity.
”Hence why we say someone has genius level IQ and refrain from labeling them a genius just yet until they have proven to be worthy of that label, typically high achievements in STEM research or particular musical or literary works, or achievement in other high value professions. So no, I reject this equivocation, a high IQ is just that, and an extremely high IQ is just that. A genius level IQ means that you have an IQ that gives you an increased potential of achieving genius status. I prefer the following scale.
gifted 120 – 129
highly gifted 130 – 144
near genius level 145 – 159
genius level 160 – 174
extreme genius level 175 – 189
contract with the devil 190+”
Again, you’re walking in the circles to conclude the same thing.
Maybe someone who exhibit exceptional ability, a potential to be ”great”, in some specific area, and score pretty high in that area… but, what i said, creativity IS the fundamental aspect, not only about genius, because genius IS the TRUE manifestation of intelligence. What we often define as intelligence and in contrast to creativity, is basically the capacity to memorize, to copy and apply something. People with pretty high iq but not creativity, is someone who are big restorage but not capacity to produce newly ones.
So, we will have, likely, a significant correlation between high creative potential and genius but not with GENERAL super high iq, the late is a myth many people with no good knowledge in the area has developed, included many hbds, if hbdsphere is the place where this myth has been more spread.
”Now can we get a genius with an IQ of 135, sure if they have the achievements to prove it, but the chances are significantly reduced while more than likely they may be extremely talented in certain areas and sub par in others thus producing a low composite IQ(by genius standards). Hence why we say genius level, implying that this is the level at which we observe the greatest number of geniuses.”
I can agree that to be a mathematical genius it’s very likely required a very higher iq, but we still don’t have enough prove about that, we know that there is a significant correlation. About artistic and philosophical geniuses, it’s unlikely we need super higher iq, specially to the first group.
But, even in the case of mathematical geniuses, most them seems will have higher creative potential AND also, or, highly skilled on attention to detail, something predict creativity in any area. Higher iq alone don’t make you a genius, there are many famous very high iq people who are not geniuses, Vos Savant, that jewish guy, i have a example of brazilian musician, Roger, who is not a genius either. Even in the case of highly rational, these guys don’t appear to be and or pretty high iq don’t seems super-required [high rationality often can be translated to genius on philosophy].
”Winfrey
So to make my argument a little more concise people with a high IQ are not all geniuses but geniuses are invariably ALL people with high IQ’s(145+ with extremely rare occasions of some in the 130s).”
No, again you’re repeating yourself.
”How can we work this out, well how many kids do you know from youth that exhibited extreme intelligence but later on in life did not produce anything of any real worth? I’m sure we can all name a few and how many “geniuses” do you know that have an IQ in the 120s, probably none. The problem is that most people don’t agree on what the definition of genius is, while a lot of people use that term very loosely. In my mind it is the combination of high computational ability(IQ) and exhibiting the qualities necessary to produce greatness.”
To produce great poetry at priori you don’t need to know many words, you need be capable to combine them as well different contexts. If computational ability was absolutely needed so all great poets would be polyglots or all polyglots would be great poets because huge knowledge about different words in more than one language or in many language.
”Some call this creativity, others might say that character plays a role, temperament might be important too, work ethic etc I think it is all those things but without a high IQ you might as well be trying to get up mount everest walking backwards, better stay home instead. Worth noting is the fact that the average IQ of Nobel Prize winners is 145. Also worth noting is that among them are peace prize winners and people that won for something that is trivial at best. IMO a better assessment of the correlation of IQ with genius is to take the most prominent geniuses of all time and try to work out their IQ. Or if you want to limit this to the last 100 years, then look at people like Einstein, Hawking, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Niels Bohr etc”
I believe creativity is a cognitive qualitative skill but there are some recent studies saying that when people think creatively they think emotionally too because they are accessing many different areas of the brain simultaneously.
Work ethic is only be devoted to creation itself in the case of creativity because what we usually understand it is basically conformity to convergent knowledge.
You’re speaking about great scientific minds but human society also require great arts and philosophy to survive and if it was used in supra-correct ways we would had the heaven in the earth surface.
Be biased about big difficulty in achievements but forgeting the basics and the beauty has been a very common mistake commited by many people who biased on science, and the same can be spoken about people with philosophical or artistical biases and against science.
