Commenter Ray Penver writes:
Hi, PP! It’s me again
I wonder what would be your estimation of Isaac Newton’s IQ.
I know quite a bit about his life.
He’s considered the best physicist and scientist ever, one of the best mathematicians ever and one of the most influential people, too.
So, what do you think?
Newton’s IQ is fascinating because not only is he considered the best physicist of all time, but according to Michael Hart’s book The 100, the second most influential person of all time; though one led to the other. These aren’t independent achievements,
So what was his IQ?
According to this source, 60.5 billion people have lived from 1 AD to 2011. Let’s say 16% were white. Assuming Newton was the best physicist to ever live, he would have at the very least been at the one in 9.68 billion level among whites, which is +6.33 standard deviations (SD) on a normalized curve.
However great achievement requires more than just ability. It also helps to have 10,000 hours of practice, among other things. Ability seems to explain 66% to 70% of the variance in various cognitive performance, suggesting ability correlates 0.82 with performance.
So if Newton were +6.33 SD in physics performance, we’d expect him to be 0.82(+6.33) = +5.19 SD in physics ability.
How much does physics ability correlate with IQ? The math section of the WIAT correlates 0.84 with WAIS-IV full-scale IQ, so if Newton were +5.19 SD in physics ability, I’d expect him to be 0.84(+5.19 SD) = +4.4 SD in IQ. In other words, I’d expect him to have scored IQ 166 (white norms) on a random test normed in his day.
To appreciate how high that is, young white American men have an average height of 5’10.1″ (SD = 2.94″) so an IQ of 166 is the height equivalent of being 6’11”. Both are +4.4 SD.
So just as we might expect the greatest basketball player of all time to be 6’11”, we’d expect the greatest physicist of all time to be IQ 166.
To those who think even IQ 166 is not high enough for a mind as great as Newton, I point to examples of other great minds who scored much lower on IQ tests such as Ted Kaczynski in adulthood or Garry Kasparov. For those who say the tests weren’t valid measures of their intelligence, I say IQ is an imperfect science. An IQ score is simply one’s performance on highly g loaded psychometric tasks not a direct measure of neurological functioning, so occasionally it will give highly flawed results. IQ 166 is simply my best guess of how Newton would have scored on a randomly selected high ceiling IQ test considered valid in his time and place, not necessarily a prediction of his actual intelligence.
Pumpkin Person 
I break down my IQ like this: verbal 130, mathematical 120 and visual-spatial at 95.
I think I would have been an eminent genius if you raised my IQ by 20 points in each division.
I think my IQ breaks down like this: 130 verbal, 120 mathematical, and 95 visual-spatial. I think if you increased my IQ by 20 points in each sector of IQ, I would’ve been an eminent genius, dominating one field or another.
Had to rewrite it out or the haterz would say it was fake.
Who cares?
Anyone with a bright curious mind cares.
Someday, most of you will.
No, I’ll never care. I have other, more important things, going on in my life. Why would I ever care about what you say about your “IQ”? It has no bearing on my life. None of what I really discuss here does – I just do it to pass the time.
No, I’ll never care. I have other, more important things
Like what? Conning overweight people out of their time & money with fake health advice?
Anyone with a bright, curious mind cares about LOADED’s claims about his “IQ”?
Anyone with a bright curious mind cares about intelligence in general.
“Conning overweight people out of their time & money with fake health advice?”
Back this assertion or retract your statement.
It was a question not an assertion. Please learn English before engaging in discussions.
Do you really want a discussion on health and diet?
I don’t want any discussion with you because you can’t read.
I hypothesize that PP is pulling things out of thin air and cannot justify his previous assertion.
What justifies the question? I took your question as implying that I “con people” out of their time and money.
It’s justified by the fact that most overweight people who get professional weight loss help can not keep it off long-term.
Source?
(I’m quite obviously more than aware of the literature, just want to see what you’ll cite.)
No I wont waste time looking up cites. I’m right and everybody knows it.
Just give one scientific citation.
“Anyone with a bright curious mind cares about intelligence in general”
Whatever. I’m saying that I don’t care abkht LOADED’s assertions because they have no bearing on my life.
If you’re “right and everyone knows it” (argumentum ad populum), then you shouldn’t have to “waste time looking up cites” since they should be so readily available.
look up the followup study on biggest loser contestants. ny times wrote about it iirc.
Let’s see:
(1) It, in my opinion, encourages fat-shaming, which makes the problem worse, causing weight regain:
(2) Pushes the old “eat less, move more” fallacy of dieting.
(3) Contestants say it “ruined their lives” (see cite below).
(4) 90 minutes a day of “vigorous circuit training” (i.e., going from one exercise to the next without stopping and then resting) and vigorous cardio 6 days per week (already a recipe for disaster).
(5) The “trainers” yell and scream and the individuals in the study (they’re idiots, that’s not how the profession works). They needed buckets to vomit it—some may say “They’re just working hard!”, but, again, that’s not how this works. All of that is from the eat-less-move-more fallacy.
Wow, why did they regain their weight??? Hmmm…. Let me think:
The shitty, low-calorie (1200-1500 kcal per day diet) screwed their metabolisms. When you’re in kcal restriction for that long, your metabolism slows. Since your metabolism slows, then, obviously, you need to decrease kcal more and more, until it’s not feasible at all to decrease them any lower. Here’s the reason—their metabolisms slowed down due to the decreased kcal they consumed (their RMR—resting metabolic rate—sharply decreased). So, in effect, the amount of energy the body used for bodily functions decreased (hence, “resting metabolic rate). So RMR decreased by 789 kcal, and when adjusted for weight loss decreased about by 500 kcal. Good, you may say, they only need to eat 500 fewer kcal for their new body weight. But that’s not how this works.
So, continuing on the boot-camp-style regimen they were on, they could not keep up with the demand. Therefore they began to decrease their exercise—but their RMR stayed the same. So they start to do less exercise, therefore burning fewer kcal, all the while continuing their diet which is screwing up their metabolism and they then plateau. The body knows that, when kcal are decreased, it needs to match the metabolism to the new caloric intake. But, and we know this from “starvation studies” (i.e., Ancel Keys’ studies; not true “starvation” since, like the Biggest Loser, they were around the same number of kcal), that as caloric intake decreases more and more, the body’s metabolism decreases to match the intake. And so, when this occurs, caloric intake needs to be lowered and lowered. Quite obviously, this cannot occur indefinitely. Thus, ravenous hunger occurs (read Ancel Keys’ papers and numerous literature on it to see what type of things they would eat) and they eat and eat until they are at their weight before intervention and, since their metabolism is now destroyed, they gain even more weight then they had previously.
So, what can we learn from the disaster known as The Biggest Loser? Or the even bigger disaster know as Eat Less, Move More (Caloric Reduction as Primary – aka CRaP)?
The Biggest Loser diet is the bigger badass brother of Eat Less, Move More.
Eat Less Move More – Proven failure. The Biggest Loser – Proven failure on steroids.
Bariatric surgery is the bigger badass brother of Intermittent Fasting
Bariatric surgery – proven success, but with surgical complications. Intermittent Fasting – proven success over thousands of years. No surgical complications.
https://idmprogram.com/the-biggest-loser-diet-fasting22/
Read an expert’s thoughts on that study—it’s full of shitty conclusions:
https://idmprogram.com/biggest-loser-diet-explained/
Don’t make me laugh citing that study as proof of ANYTHING regarding the trivialities of dieting and weight loss.
But how do those excuses explain the 60 other studies that found the same thing?
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories
“Excuses”? Solid dodge, buddy. The fact that you call an RMR decrease an “excuse” shows your ignorance to the matter.
Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss—I agree and that is nothing new—as I have been saying for years.
http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
When I want to lose weight do you think I “move more”, or do you think I decrease my kcal intake on my rest day, while I eat slightly above maintenance on my work day (that way, metabolism does not get screwed up). See, I know what I am doing when it comes to fat loss, muscle retention and keeping RMR/BMR up. What I do DOES NOT—at all—decrease metabolism. If anything, it even increases a bit.
I said most of what was said in that article, too:
Another thing that is not taken into account is what occurs in the body when calories are reduced. One important thing to note is that the energy we consume and expend are not independent variables—they are dependent. Therefore, if we lower what we consume, what we expend will then lower as well. If you change one of them, the other will change too. For example, if you exercise more in an attempt to lose more weight you will eat more to compensate. If you eat less to lose more weight, your body’s metabolism will drop to match what the intake is.
Also:
An animal whose food is suddenly restricted tends to reduce its energy expenditure both by being less active and by slowing energy use in cells, thereby limiting weight loss. It also experiences increased hunger so that once the restriction ends, it will eat more than its prior norm until the earlier weight is attained.
Click to access whatfuelsfat.pdf
Weird…
his has been tested in randomized controlled trials where people have been separated into groups and given intense exercise and nutrition counselling.
Even in those highly controlled experimental settings, the results show only minor sustained weight loss.
When Traci Mann analyzed all of the randomized control trials on long-term weight loss, she discovered that after two years the average amount lost was only one kilogram, or about two pounds, from the original weight.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2663585
Ouch!
I need to reread Mann et al 2007 to get the specifics of the diet breakdowns, but it’s in-line with what Fung and Aamodt have written about the body set weight.
I’ve also read Mann’s Secrets from the Eating Lab, too.
I find it funny how a year or so ago our positions here were reversed. What brought about your view changes?
WI you tread into, JayMan territory too, saying that exercise “doesn’t work” for some people?
^^^TEACHABLE MOMENT^^^
the heritability of adiposity and insulin sensitivity in twin studies demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that twin studies are garbage.
because almost no one needs to be fat or diabetic. it’s just that within a given society they find it impossible to change.
They’re only garbage if I’m fatter than you in China but you’re fatter than me in Africa
There is one Hispanic group that might show evidence of norm crossing. They look like runners in their home country but weigh 500 lbs in America
”the heritability of adiposity and insulin sensitivity in twin studies demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that twin studies are garbage.
because almost no one needs to be fat or diabetic. it’s just that within a given society they find it impossible to change.”
Captain OBVIOUS…
[redacted by pp, feb 23, 2019]
norm crossing is IRRELEVANT if there is one (fairly easily obtainable) optimum, rather than a continuum of fitness to the stars.
rr likely doesn’t grok this either.
at a certain point there is no such thing as more fit.
at this point everyone is optimally fit.
it’s just that oprah is a [redacted by pp, feb 23, 2019] and this is SAD!
You’re confusing genetic with malleable.
This shows low verbal IQ.
As was noted in The Bell Curve something can be very genetic yet easily correctable (myopia) while something can be very environmental, yet immutable (an accent)
No hes confusing malleability with ‘propensity to be malleable’.
Source :
You have got plenty of citations in Richard Plomin MIT press book Blueprint – How DNA makes us who we are
P6 : weight heritability 70%
P191-195 : weight as an example of common misunderstanding about heritability. He cites a philosopher Neven Sesardic book Making sense of heritability :
1) heritability is not about an individual. So one person obesity could be 100% environmental
2) effects of nature and nurture can’t be separated in one individual, and heritability is not about « could have been ». It describes the extent to wich inherited dna differences create differences in a population, given the environnement in wich they live
3) starving population aren’t fat. But heritability is about the causes of the differences in a particular environnement
4) average weight is increasing too quickly to be due to genetic changes. Heritability hasn’t changed yet despite substantial weight increase. You look for average differences.
5) if it’s genetic, you can’t do anything about it . Heredity is not immutability. Environmental changes can stop PKU effects. But when heritebility is due to polygenic effects, it means individual effort to change his environnement won’t probably be successful (because you re looking at hundreds of small agents of the variability)
”yet easily correctable (myopia)”
Without glasses myopia is not naturally–easily correctable…
Again, heritability IS NOT inheritance…
Heritability is about try to get the universal value of given trait based on comparison among very similar living beings [identical twins, without into account the fact that there is a variable degree of similarity among identical twins]. Would be interesting to compare these results among different races.
Heritability is the prediction, inheritance is the result.
Inheritance is about the real value of biological transmission, from progenitors to their sons, from generation to another.
Also there is a phenotypical compatibility, between living being and its environment/lifestyle. When this phenotypical compatibility is done, for example, people who evolved to have certain dietstyle and lifestyle change them abruptally, in very few generations, tend to develop sub-optimal behaviors resulting in sub-optimal physical results.
Also and maybe before the phenotypical compatibility, there is a genotypical compatibility, among non-exclusive homossexual, fertile and prone-to-constitute- bio-family couples. High mutational charge of one or two of pairs may lead to expression of genetic disorders and decreasing of similarities or continuities between generations.
Genetic/biological mutations are marker of phenotypical and even genotypical discontinuities between generations.