Creativity is how you use your pattern recognition while iq sectors as verbal is the level of our aquired and specific patterns.
Creativity is nothing other than divergent thinking, the ability to come up with many new ideas. We label it as such because it is hard to pin point the stream of thoughts or causal link that produces these ideas, they seemingly come out of nowhere. However if you ask me creativity is just the ability(as the word denotes) to create ie generate ideas. So in that sense anyone can be creative, all you need is a fertile mind, that is very active and comes up with all sorts of ideas seemingly at a non stop rate. What differentiates genius from commonly creative people is IQ. A low IQ creative person will not very likely come up with good ideas, or the their hit rate of good ideas will be very low. If one is highly creative AND they have a high IQ then they are very likely a genius or have the makings of a genius(ie brilliant ideas galore).
We need to be careful here not to conflate creativity with genius, it is merely an ingredient of genius much like IQ is the other ingredient. Now I do believe there is a correlation between creativity and IQ, that is the higher your IQ the more adept at generating ideas your mind is. Though this is not a strict rule, more often than not I find that this is the case. A good example is when solving IQ questions, a regular high IQ person would find the one correct answer a genius will find several possible correct answers. So in a way IQ tests do test for creativity but only moderately so. Yes there is a right and wrong answer but it takes a creative mind to try it’s hand at various possibilities until it arrives to the correct answer.
So in closing creativity =/ genius. High IQ =/ genius. However genius = high IQ + creativity. I hope this clears things up for you. It is a complicated subject in large part due to people’s varied understanding of what the word genius means and how it is used. 99/100 times it involves people with 145+ IQ. I also include character traits, temperament and work ethic because quite often those are the things that allows genius to manifest and flourish. In other words without those qualities a high IQ creative person may never produce anything of note, or excel in any one field.
”Creativity is nothing other than divergent thinking, the ability to come up with many new ideas”
NO.
Sky is blue = convergent thinking.
No, Sky is rose = divergent thinking.
Creativity come from high perceptiveness or highly intensity on attention to detail. It’s not a magical thinking, it’s just when people is being TRULY highly analytical and critical, analysing all perspectives they can see [reduced bias but directed reasoning], and this tend to result in new ideas, what majority people are not during great part of time. They just recycle their determined ideas.
”We label it as such because it is hard to pin point the stream of thoughts or causal link that produces these ideas, they seemingly come out of nowhere. However if you ask me creativity is just the ability(as the word denotes) to create ie generate ideas. So in that sense anyone can be creative, all you need is a fertile mind, that is very active and comes up with all sorts of ideas seemingly at a non stop rate. What differentiates genius from commonly creative people is IQ. A low IQ creative person will not very likely come up with good ideas, or the their hit rate of good ideas will be very low. If one is highly creative AND they have a high IQ then they are very likely a genius or have the makings of a genius(ie brilliant ideas galore).”
No, you can’t deduct this without previous evidence, what you actually no have. If you read my comments i dedicately wrote try to refute them and not create a new debate or seems despise them.
can you**
”We need to be careful here not to conflate creativity with genius, it is merely an ingredient of genius much like IQ is the other ingredient.”
Nobody did this. Either do it with iq, what you did, even worse. It’s not just iq and creativity. AGAIN, if you had read and refuted my comments you would take note i talked about SUB-TESTS or SUB-SKILLS, for example, be exceptional on verbal analogies but this don’t translate in general verbal iq.
”Now I do believe there is a correlation between creativity and IQ, that is the higher your IQ the more adept at generating ideas your mind is.”
It’s dependable the idea you are talking about. To be philosophical genius seems need be very mature for your age and it’s also mean be more melancholical, near to depression. It’s needed to experiment such intense emotions cognitively related with existential realism.
”Though this is not a strict rule, more often than not I find that this is the case. A good example is when solving IQ questions, a regular high IQ person would find the one correct answer a genius will find several possible correct answers. So in a way IQ tests do test for creativity but only moderately so. Yes there is a right and wrong answer but it takes a creative mind to try it’s hand at various possibilities until it arrives to the correct answer.”
And this explain will the correlation between creativity and iq is not that high, even when it is, in the case of mathematical, because iq is about convergent thinking.