Another problem is that, there is a degree of genetic malleability among traits AND this is genetic too, OR predisposed.
Human mental plasticity or levels of adaptive [creative] behavior is genetic too.
Genetic =/= fixed.
Robustness of given organism is genetically predicted. Some organisms are higlhy-sensitive, others are not.
OR NO,NO,NO,NO
Now if you raised my IQ by 40 points in each category, you would’ve gotten one of the greatest polymaths of all time by the name of LOADED.
Pumpkin, do you think the IQ of Newton’s arch-rival Leibniz was higher or lower than Newton’s? I’d say it was higher, somewhere in the 170s, for he had broader intellectual interests.
I think with Newton, you come down to a guy who found one topic fascinating and dedicated his life work to a singular idea. With Leibniz, you get a guy who was fascinated by many things. Genius can be one or the other, or a combination of the two. So to say that one was smarter than the other based just on that analysis of who they were would be unfair.
My ever-bet is that polymath is a uber-idealization. People who know about many things, tend to know superficially, good but not enough to be a super expert. Most of smarter people become a specialist. IQ don’t measure greatness, or high level of specialization, divergent/creative or convergent..
These moronic discussions have absolutely no bearing on anything at all.
The human mind has no bearing on anything at all? That is the dumbest thing anyone in history has ever said.
Your “IQ estimates” have no bearing on anything.
They are relevant to psychometrics, the greatest achievement of the social sciences.
The most pseudo*
“the greatest achievement” indeed…this is sad.
like randy the macho man savage is the greatest professional wrestler.
“social sciences” should be written “social ‘sciences” hahaha”
”ha ha ha”
Jakov, great question. I don’t know enough about Leibniz to say.
He developed calculus independently of Newton. Next to this, he was a philosopher, a geologist, a mineralogist, an inventor, a sinologist, a jurist, and diplomat. Their math IQ must be roughly the same, but Leibniz, has an edge over Newton in other cognitive abilities, so Leibniz’s general IQ, if we take your estimation of Newton’s IQ as correct, is most probably 170+.
It would depend how good he was in those other areas. It’s not surprising for someone who is a recognized Genius in one domain to make achievements in several others, but truly Genius level achievements in disparate domains is incredibly rare
Leibniz achievements apart from calculus are:
1-The binary system
2-One of the first mechanical calculators
3-Worked on hydraulic presses, windmills, lamp, early submarines, clocks, etc.
4-He played with theories about the earth (a primitive geology).
5-Laid some early foundations in topology and fractal geometry. (In fact he influenced Euler’s creation of the field)
6-Linear systems
7-Symbolic Logic
8-He was a prominent metaphysician (although his Theodicy was ridiculed by Voltaire because of his naivetee). His “Monadology” and his “Discourse on Metaphysics” had influence in the subsequent development of Western Philosophy.
9-His principle of sufficient reason had some influence on Einstein’s RT.
10-He was one of the philosophers with the greatest practical ability in matters of state (Marcus Aurelius level). Although his writings on law, ethics and politics were overlooked for along time until recently.
11-He was so good at so many things that a enlightment philosopher wanted to throw all his books into fire because he will never reach Leibniz level (I don’t remember who was, Diderot???)
So we can see that he was formidable in mathematics (calculus, binary system), philosophy (symbolic logic, monads, Leibniz Theodicee, optimism, principle of sufficient reason and others), mechanics (one of the earliest mechanical calculators, and many lesser known creations and improvements), he was a decent statesman, a founding figure in geology and he was NO dilettante.
In fact, we can say that he got a lot of HUGE contributions in disparate subjects, not quite at the level of Newton, but were certainly impressive and important achievements.
So I support the speculation that his general cognitive ability was better than Newton’s.
Leibniz was more academically skilled than Newton in his teens (G.L published his B.A thesis on philosophy at the age of 17; Newton was a loner and a troublemaker, but he ultimately ended up being the best in his class and he had impressive mechanical ability).
In the first class I took on calculus, derivatives and their applications in business (I go to a business school), I did fairly well. In the second, we learned about integrals and their applications, I would say I did subpar, but not poorly. So that’s where I get my estimate for my mathematical IQ, as I crush most people at basic arithmetic.
In terms of divergent thinking, I think I am very capable of creating new and different ideas the likes of which no one has seen before, not in terms of raw ability, but more in terms of thought-process and the differentiation/diversity my thoughts follow.
If my IQ was higher and was paired with the same cognitive mode of thought, then you could probably produce genius. Some of the ideas would be rational and functional, others would not be. Unfortunately, I also struggle with a mild case of ADHD. That would also hinder my abilities, but I think I use it to my advantage, because ADHD allows one to switch ideas quicker and associate more things with each other, even if they don’t make sense.
I am actually manic and suffer from delusions that are wildly laughable. I don’t think I have a healthy mind. I use to struggle with OCD when I was younger. I overcame that and struggled with mania for awhile, episodes that were really, really intense. I’ve suffered from paranoid delusions, all of it. It sucks. Feels like I’m AnimeKitty 2.0 if anything.
You need all those “skills” to become a genius. Even though genius might come in different forms, like a basketball coach or an artist or someone who has mastered the ability to commit crime and not get caught. All those things are genius, but genius in the traditional sense would most likely be pathological in nature.
Because thoughts are like viruses, being more intelligent and attaining more knowledge is harmful. It creates seeds in the mind for things to grow, things you can’t control.
This reminds me of when I read an article on dreams. Mental recombination is one possible explanation for why we have them. And essentially, everything you encounter in that day is sifted through and processed by the mind. The more you encounter, the more data is necessary to sift through. I would say that has a detrimental impact on peoples’ perceptions of the world when they encounter random data that makes no sense when paired with another idea. It can be very harmful, very detrimental to engineering a clear state of mind.
Dude,
concentrate yourself in your biggest interests [or interest]. Truly analyse them; attack your cognitive prejudice; try to think in new things for these subjects..
”Because thoughts are like viruses, being more intelligent and attaining more knowledge is harmful. It creates seeds in the mind for things to grow, things you can’t control.”
I dunno. For one santo needs more knowledge and also needs to be less emotional, to get over santos cognitive and emotional prejudices.
name,
another retarded [white**] here…
another
”free thinker”…
remember uname,
because you said this, doesn’t mean it’s true..
name is the expression of one the most problematic things about humanity,
the invencible super-ego of majority of males..
and people says they are absolutely superior to women… always a question to be relative.
Creative thought is based on emotional and analytical tought working together…
i used the word ‘name’ for my profile name for variety sake. When the word name appeared in the box where we have to type our name, i thought why not type the word name itself. No need to think like a schizopersonality person.
Also there are women who they are think absolutely superior to men too.
Personally i think women are more intelligent than men on average. With regard to general intelligence. As they have a better connectome and are also better convergent thinkers and have better working memory . But they are not superior. They have a more primitive limbic system.
And ofcourse creative thought is based on emotional and analytical thought working together. But in women its more like emotions and other thoughts working together. They are not more creative than men on avg.
Dont turn every discussion into a male female thing. You might enjoy sh*tt*ng about men, but i dont enjoy doing that about women. I only did it when you flung/fling sh*t about men.
”Dont turn every discussion into a male female thing. ”
I want what i want to do…
Any psychological debate can be based on ”male female thing”…
”Any psychological debate can be based on ”male female thing”…”
It can be based if we base it, but it isnt.
Newton was also deeply religious and read religious texts ardently. Even for the time.
He was retarded and genius, unfortunately very common among geniuses..
Well Terry Tao has a 180 IQ and can’t write lucid argument in words. Terry Tao also hasn’t invented anything in math like Newton did with calculus nor discovered anything. My guess is Newton was not as high as Terry Tao owing to nutritional issues of the time, but to make these breakthroughs he was either a lot more autistic or a lot more divergent in thinking.
mathematicians are basically the eunuchs of science.
i only majored in math because i was lazy and didn’t have a long enough attention span to do lab work well.
Actually the movie about Alan Turing portrays him as someone with pretty severe autism. And he made a lot of breakthroughs in code breaking and computing. So I would guess having pronounced autism is the answer.
the guy who got the high score on the AHSME at my school was 100% autistic…and he was a genuinely horrible chess player.
Interesting. I wonder if chess requires social IQ or perhaps executive functioning.
Actually as I read about his interest in religion he was obsessed with calculating the chronology of events in the bible and when certain things would happen. This is definitely something an aspy would do.
yeah. people who haven’t actually studied higher maths don’t know that a very high FSIQ is not required to be a mathematician. what is required is being really really interested in maths…which is more often than not incredibly boring to non-austists.
Conversation between two retarded self-hater autistic, PROBLEMATIC people… imagine you are living in the same house fo this two beasts… every day would be a problematic day. To good know they will likely commit suicide in some day.
So Isaac Newton gets a profile but Macho Man Randy Savage doesn’t?! How arbitrary is this blog.
and isaac was into alchemy and superstition and likely died a virgin.
i think newton is regarded by physicists as even greater than einstein.
”and isaac was into alchemy and superstition and likely died a virgin.”
Just like you…. hoooaaa
So does drinking a caramel macchiato break a fast RR? Theres some caramel and sugar in there. I haven’t ate anything the last 24 hours as I haven’t felt hungry.
Sometimes I accidentally fast when I take the medicines and sleep for 20 hours or so. I was never a habitual eater. I find it usually pretty easy to resist chocolate, sweets, cakes and the sort.
I would have passed the marshmellow test which many claim is a more accurate predictor of lifetime success than IQ.
The only thing on my mind about IQ is “what is my IQ? And why isn’t it 140+?” which are pretty serious questions. Based on racial statistics I should be lucky to even be in the 125-130 range. However, with poor academics and average SAT scores, you’d assume my IQ is 110-115. I guess my mind should be on how do I raise my conscientiousness.
PP
I have to say that I seriously disagree with your assesment. By your math there is basically no physicist in history that exceeds an IQ of 166. Does that make sense to you?
Here are the pertinent facts, he is considered the greatest physicist of all time, easily among the top 5 mathematicians and perhaps the strongest contender for the greatest scientist of all time. He was born prematurely, his father died 3 months before he was born, he had issues with his step father and was somewhat of a solitary figure(as most uber-geniuses are). He revolutionized physics to such an extent that it took another 240 years during a period of perhaps the most rapid scientific advancement in the history of humanity for someone to come up with a better theory of how the universe worked. His contributions to mathematics were invaluable. So pardom me if I lack faith in your calculations.
I would say the only real way to evaluate his IQ is to compare his work to other prominent figures and piece a few things from what we know of his life. Given that I don’t have anywhere near the time to do that my instinct points me towards the following shortcut. Taking the average IQ of physicists, working out how many have existed in the history of humanity and figuring out his rarity among them.
According to some accounts there are currently about 1 million physicists in the world. Out of a population of about 7.5 billion this means that they account for 0.013% of the world’s population. Extrapolating this across time and using your figure of 60.5 billion this implies that Newton is first among 8.07 million physicists. Some accounts put physicists at an average IQ of 133 while another interesting paper by Lynn reports a figure of 128 at the university of Cambridge. Lets take the lower figure in order to be conservative. Combining the two rarities(one for physisits and one for Newtons rarity among them) we get a standard deviation of ~ 7. Using your figure of the correlation of ability to performance we get 5.74 SD or an IQ of 186.
I would say that is the minimum for Newton. I have seen accounts that put him at 190 to 195. Also I don’t understand why you did a performance to ability adjustment twice, one in general and then again for physics. That does not make sense to me. Finally if he is considered the greatest scientist of all time why would you only take the figure for whites. Shouldn’t you be looking at all the races, after all I don’t think there ever was a Chinese Isaac Newton…?
I have to say that I seriously disagree with your assesment. By your math there is basically no physicist in history that exceeds an IQ of 166.
No, there would be many who would be way above 166, but if all we know about an individual is that they were a Genius in one major domain (i.e. math) I would never guess more than 166, simply because the odds of anyone scoring that high on a randomly selected high ceiling IQ test are so slim, that virtually no amount of human accomplishment makes it probable.
As much as I love IQ tests, I don’t think they’re magic. They can’t predict with anywhere close to perfect precision who’s going to be the next Newton or Shakespeare. Lightning seldom strikes the same person twice, so someone who is +6.33 SD in any real life accomplishment is very unlikely to be close to +6.33 SD in IQ test performance; they’re much more likely to be somewhere between +6.33 SD and the normal range, because the normal range by definition is where most people are. Hence regression to the mean.
That doesn’t prove Newton’s IQ was 166, but if the population were hundred times bigger, and thus we had a 100 physicists of Newton level accomplishment, 166 is just the likely average of a bell curve, with some Newtons scoring much higher than 166 and some Newtons scoring much lower.