”So in closing creativity =/ genius. High IQ =/ genius. However genius = high IQ + creativity. ”
It’s look like super summarized and potentially inaccurate to explain genius. Noncognitive or psychological aspects also must have a role.
”I hope this clears things up for you. It is a complicated subject in large part due to people’s varied understanding of what the word genius means and how it is used. 99/100 times it involves people with 145+ IQ. I also include character traits, temperament and work ethic because quite often those are the things that allows genius to manifest and flourish. In other words without those qualities a high IQ creative person may never produce anything of note, or excel in any one field.”
NO, again, if you had read my comments, i would not need repeat myself what i already wrote, at least for philosophical and artistic geniality, this ”people with 145 iq” is very unlikely.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/are-prodigies-autistic
I don’t want to say ”high creativity IS genius”, even this what i wrote, but: ”high creativity IS the primary factor to explain genius”, because the genius product is a creative one.
“Sky is blue = convergent thinking.
No, Sky is rose = divergent thinking.”
That is a perfect example of low IQ creativity. “Sky is rose” is utterly meaningless. One can ascribe all sorts of meaning to it with sufficient motivation but ultimately if that meaning is not readily intelligible by a smart person, in all likelihood it is just jiberish. Now Divergent thinking as you seem to suggest does have a dose of the unconventional in it but if there is no clear utility to it and it is unintelligible in my view it can be classed as creative but not the sort that any sane person would want to have and of course no genius would ever consider as passable. What a high IQ allows(critical thinking) is it gives the creative person the ability to work out if what they have produced is passable or not. So yes it goes without saying that divergent thinking is very often unconventional but it MUST have utility if it is going to fall into the category of genius. So allow me to reiterate, creativity IS the ability to come up with NEW ideas. Pay attention to the word “new” as I had originally posted. This in and of itself requires divergent thinking but then comes the hard task of working out if that new idea is of any use.
“It’s look like super summarized and potentially inaccurate to explain genius. Noncognitive or psychological aspects also must have a role.”
I really don’t know how else to put this to you. Let me try again…
Not all creative people are geniuses(in fact most creatives aren’t). Not all high IQ people are geniuses(depending on your cut off point of course) but above a certain point it is safe to say that the likelihood that someone with an IQ of 180 lets say, is a genius is very very high. We in fact readily admit that he has a genius level IQ. We later on work out if he is a genius or not by testing his creativity, output, quality, and utility. However ALL geniuses are with a 99% chance people of IQ 145+ and are very likely highly creative(high output of ideas, not just that but they are quality ideas).
As for people that have a low IQ but exhibit genius level acuity in just one subject say music or someone who is highly skilled in memorizing or making complex mathematical computations in their head, we have a word for that, we call them savants, we don’t call them geniuses. There is a difference between a savant(which can take on a creative aspect) and a genius. A genius is invariably high functioning in all areas that matter to a normal person and then some. In other words he is brilliant in more ways than one(not just creativity).
”That is a perfect example of low IQ creativity.”
No, it’s a perfect counter-example about what you said. You said ”creativity is basically divergent thinking”, i showed why it’s not. And you’re in contradiction when you say creativity is generation of new ideas and said ”it’s basically divergent thinking”, yes, to understand words, we must be more concrete or literal than we actually tend to be.
”What a high IQ allows(critical thinking) is it gives the creative person the ability to work out if what they have produced is passable or not. So yes it goes without saying that divergent thinking is very often unconventional but it MUST have utility if it is going to fall into the category of genius. So allow me to reiterate, creativity IS the ability to come up with NEW ideas. Pay attention to the word “new” as I had originally posted. This in and of itself requires divergent thinking but then comes the hard task of working out if that new idea is of any use.”
You’re totally dragged by this stupidity call iqiocracy. Everything about cognition and psychology being reduced to sacre-saint iq.
I NEVER disagree about what iq can reach but ALWAYS about what it’s doesn’t. IQ is not
critical/analytical thinking
even reasoning itself
or rationality
or
creativity
or passion
or moral virtues [don’t confuse it with stupid right wing morals but with essential morals, which are very close with qualitative intelligence itself]
IQ is all about semantic memory, verbal, mathematical and spatial. It’s about what you have, not what you can do with it. Yes, it’s highly correlate with a lot of ”positive” outcomes, but still doesn’t mean these are only about IQ.
”I really don’t know how else to put this to you.”
I don’t need you to explain me what i already know… do you read my first comments***
”Not all creative people are geniuses(in fact most creatives aren’t). Not all high IQ people are geniuses(depending on your cut off point of course) but above a certain point it is safe to say that the likelihood that someone with an IQ of 180 lets say, is a genius is very very high. We in fact readily admit that he has a genius level IQ. We later on work out if he is a genius or not by testing his creativity, output, quality, and utility. However ALL geniuses are with a 99% chance people of IQ 145+ and are very likely highly creative(high output of ideas, not just that but they are quality ideas).”
Show me evidences… if you had read my comments we could have had a more constructive dialogue than this. People who score pretty high in IQ tests are rare but it’s unlikely all them are genius JUST because they scored that high. I read a study showing that the avg IQ for top scientists are around 150,160. But, what i already showed, if iq ALONE was a single factor responsible for anything resemble geniality, ALL highly IQ people would be like that, it’s doens’t happen.
”However ALL geniuses are with a 99% chance people of IQ 145+ and are very likely highly creative(high output of ideas, not just that but they are quality ideas)”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [lack of civility redacted by PP, Oct 4, 2018]
read my fucking comments and the link i gently left here.
When a person can’t stop to repeat wrong things and even despised what i wrote, it’s impossible to keep the serenity.
read my fucking comments and the link i gently left here.
Winfrey, your link was about prodigies which are not the same thing as Geniuses as pumpkinhead defines them. None of those prodigies have contributed something super important to humanity, yet. And while I disagree with pumpkinhead that 99% of Geniuses are above 145 IQ, on average they probably are.
”’IQ is all about semantic memory, verbal, mathematical and spatial. It’s about what you have, not what you can do with it. Yes, it’s highly correlate with a lot of ”positive” outcomes, but still doesn’t mean these are only about IQ.”
but still doesn’t mean these are only BECAUSE IQ…
IQ is the quantitative basis of intelligence [plain]
Intelligence is learning that is memorizing or copying certain subject or skills.
Talent is the presence of a significant set of skills more circumscribed to a certain domain or more generalized, although unlikely to be of a universal or absolute nature [presence of rugged terrain]
Talent is learning that is the memorization or perfectionist copy of a certain subject or skills.
Genius is the ultimate expression of talent that is not just memorizing or copying a certain subject or skills but expanding them.
Talent and genius often correlate with umbalanced profile, this may explain why talent may be more related with left handedness as well autism or bipolar disorder.
”Winfrey, your link was about prodigies which are not the same thing as Geniuses as pumpkinhead defines them. None of those prodigies have contributed something super important to humanity, yet. And while I disagree with pumpkinhead that 99% of Geniuses are above 145 IQ, on average they probably are.”
Pumpkinhead has a poor understanding of this matter. Prodigies and geniuses are more similar than trivial high iq ”gifted” people, what i already wrote above. Can you refute my thinking lines*
You even don’t know properly what the word contribution really mean in all its reaching. Anna Netrebko is a good example of that. She doesn’t invented nothing but her voice is angelical and potent, and yes, singing truly beautiful music, making the GREAT art alive, is a contribution to humanity.
She doesn’t invented nothing but her voice is angelical and potent, and yes, singing truly beautiful music, making the GREAT art alive, is a contribution to humanity
But not as important as curing a disease or inventing a technology that changes the world
And has a TV show???
I’m not equivaliyng on with another, my angel, i’m saying both are contribution in their own way but not in the same levels. Jesus, Reading issues or cognitive bias??
Winfrey
First of all calm down man, we are only debating, no need to get emotional about this. I may be wrong or you may be wrong. If I am wrong and you have provided conclusive evidence, I will admit as much. Either way, life goes on…
“No, it’s a perfect counter-example about what you said. You said ”creativity is basically divergent thinking”, i showed why it’s not. And you’re in contradiction when you say creativity is generation of new ideas and said ”it’s basically divergent thinking”, yes, to understand words, we must be more concrete or literal than we actually tend to be.”
===
https://study.com/academy/lesson/cognitive-thinking-creativity-brainstorming-and-convergent-divergent-thinking.html
“The definition of creativity is the ability to come up with new, original, unique solutions to problems or ideas”
Note the words new, original and unique….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_thinking
“Divergent thinking is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions.”