But seeing as you’ve argued that the entire Ivy League averages 145, I can understand why 166 would sound absurdly low for Newton. In general your IQ estimates are about 20 points higher than mine.
I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong. I’d love to think IQ testers have a near psychic ability to predict who will become the greatest scientists of all time just by giving a 40 minute test, but psychology’s not that advanced yet. You yourself said it’s not a real science, so I’m not sure why you expect it to have the kind of miraculous predictive power that even the medical sciences greatly lack. In the Terman Gifted study, the only two kids who grew up to win a Nobel Prize were among the ones whose IQs were too low to make the study! That tells us all we need to know about the limits of IQ.
According to some accounts there are currently about 1 million physicists in the world. Out of a population of about 7.5 billion this means that they account for 0.013% of the world’s population. Extrapolating this across time and using your figure of 60.5 billion this implies that Newton is first among 8.07 million physicists. Some accounts put physicists at an average IQ of 133 while another interesting paper by Lynn reports a figure of 128 at the university of Cambridge. Lets take the lower figure in order to be conservative. Combining the two rarities(one for physisits and one for Newtons rarity among them) we get a standard deviation of ~ 7. Using your figure of the correlation of ability to performance we get 5.74 SD or an IQ of 186.
Not sure how you got a rarity of 7 SD since that’s more than one in 200 billion level. There’s only been about 100 billion people in the last 50,000 years.
Let’s think of all 8.07 million physicists who have ever lived as one big physics class with Newton as the best student. His grades would thus be +5.13 SD relative to the average physicist, but assuming a 0.82 correlation between performance and ability and a 0.84 correlation between math ability and overall IQ, we’d expect overall IQ to correlate 0.69 with physics performance (probably lower in a range restricted population like physicists). Thus Newton’s statistically expected IQ should be 0.69(+5.13) = +3.54 SD relative to physicists.
Assuming physicists have an average IQ of 128 with an SD of 12 (high IQ occupations are less variable), his expected IQ would be 3.54(12) + 128 = 170, which is similar to 166.
I have seen accounts that put him at 190 to 195.
Jensen estimated his IQ to be 200! I’m much more conservative when it comes to almost everyone (not Newton only), partly because I’ve seen too many examples of great achievers scoring less than spectacularly on IQ tests. I understand your point that they might have been much smarter than their scores indicate, but it’s happened far too often for me to believe all the scores were invalid, and science can only measure the observable, not the theoretical. Also, I make a distinction between normalized deviation IQs and the old age ratio IQs which give much more generous results at the high end. A lot of the other estimates you might see do not.
I could be completely wrong though.
Also I don’t understand why you did a performance to ability adjustment twice, one in general and then again for physics. That does not make sense to me.
Because math achievement requires more than just raw math talent. You also must develop and apply your talent through practice and opportunity. Thus people who are extreme outliers in real world math achievements would typically be somewhat less extreme on a measure of pure math talent. But since even pure math talent is only a proxy for overall IQ, they’d likely be even less extreme on a test of general ability than a test that plays to their strength. Hence, not one, but two adjustments seems reasonable.
Finally if he is considered the greatest scientist of all time why would you only take the figure for whites. Shouldn’t you be looking at all the races, after all I don’t think there ever was a Chinese Isaac Newton…?
To keep things simple I limited it to whites. To compare him to the entire human species would require speculation about the worldwide distribution of IQ etc. But limiting him to whites may have artificially limited his achievement rarity to one in 9.68 billion, since there were only 9.68 billion whites.
In other words I think you are not taking into consideration the fact that in numerous studies physicists and mathematicians consistently come out on top in IQ rankings among all disciplines. We cannot equivocate a physicist with a biologist lets say and use standardized P to A correlations interchangeably. The two are vastly different, one mostly taxes short and long term memory while the other also greatly taxes problem solving ability. I guess what I’m trying to say is that Biology “talent” can be learned with enough hours but physics talent cannot as it is the subject that most closely taps into classical notions of IQ. In other words x amount of hours produces better results in within-field achievement in biology than it does with Physics because it is less reliant on a high IQ. Of course when we look at the relative achievements in terms of level of difficulty and sophistication y amount in physics is qualitatively superior to y amount in biology which is why physicists tend to enjoy a little more reverence in the academic world.
If we take the average IQ which is often cited to be 133(not the 128 I conservatively used) for physicists this puts Newton at about 189(according to my calculations) which is almost exactly the figure that is often attributed to Newton(190).
Pardon my somewhat abrasive approach, I tend to get a little passionate about things I strongly feel I am right about
That’s quite all right. Nothing wrong with strong disagreement!
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Biology “talent” can be learned with enough hours but physics talent cannot as it is the subject that most closely taps into classical notions of IQ. In other words x amount of hours produces better results in within-field achievement in biology than it does with Physics because it is less reliant on a high IQ.
My default assumption is that the correlation between ability and performance would be the same in all fields, but you might be right about math (and spatial ability) being very different, though I’m not sure this is because it relates more to IQ per se, but rather, because individual differences in math are so large. For example a Promethean once argued that complex problem solving speed doubles every 5 (or 10) IQ points. So while someone with a math IQ of 100 might take 16 years to learn calculus, someone with a math IQ of 140 might take a few weeks. With such huge differences in learning speed, it might have been impossible for Newton to reach the pinnacle of math with “only” a math IQ of 166.
By contrast it might be possible for Shakespeare to reach the pinnacle of his field with a verbal IQ of 166 or for Mozart to reach the pinnacle of his field with a music IQ of 166, since in those fields, the individual differences are small enough that practice can have a non-trivial effect.
So this is where I think your methodology is problematic. Correct me if I’m wrong but the correlation of math ability to overall IQ is essentially the correlation of the math scores of a large set of people to their overall IQ. In other words this correlation has high predictive ability with a lot of people. However if you take just one person and tried to use their math ability to predict their IQ in all likelihood you would be wildly off. Take two people and try to work out their average IQ using their math scores and the established correlation and you would get a little closer, take three even closer and so on and so forth until you get a statistically significant sample at which point the predictive ability of that correlation hits it’s mark. So in essence on an individual basis your correlation coefficient will always underestimate the universal geniuses and always overestimate the borderline savants. It will only be accurate for those that fit the average profile the coefficient predicts. Which is why I think your methodology can only be used with a large sample, and is not well suited on an individual basis. For that you’re better off speculating on scores on the other subtests and getting a composite that way. As such wouldn’t a ratio IQ be a better way to go? Also the coefficient would roughly work but for the extreme outliers. Well, isn’t Newton arguably the greatest outlier of all time? In other words a strong candidate for a universal genius.