So divergent thinking is a thought process used to generate creative ideas. Granted there might be other ways to be creative, but I can think of none that are as productive as divergent thinking. So in a nutshell creativity is a trait that is for the most part driven by divergent thinking in the pursuit of generating new and original ideas. How is that different to what I’ve said? It seems to me you are trying to oppose what I say for the sake of opposing what i say.
“I don’t need you to explain me what i already know… do you read my first comments***”
I’m not trying to explain to you what you know, I am in fact trying to explain to you what I know and what I think. Surely you understand that!?
“People who score pretty high in IQ tests are rare but it’s unlikely all them are genius JUST because they scored that high”
That is exactly the point I’m trying to make. Are we just talking past each other?
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [lack of civility redacted by PP, Oct 4, 2018]
read my fucking comments and the link i gently left here.
When a person can’t stop to repeat wrong things and even despised what i wrote, it’s impossible to keep the serenity.”
Right, well I may have been exaggerating regarding the 99%. I don’t actually know exactly how many that are classed as geniuses, are above 145+ IQ. It would be interesting to see if there has been a study on this. However that is not the point, if it is not 99% it’s 98% or 95% but not much less than that. A component of IQ is computational speed and in my opinion this does not matter all that much for geniality. One can be a genius and answer an extremely difficult question in 1 hour instead of half an hour, this doesn’t make much difference in terms of lifetime output, as long as it’s within that hour and not a week lets say. However everything else an IQ tests for does factor into geniality. This along with creativity are high predictors for genius. So to reiterate, not all creative or high IQ people are geniuses but ALL geniuses are creative people with a high IQ. I would argue with an absolute minimum of 130 and at least a 95% chance their IQ is 145+. There, I’ve NOT exaggerated to make a point, I’ve given you a conservative estimate. One more try at getting the point across, in case you missed it, not all 145+ people are geniuses but almost ALL geniuses are 145+ IQ.
“Talent is learning that is the memorization or perfectionist copy of a certain subject or skills.”
Nonsense!!!
Talent is a predisposition to a certain skill set. Michael Jordan is a talented basketball player, yes he worked hard but countless others worked just as hard yet HE is the one that is considered the greatest. In other words he has that innate quality that predispose him to being a great basketball player. You don’t have his talent and neither do I. In other words no matter how hard we try we could NEVER be as good as he is. The quality that differentiates us is TALENT. Genius is different from talent in that it usually denotes someone who is highly competent in multiple cognitive disciplines whereas talent is wider in scope(not just cognitive aspects) but is used for just one discipline. In a way you could say that a genius is talented in multiple areas but you rarely hear a genius being described as talented, the word genius captures their abilities much more accurately. How are you not getting this, the simplest concepts yet you seem to want to convolute them and twist them into something else seemingly in order to fit your narrative. Hold on, do you have a low IQ? Is that what this is about? You are trying to re-define genius in order to widen the net? Though it seems you are also trying to selectively exclude high IQ people from this intellectual restructuring lol Hmmm curiouser and curiouser…
“Genius is the ultimate expression of talent that is not just memorizing or copying a certain subject or skills but expanding them.”
Too vague!!
OK listen, lets just agree to disagree. I think you are talking out of your ass, you haven’t got the slightest what you are talking about. It seems to me you are trying to decouple genius from IQ. Unfortunately you are woefully misinformed, IQ and genius are highly correlated and though they are not the same thing(I have defended this point already elsewhere) you will be hard pressed to find many geniuses with a “low” IQ(though you may find a good number of high IQ people that aren’t geniuses). The overwhelming majority will have a 145+ IQ. Today’s world is fast paced, and extremely mentally taxing. It’s hard enough to keep up with every day mundane things let alone try to produce something of note. If one does not have a genius level IQ and a good dose of creativity they are simply outmatched. What they think they have produced that is new profound and unique, in all likelihood will have been done already by someone far more gifted than they are. Also genius is not only great discovery(luck may play a factor in that) it is in fact a combination of discovery, proven high intelligence, and a life’s work of consistent high quality output.
Using anecdotal instances of geniuses scoring low on IQ tests is utter nonsense. People have off days or weeks, or they may not have even cared to score highly. I have already rebutted the usual trope(Feynman) used to claim genius and IQ are not highly correlated. In all likelihood, if you take all the people that are universally recognized to be geniuses brought them up to speed with IQ testing and allowed them to be tested on a good day they would all very likely score very very highly. The problem with IQ testing is that a lot of highly productive individuals(high profile scientists) is that most of them couldn’t care less about a number, they already know they are gifted and they don’t need to silly test to tell them that. In that respect I would agree with them, however I think those tests are fun and fully understand their utility while the pressure they can inflict on someone(another reason to reject them) doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Some people react differently, the pressure gets to them even though they would otherwise have a highly gifted mind.
”First of all calm down man, we are only debating, no need to get emotional about this. I may be wrong or you may be wrong. If I am wrong and you have provided conclusive evidence, I will admit as much. Either way, life goes on…”
You don’t know how to debate, the basics. You barrely read what i wrote. I’m taking all pieces of your comments and answering them. It’s like i’m debating with none. And you can’t stop to repeat yourself after even don’t read my comments… Unfortunately stupid life always goes on fortunately, indeed, IGNORANCE IS A BLISS….
”===
https://study.com/academy/lesson/cognitive-thinking-creativity-brainstorming-and-convergent-divergent-thinking.html”
This is not a appropriate counter-response, try to write something you here.
“The definition of creativity is the ability to come up with new, original, unique solutions to problems or ideas”
Note the words new, original and unique….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_thinking”
…………………………………………………………………….
this, is a appropriate counter-response for this… repeating.
It’s a concise but vague, superficial concept. It’s don’t explain the origins and the processes of creativity but the final and expected products.
”So divergent thinking is a thought process used to generate creative ideas. Granted there might be other ways to be creative, but I can think of none that are as productive as divergent thinking. So in a nutshell creativity is a trait that is for the most part driven by divergent thinking in the pursuit of generating new and original ideas. How is that different to what I’ve said? It seems to me you are trying to oppose what I say for the sake of opposing what i say.”
I ALREADY TOLD YOU why divergent thinking alone is not creativity. It’s one of the most important aspects but it’s absolutely insufficient without the rest. What your problem to accept when you are wrong*
It’s different because you said creativity IS divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is everything about thought which is a opposite of another thought. All concepts has their respective conceptual origins when they are very generalizable. Again, what i wrote and you don’t read: must be literalized. It’s too much abstract.
Winfrey
“And again, a TYPICAL RIGHT WING thought.!”
What does politics have to do with any of this? Are you right in the head man? Oh and FYI even though I don’t subscribe to any one party or strict ideology, generally speaking if you twisted my arm to narrow it down, if anything I’m left of center on the ideological spectrum with a strong libertarian streak. But that is neither here nor there…once again I ask you WTF does politics have to do with this you bloody lunatic.
“”Because creativity is a good thing, it cannot be correlated with mental DISORDERS.”
A hyperbolic purity assumption.”
First of all you are putting words into my mouth(straw manning), I’ve said nothing remotely coming close to a “hyperbolic purity assumption”.
“This is not a appropriate counter-response, try to write something you here.”
What?
“I ALREADY TOLD YOU why divergent thinking alone is not creativity. It’s one of the most important aspects but it’s absolutely insufficient without the rest. What your problem to accept when you are wrong*”
What exactly am I wrong about, I have already proven to you that divergent thinking is perhaps THE most critical part of creativity which is an activity that produces new and original ideas. What is wrong about THAT? What you are doing is telling someone that for the most part addressed 90% of a topic, that they are wrong. What do you mean wrong? Just because I didn’t go into detail about creativity to cover all the bases suddenly I’m wrong? What about the thing that I’m RIGHT about which is virtually the whole story in a nutshell. I don’t have all day you know, there is so much to cover, suddenly I need to satisfy your desire to cross every t and dot every i otherwise i’m WRONG. When I(people in civil debate in general) want to expand on an idea or concept that someone breached(which that person got right for the most part) you don’t go in guns blazing, “you are WRONG, you don’t know anything”. Use your brain man, express your ideas expand on the topic and if the other person feels it is a topic worth addressing in more detail they will, if not they will focus on what they feel is a more pertinent aspect of the discussion.