So this is where I think your methodology is problematic. Correct me if I’m wrong but the correlation of math ability to overall IQ is essentially the correlation of the math scores of a large set of people to their overall IQ.
Right
In other words this correlation has high predictive ability with a lot of people. However if you take just one person and tried to use their math ability to predict their IQ in all likelihood you would be wildly off.
If I actually knew the person’s math IQ it would not be wildly off. With a 0.84 correlation between math and IQ, the standard error of the estimate would be 8 IQ points. 95% of the time the estimate would fall within 15 points. Of course I don’t know Newton’s math IQ, so I estimated it from his math performance, which makes it an estimate of an estimate, thus increasing the standard error to 11 points and the 95% confidence to 21 points. So when I estimate Newton’s IQ to be 166, what I’m really saying is based only on the fact that he’s the greatest math Genius of all time, there’s a 95% chance he has an IQ of 145 to 187.
Take two people and try to work out their average IQ using their math scores and the established correlation and you would get a little closer, take three even closer and so on and so forth until you get a statistically significant sample at which point the predictive ability of that correlation hits it’s mark. So in essence on an individual basis your correlation coefficient will always underestimate the universal geniuses and always overestimate the borderline savants. It will only be accurate for those that fit the average profile the coefficient predicts.
Exactly. A universal genius would likely be at the top of the 95% confidence interval (IQ 187) while a savant type would likely be around the bottom (IQ 145)
Which is why I think your methodology can only be used with a large sample, and is not well suited on an individual basis. For that you’re better off speculating on scores on the other subtests and getting a composite that way. As such wouldn’t a ratio IQ be a better way to go?
It could very well be, and if I knew more about Newton I likely would have included a historiometric IQ estimate to supplement the statistical prediction.
Also the coefficient would roughly work but for the extreme outliers. Well, isn’t Newton arguably the greatest outlier of all time? In other words a strong candidate for a universal genius.
To me a universal Genius is someone who’s considered a Genius in at least two of Howard Gardner’s seven “intelligences”, and every field Newton revolutionized (calculus, astronomy, physics) seems confined to the logical-mathematical domain, but because that’s the most important and g loaded domain, he’s considered the greatest Genius of all time.
No PP, it’s just your cognitive prejudice here. Remember when you said abstration is [just/only] mathematics*
“If I actually knew the person’s math IQ it would not be wildly off. With a 0.84 correlation between math and IQ, the standard error of the estimate would be 8 IQ points. 95% of the time the estimate would fall within 15 points. Of course I don’t know Newton’s math IQ, so I estimated it from his math performance, which makes it an estimate of an estimate, thus increasing the standard error to 11 points and the 95% confidence to 21 points. So when I estimate Newton’s IQ to be 166, what I’m really saying is based only on the fact that he’s the greatest math Genius of all time, there’s a 95% chance he has an IQ of 145 to 187.”
Right well this pretty much confirms my intuition about this. I would argue that even with knowing one‘s math IQ a score spanning anywhere within 30 points constitutes “wildly off” let alone one that is 42 points(at least in my mind). Just out of curiosity what would a 99% confidence interval look like? After all with 95% 1 in 20 cases will fall outside the predicted range.
In any case I actually understand your scepticism regarding some extraordinary claims. There definitely was a tendency back in the day to romanticize and blow out of proportion certain scores. Marilyn Vos Savant, William James Sidis are perfect examples of people that were blown out of proportion.
I will agree with your idea of what constitutes a universal genius. I happen to think that Newton narrowly fits that description in practice but likely had the potential to be a certifiable universal genius the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci. I mean look at Leonardo, yes he is greatly revered, some of his paintings were sublime but did he do any one thing(out of the many) that remotely came close to revolutionizing the world as did Newton? So you see there is clearly a sacrifice one has to make to reach such great heights. Also we wouldn’t be doing our due diligence if we did not account for the things that may have hindered him somewhat(step father, premature birth).
99% confidence interval would be 137 to 195. A 58 point confidence interval is wildly off from a hard science perspective, but keep in mind that most IQ tests only correlate around 0.8 with each other, so if you tried to predict someone’s score from one of these tests based on their score on the other, you’d get a 47 point 99% confidence interval. That probably helps explain bizarre anecdotes like Richard Feynman supposedly scoring 125 on an IQ test. It’s not necessarily because he was a child or because he wasn’t trying, it could simply be the extreme low end of his confidence interval. On another IQ test, he might have scored 172. That’s why ideally you’d want to take the composite of someone’s score on at least two randomly selected very different IQ tests, or use a really comprehensive test like the Wechsler which is like taking every IQ test combined into one.
Universal geniuses don’t exist… No individual can be exceptional in EVERY FUCKING THING.
Universal geniuses don’t exist, also, because knowledge is always in expansion.
Oprah dude
No one said that a universal genius is exceptional at everything, that would imply god like ability. It is an expression used to denote someone who not only has an astronomically high IQ but is also able to put that to use and perform exceptionally with the achievements to boot at several fields. They used to exist at a time when our pursuit of knowledge and the understanding of the nature of reality was in it’s infancy. As such imagine these people as the first to gain access to the promised land with fruits of knowledge abound and ripe for the picking. Competition was low and every discovery was the first of it’s kind and moved us forward leaps and bounds in relation to where we were. So I would say that in today’s world we might not get the universal genius of old where they were head and shoulders above anyone in several fields. Today that is nearly impossible due to the incredible amount of knowledge we have accumulated over time. No what we might get today are people that are at the very top in one field and top tier in several other diverse fields. I think that is certainly possible.
That certainly puts things into perspective, thanks for the information. I agree that nothing beats a comprehensive test like the Wechsler and correct me if I’m wrong but Feynman never took such a test nor did Kasparov. At least for Feynman I find that score to be laughable and I think it was probably pushed as some kind of encouragement for otherwise mediocre students to go into science or as some kind of psychological crutch. Politics eyh, enough to drive a sane person mad!
No one knows what test Feynman took, but it was certainly not the Wechsler since that wasn’t published until the late 1930s. It was likely a very simple, mostly verbal group administered low ceiling test. Low ceiling tests are especially inaccurate for high but uneven intellects, because there’s enough floor to penalize their weak points, but nowhere near enough ceiling to reward their strengths, assuming the test was even diverse enough to measure Feynman’s strengths.