Then you have the gall to tell me I don’t know how to debate. Most of what you wrote down is utter jiberish, I don’t have the time to address every silly thing. However what I will address is that I think you are a low IQ individual(120 max) that wants to alter reality so that you can fit yourself into some grand narrative of what it means to be a genius. I’m sorry to be harsh here, but apart for your appalling English and your woeful syntax your ideas verge on the nonsensical at an alarming rate. So like I said, just leave it at that, lets agree to disagree and refrain from insult(I WILL respond in kind).
“Divergent thinking is everything about thought which is a opposite of another thought.”
WTF does that mean? Another instance of your giberish, and even if I attempt to entertain what you wrote I would say you are wrong on this. Sounds like what you are saying is that divergent thinking is the equivalent of antonyms but with thoughts..? Nonsense! I would say that divergent thinking is the production of many unique random ideas at a pace until suitable ideas are generated. Then convergent thinking is utilized to organize the ideas in a structured way.
“Again, what i wrote and you don’t read: must be literalized. It’s too much abstract.”
Says the person with a dangerously low IQ that wants to rely on his non existent “creativity” to qualify for genius.
You are incessantly misinterpreting my words and resorting to straw manning me in order to argue for the sake of arguing. Also I keep repeating myself because you have yet to rebut my claims at all let alone in a remotely substantive way. So I keep repeating them thinking that you didn’t understand what I’m trying to say. After all that is what started this discussion in the first place. You seem to claim that genius occurs randomly along the IQ distribution and I’m saying that this is not the case, genius is overwhelmingly over-represented among high IQ individuals to the point that people often(and understandably so) conflate high IQ with genius. A distinction is necessary when discussing this topic among intellectually inclined people(as I’ve outlined already) but for the most part one would be mostly right if they made that assumption.
As per wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius
“A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge.”
Now please try to put some more thought into your responses at least so that they are somewhat intelligible. I hate to be mean at this point but you have said some pretty mean things too, and at the risk of sounding petty, you started this!
Furthermore it seems that what qualifies as genius for you would only merely qualify as smart or productive for me. Just so you know I do not consider every random PhD a genius in fact only a small fraction of nobel winners in my mind are true geniuses. I set the bar high, exactly so that every random fool out there doesn’t get any delusions of grandeur.
Creativity potential correlate with psychotic and bipolar spectrum. Mental disorders are invariably correlated with reduction of avg IQ. Connect these dots. Most highly iq people are super ”sane” mentally speaking [don’t confuse with intellectual]. Moderate levels of psychotic-like thinking increase divergent thinking which increase creativity potential.
Genius is the combination of huge attention to detail with mental fluency.
Finally something we can agree on! Though “correlates”, doesn’t quite inform us on how much. My sense is that it’s not as much as people think. A bit of conjecture on my part here but I have a sneaky suspicion that creative talent is not necessarily the sole correlate with mental disorders, rather IMO for the most part it is people that pursue creativity at all costs(perhaps beyond their innate talent or what their brain can handle), that can be driven to madness. There is a distinction. Regardless I think that high neuroticism is the prime component of mental illness among high functioning individuals whether that is creatives or high IQ people(I think they have a lot more in common than is generally accepted). So a highly neurotic creative has higher chance of experiencing some sort of mental illness in their lifetime. IQ tends to mitigate this a little bit in that it allows for rationality to kick in and moderate the illness. Though i think the saying “ignorance is bliss” also plays a factor in maintaining sanity. The more you know or the more you can know(correlated with IQ) the more mentally tough and robust you need to be in order to stave off what the world has in store for you.
Impossible to debate with you and expect you will accept most what you think is conjectural about this matter and that IQ is not this magical property that explain everything. And again, a TYPICAL RIGHT WING thought.
”Because creativity is a good thing, it cannot be correlated with mental DISORDERS.”
A hyperbolic purity assumption.
Ilness is parkinson, Alzheimer or any other dementia.
If you read what i already wrote here, it’s not all mental disorder which is a illness.
Neuroticism is a mental trait which all of us will express it at very least one time in our lifes.
Maybe i was wrongly interpreted again…
If degree of psychotic-like thinking style is one of the fundamental ingredients to result in creativity so it’s not a CORRELATION but a causation.
I may agree more that higher the IQ higher the MENTAL sanity CORRELATION, but… i said MENTAL sanity and not INTELLECTUAL or heuristics levels.
PP,
are Haredi jews high IQ? they are certainly effective political pawns in the ME.