Well I think you are overlooking the fact that he was both the greatest Physicist and one of the greatest mathematicians. He was also an atronnomer, a theologian and author. He was considered at the time as a natural philosopher. Your estimate does not seem to take into consideration all these other factors.
Also, you seem to be somewhat monolythic on this idea that if someone is solely devoted to one field they would innevitably be lacking in others and their IQ will invariably reflect this. I think that is preposterous, could it be that you are applying population level intutitions to individual capabilities?
So it appears to me that what you consider ability is simply their IQ on that one subtest(math for example) and that performance is only correlated at 0.82 to innate ability in that one sub-test so you use the correlation of math to produce a composite IQ. Well as we have noted he was not only a physicist, he was also a mathematician(the two do have their differences). He was also an astronomer and theologian. Shouldn’t you be working out his math, physics and astronomy “IQ” and creating a composite that way? So if his Physics IQ is 5.19 SD(according to your calculations) and his math IQ is probably 4 SD+ shouldn’t this produce a composite well north of 180? That is before we look at everything else.
No, I still contend that the more accurate way of working this out is looking at the average IQ of Physicists and working out his rarity among them in order to extrapolate his actual IQ, as I have outlined above. This does not require an additional correction as we already know the IQ of Physicists. You have to understand that nobel prize winners DO get lucky, or they may have been working on something that just so happened to be something no one else was or ever looked at even though the level of sophistication required is fairly minimal. A good example of this is Fleming who only accidentally discovered penicillin but went on to win a nobel prize and is now included in time magazines 100 most influential people of the 20th century. So clearly we need to put things in perspective. We cannot apply standardized performance to ability correlations that are probably yeilded from mass multi-discipline studies. We need something more specific to Physics. Given that we know the average IQ of Physicists clearly that is a far more accurate route to getting the answer we are looking for and we don’t even need to look at any of his other abilities(which your calculations seem to neglect).
Pardon my somewhat abrasive approach, I tend to get a little passionate about things I strongly feel I am right about.
”Pardon my somewhat abrasive approach, I tend to get a little passionate about things I strongly feel I am right about.”
Still….dont be like that. It will make what you write less enjoyable to read by others.
Was there something in particular you thought was too much? I’m sincerely asking. I mean I know that what I write sometimes could be percieved that way but that could be said about virtually anything anyone ever writes, there is bound to be someone to take offence to it. In any case I thought I would apologize in advance and point out that my comments were well intentioned and in the spirit of a constructive debate even though I may not have struck the right tone.
As a side note, I’m a strong believer in the objective truth and while I understand that in today’s world such an attitude might be considered old fashioned(what with the increasing propensity for society to accommodate all sorts of view points) I think there is no room for this in science. As such a direct approach is far more efficient and saves a lot of time rather than going round in circles with the politically correct dance. Of course I have a lot of respect for PP(I think he knows it), I’m here to learn and share information like everyone else.
In any case point taken. Thanks
Its not what you wrote i was talking about, its how you wrote it. Anyways never mind. I didnt mean to be a moderator.
No worries i think i understand what you mean. Point taken.
Bozonario ”government” want to come back with ”psychiatric asylum”, to isolate people with, for example, schizophrenia’s..
I thought mental disorders were… fake… some people here believe in it.
the asylum is not necessarily evil or inhumane. it’s a lot better than being homeless.
gays would enjoy an asylum if it was full of other hot gay guys.
Well, if the asylum have all required apparatus for such superior people…
But… would be great if the most problematic ISSUE of all time in humankind was completely controlled if not changed
HETEROSSEXUAL MALES [ GREATEST THREAT EVER]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
Dude, you’re crazy. What you just wrote was inane and disturbing to read. Why would anyone write the vile shit the both of you write sometimes?
Oh my god now theyre showing a tranny dating a guy. This is unbelievable. I never thought I’d see a dating show resort to this.
Why can’t dogs marry people? I am for sexual equality OF ALL SPECIES.
SPECIES isn’t a choice. Animals are just born like that.
If you have a problem with me dating my goldfish you better check your white privilege at the door!
Deal with it is the smartest commenter here.
Loaded is wise beyond his years.
at most 1 in a 1000 fat people are “genetically fat”.
that is, even if you starve them their bodies can’t use their fat due to some single mutant gene.
but personal trainer isn’t like dentist or surgeon or internist. smart people shouldn’t need them. smart people shouldn’t need lawyers either.
It’s genetic in the sense that some people might gain weight easier than others, in virtually every environment
there is no need for norm crossing.
the point is there is an ideal body composition or whatever such that diabetes and CVD and high blood pressure are non-existent…
and this is attainable by everyone.
it’s just that some need a more extreme environment than others.
capablanca died from “malignant hypertension” at age 53.
HBDers might claim this was “genetic” and connected to his unique genius.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
so you have sex with your “clients”?
this is sad.
“so you have sex with your “clients”?”
No. Never have and never will. I’m a professional.
My previous comment as directed at PP.
This blog is suddenly sooo green..
in fact wikipedia claims capi’s hypertension was genetic.
Not long before his death, his familial hypertension had shot up to the ultra-hazardous 200–240/160+. The day before his fatal stroke, his vascular specialist Dr A. Schwarzer strongly advised him that his life was endangered unless he totally relaxed, but Capablanca said that he couldn’t because his ex-wife and children had started court proceedings against him. The doctor blamed his death on “his troubles and aggravation”.[86]
Third world war is coming
thanks for
WHITE TRA$$H
Whitey don’t know its own history,
whitey don’t know how to understand themselves, MOST OF THEM, LIKE, 99%,
Whitey is extremely manipulable, and it’s always fighting one each other,
They hide its SHITTY ”story” with beautiful art works,
And this blog always show why whitey is being destroyed, first of all, by themselves,
JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE
DUMB
The worst dumb ever, they are NUTS, CRAZY, MAD, RETARDED…
You gays live in so much hate.
Sorrounded by hater people as you, a motherfucker retarded
^^ Another example of wanton hate caused by cognitive dissonance between what santo now identifies himself as and how his family and society would like to see him.
Just a boy who wish to be like their mother or father would be… a LOSER.
… only if its parents were wiser… but 99,99,99% of parents aren’t
I EVER identify myself as gay, don’t try to understand me before me.
would like to be…
so if you wake up every day and think, “God i love math…just wanna do more math…” then you can be a passable mathematician.
but no matter how smart you are math may simply be too boring for you.
you have no motivation…so you don’t do it.
interesting how alekhine died at the same age as capi, 53.
alekhine is interesting because he won, lost, and won again the world chess championship despite being an alcoholic.
the proper pronunciation of his name is “al-‘yA-keen” iirc. stress on the “yA”.
”despite being an alcoholic”
…
”the proper pronunciation of his name is “al-‘yA-keen” iirc. stress on the “yA”.”
O.K.
…
Excelent, as always!
I certainly appreciate your intellectual honesty, I know that Kaczynski’s and Einstein’s IQ estimations are unpopular, but we have to remember that IQ is a statistical instrument, thus, if those impressive or counter-intuitive results came out, we need to know how to interpret them, with an open mind
or rather atherosclerosis (the root cause of CVD, most kidney disease, stroke, etc.) and diabetes are almost 100% preventable diseases, so when one sees such and such a “heritability” this totally discredits the term.
even diabetes type i is almost 100% preventable.
sicily has the highest rate in the world.
rr is ashamed.
Nobody says adiposity and insulin levels are heritable. People say the liklihood of becoming that is. Its the same with blacks and muscularity. Everyone can be muscular. Just blacks don’t really need to go gym.
Same with the samoans and pacific islanders. They will always be big men. They can eat less food than a NE asian and still be bigger owing to island giganticism, a well known effect of environment on species on isolated islands.
Are bilingual people’s Verbal IQ technically underestimated?
I would think so.
^^^EXTREME AUTISM^^^
it’s funny how women like “fick” men too.
that is, there’s a balance between thin and scrawny.
muscle is sexy…when it’s natural.
I hope my dad becomes my mom and embraces one of many other genders.
Serial killers aren’t evil – they just faced too much institutional racism!
I just do the types of things that you would do without me.
Why bother changing it?
All non-HBDers want intelligence to be like some type of reward/point system for behavior in life.
Everyone wanna be like me. Dropped 10k on my Gucci bed sheets.
Aesthetics is best expressed by extravagance. Blacks do it best. Sorry, Pill.
I attribute all my successes and failures to genetics. I have absolutely no concept of time preference whatsoever. In this sense I am a retard. Aside from that, I may be genius.
I am addicted to instant gratification, if one catches my drift. High IQ people are the opposite. They are addicted to not having to make decisions based on instant gratification.
I am actually genetically predisposed to being overweight, being short, and having no delay of gratification. I am predisposed to being agreeable, open to experience, and another Big 5 trait I forgot about.
Pumpkinhead, I think right brain can be entirely autistic or schizophrenic, or a combination of the two. I think a combination of the two leads to psychopathy, extreme over-development of the right brain can lead to autism, and extreme undersizing of the brain, with higher neuronal connectivity, can lead to schizophrenia.
before RR and MeLo attack me for writing such a speculative piece, I have to admit to the fact that it is JUST speculation and nothing else. Everything I say is just speculation. I assume that anything anyone says is just speculation. That’s the idea behind everything, isn’t it?
You know that the best argument for the colonialism argument and the anti-HBD argument is that people are subconsciously wired to behave according to the conditions of their ancestors.
If I had a question I could ask anyone who’s observed me is whether or not I get more aggressive day by day.
Everyday feels like a struggle growing up in this world.
I’m preffering Loaded comments, a fresh new perspective instead analchronic two-ones/unz…
Daaaaaaaaamn! Thanks man!
Yeish!!
where’re all the emails from the macho man?
late onset huntington’s disease is interesting because its victims usually…
1. die from something else.
2. are not disabled by it.
so i think i’ve been misinformed or my brother is too retarded to ax the right questions.
or very unlikely is my aunt really does have huntington’s, but my dad and uncle did not.
they had none of the defining symptoms and would have been diagnosed full-on transition to black woman syndrome.
aka spinocerebellar ataxia…the actual symptoms.
most likely outcome of this family shit is my brother and i are tested and found to be negative for KNOWN issues.
so we’ll just WAIT.
i mean my dad was very physically and mentally active UNTIL…
If you knew whether you’re getting it or not, would it make any difference in how you lead your life?
race car driver?
maybe and maybe not.
there aren’t a lot of diseases like huntington’s. it’s THE paradigmatic case of the disease which does NOT affect darwinian “fitness” but is shit after you’re done reproducing.
i mean if i got a test showing a disease level repeat count, that would “sort of” put a ceiling on my age at death, but that age might be like only one year less.
the real answer is that all late adult onset genetic diseases are like huntington’s…
that is, “aging” is just late onset genetic diseases.
idk…
but huntington’s is rare, interesting, and a GENUINELY genetic issue.
I guess humans are better at finding problems than solutions.
Hahaha. I guess every part of life is trying to one up someone else by making them kill themselves. we’re all animals at the end of the day. kill or be killed.
Loaded, you dropped 10K on gucci bedsheets to make people kill themselves? That only works on jealous people. Non jealous people will actually feel happy for you. Or will be in awe of you.
Name has entered the Eighth Level of Hell. He is Dante’s INFERNO.
Everything in life is to make people catch mental viruses so they can die and reduce the chances of overpopulation. I remember you also mentioned something about overpopulation on this blog earlier so I was just tying that in.
Extravagance has the most appeal for anything, man. If you think something is really beautiful and embrace it powerfully, you can also hvae it.
”Everything in life is to make people catch mental viruses so they can die and reduce the chances of overpopulation. I remember you also mentioned something about overpopulation on this blog earlier so I was just tying that in.”
I dont believe so. I mentioned overpopulation but that doesnt mean people should be killed. People should do fam planning. Or not have kids or very less. I mentioned all this.
Plus i asked that as a question to you as a joke, I thought it was obvious. But i guess i should have put a smiley symbol along with it. I actually didnt think at that time you were trying to do that.
As for me entering hell, the only person who can give me hell is myself. And i have been unwittingly doing that to myself since i was 12.
No, I know you did, that’s why I’m grilling you about it. I don’t take kindly to any joking matter, especially coming from a Belgian-I assume you’re European of some sort. Hell is entertaining, so just stay entertained. That’s all the advice I can give you, buckaroo.
I am interested in finding out who you are in person, just curious.
”Extravagance has the most appeal for anything, man. If you think something is really beautiful and embrace it powerfully, you can also hvae it.”
I have it. I live in a pretty extravagant house myself. I can mail you the pictures if you want if you dont believe me.