They are fascinating to me, as they are inside an modern but still pertain an high fertility rate.
Is Israel doing dysgenics?
Im talking genomic IQ, as they act like low IQ lazies today.
interesting article about them:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/israel-confronts-its-changing-demographics
Im naturally more comfortable southpaw for some reason. Other than that im righty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Chicago
Please refer to my wiki for a list of my deep state qualifications. Many thanks. Donations welcome.
How come I haven’t had any donations yet?!
Hahaha
How we laughed at the comedy ticket we put together for the republicans in 2008. I think this woman works in McDonalds now.
pill! comrade! you should really read shamir’s most recent piece. couldn’t’ve said it better my own self.
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/red-zog/
pretty sure ron is ADL/mossad.
the crimes of stalin are exaggerated for two reasons.
1. it props up the rich.
2. stalin really did shoah the old bolshies. that is, he killed his rivals at the top of the party, nor ordinary people.
stalin’s “cabinet” had only one jew, who was illiterate. iron lazar kaganovich.
Apparently its a very hard piece to play as well. Here a fellow jew talks about playing it. Scriabin was actually horowtiz’ piano teacher in the 1920s or so.
Such a stark contrast to Debussy’s music which was also prominent in that turn of the century time. Debussy was also a genius but his music is more optimistic and postive.
I have met plenty of left handed people. My best friend was left handed. I have many left handed professors and know quite a few students here who are left handed, and this is a business school! You would think they would dominate the arts and sciences to fit the status quo of what left-handers are known for.
So the corpus callosum is larger in people who are left handed. That leads to greater connectivity between the hemispheres, explaining the high IQ of many people who are left-handed, including the greats like Albert Einstein. Apparently, left-handed people are much more creative and musically and artistically talented than right-handers, which would make sense from the information above.
Notice how Albert Einstein has a much thicker corpus callosum than the general population. This would allow for interaction between the hemispheres. If pumpkinhead is correct in his statements about how the left brain differs than the right brain, the left handed would have a far greater advantage because the different hemispheres are interacting together causing the visual to be explained verbally and vice versa.
I’m actually quite well researched on the matter. You are right about the corpus collosum but I think the way the brain is organized the right side of the brain seems to be the side that makes the difference between genius and a regular smart person. In fact it has been been shown that if someone has left brain damage they can still live a fairly normal life albeit a little depressed,but right brain damage has all sorts of adverse implications. See Iain McGilchrist on this matter.
A really good video of Jordan Peterson explaining the two hemispheres.
In conversation with Iain Mcgilchrist.
Digit ratio is also a super important component. I’ve noticed that people with lower digit ratios dominate the STEM fields and are very good at math-oriented activities. Digit ratio plays a huge factor in influencing the brain, so that might be something to look at.
Also, does anyone know of any specific traits that are affected by epigenetics? Any specific genes one can relate back to epigenetic effects? I’ve always been curious to how much our genome at birth is preserved throughout our lifetime.
I have an extremelly low digit ratiio. My index is a dwarf finger !
It funny how obvious a social construct it is from the pictures. But when you show uneducated backwards people this, they still will never accept race is a choice. Just like your shoe colour or the the topping on your pizza.
Race is a social construct of a biological reality—see Quayshawn Spencer’s paper A Radical Solution to the Race Problem.
How cant races be an social construct when both italians and finns are regarded as “white”. Its not construct valid outside of subjective catergorization and probabilities.
You must be high iq enough to not realise its an social construct. Most premises in most peoples thoughts are social constructs though. And since people cant differentiate between feelings and models and idealism true, you might say that social constructs are true. Thats why money has “value” to the stupid.
Socially can be easily translated to Collectively construct.
You’re comparing a very good looking nordic albino guy [a model] with a ugliest albino black and low avg albino east asian. It’s not fair dude!!
lancy welton is the representation of megalomaniacaltard on the extreme ”right”. In the end he said about ”the risk to become less smart” as if he is a extreme representation of intelligence… based on his articles on unz…
masculinist males often have hyper-self confidence and it’s mean irrationality because they, on avg, don’t try to know if they really are that geniuses and or perfect human model.
afro said that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.
this explains why black men are so un-sexy.
I thought it was looking less evolved? Alveolar prognathism specifically, not an attractive feature.