PDA

View Full Version : Marilyn vos Savant



Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-29, 10:07 PM
Pardon, but is it just me, or do I detect hot air, bragging, and very little else? This woman seems fairly intelligent (though I certainly don't know about an IQ of 230), but she definitely needs to get her facts straight... (http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn.html)

(BTW, I believe the website attached to this board has some stuff about this individual... ;) )

ToSeek
2004-Jul-29, 11:23 PM
She's a columnist with a cool name. It's true she gets stuff wrong and never corrects herself, but that's probably true of a lot of writers - it's just her "high IQ" shtick that makes her a target.

Andrew
2004-Jul-29, 11:35 PM
that's probably true of a lot of writers - it's just her "high IQ" shtick that makes her a target.

That serves her right.

Brady Yoon
2004-Jul-30, 12:55 AM
Is her IQ really that high? A person on the opposite end of the spectrum would have an IQ of -30.

Normandy6644
2004-Jul-30, 02:39 AM
Is it just me, or is she the biggest underachiever in history? I mean, she's supposed to have to highest recorded IQ, but what does she do with it besides looking up random facts that people ask her about? Does she do anything else?

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 03:13 AM
Normandy6644:
Is it just me, or is she the biggest underachiever in history? I mean, she's supposed to have to highest recorded IQ, but what does she do with it besides looking up random facts that people ask her about? Does she do anything else?
She's written some books, and she partners with that Jarvik guy.

Wally
2004-Jul-30, 12:30 PM
So is it coincidence that her last name is "Savant", as in "idiot savant", or is that where the later phrase came from?

ToSeek
2004-Jul-30, 02:08 PM
So is it coincidence that her last name is "Savant", as in "idiot savant", or is that where the later phrase came from?

According to her, it's a coincidence.

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 02:25 PM
So is it coincidence that her last name is "Savant", as in "idiot savant", or is that where the later phrase came from?
"Savant" is a fine word all by itself. You can look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=savant). :)

Wally
2004-Jul-30, 02:45 PM
I already knew what the word meant. . . I was just curious if marlyn "adopted" the word as her name once she went public with her amazingly high IQ, or whether she came from a long line of really smart people with a surname of "savant", and it later became a word meaning what it does today.

She says coincidence though, huh. Hmmmm. And my last name just happens to be "Great lookin' middle aged successful single guy". Funny how that happens. . . :lol:

Bawheid
2004-Jul-30, 02:48 PM
I already knew what the word meant. . . I was just curious if marlyn "adopted" the word as her name once she went public with her amazingly high IQ, or whether she came from a long line of really smart people with a surname of "savant", and it later became a word meaning what it does today.

She says coincidence though, huh. Hmmmm. And my last name just happens to be "Great lookin' middle aged successful single guy". Funny how that happens. . . :lol:

I googled "vos Savant" for a while and guess what? No others. Obviously the rest of the family haven't achieved much.

Swift
2004-Jul-30, 03:34 PM
I don't like her column. See has an answer for everything, including philosophic questions for which high IQ should not give her any greater insight (meaning of life type stuff). Any truely "smart" person I've ever met (with or without a high IQ) knows what they know and admits what they don't. Just because I have a Ph.D. in chemistry doesn't make me an expert about everything. I think Gullible Jones may have it right.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-30, 04:19 PM
Well, I do have to say that IQ probably doesn't mean as much as some people think.

I'm pretty sure that "Marilyn vos Savant" (which I am betting is not her original name) is not as smart as she says, or at any rate does not know as much as she claims - she has answered a large number of questions of different kinds incorrectly, sometimes with glaring errors. (Take a look, for example, at the "speed of electricity" question... her answer is not only wrong, but impossible.) I am also willing to bet that she is not in the Guinness Book of World Records.

She could have an IQ of 500 for all I care; but a high IQ does not keep someone from being a fool and a braggart.

(BTW, Milli360, who do you mean by "that Jarvik guy" - surely not the fellow who invented the artificial heart? ;) And what about those books of hers?)

Normandy6644
2004-Jul-30, 04:53 PM
I don't like her column. See has an answer for everything, including philosophic questions for which high IQ should not give her any greater insight (meaning of life type stuff). Any truely "smart" person I've ever met (with or without a high IQ) knows what they know and admits what they don't. Just because I have a Ph.D. in chemistry doesn't make me an expert about everything. I think Gullible Jones may have it right.

I've always thought the same thing. It actually shows the true nature of her readers too, since they are the ones who ask the philosophical questions in the first place. Maybe she just feels the need to answer them. :lol:

Jonesy, most of her books seem to be "using your brain" and other logic exercises type books, though she appears to have written one on Fermat's Last Theorem and the attempts (and finally success) in solving it. But other than that I don't see much else.

Swift
2004-Jul-30, 04:56 PM
I've always thought the same thing. It actually shows the true nature of her readers too, since they are the ones who ask the philosophical questions in the first place. Maybe she just feels the need to answer them. :lol:
So does that mean her books are Smartness for Idiots? 8-[ :D

bobjohnston
2004-Jul-30, 05:23 PM
Awhile back I noticed a string of wrong answers from this self-proclaimed genius, and did some web browsing. One fella had been frustrated enough to make a web site correcting her mistakes, and ran afowl of her lawyers in the process. Supposedly, she claims to have the highest IQ ever recorded, but the test was changed right after she took it to disallow such scores. Other reports I've seen attribute some of the mistakes to her research staff.

I'm totally underwhelmed by her. I agree with the comments on her philosophical answers. Such answers may be a considered opinion, but they're still just opinions, and anyone who wasn't playing up their own alledged intelligence would identify them as such.

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 05:27 PM
Good grief. I'm downright embarrassed for this woman. :oops:

Professor Lockhart of Harry Potter fame comes to mind. :lol:

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 06:07 PM
Gullible Jones:
(BTW, Milli360, who do you mean by "that Jarvik guy" - surely not the fellow who invented the artificial heart? ;) And what about those books of hers?)
Sure enough, that's the guy. They were (are?) married.

Normandy6644:
Jonesy, most of her books seem to be "using your brain" and other logic exercises type books, though she appears to have written one on Fermat's Last Theorem and the attempts (and finally success) in solving it. But other than that I don't see much else.
She wrote one that was basically a compendium of essential knowledge--all the stuff you should have learned in high school sort of thing.

The Fermat book did more than that. It ripped the Wiles proof.

She had been emboldened by her success with the Car and Goats (the Monty Hall problem). She received tons of angry mail from mathematicians, and they were wrong and she was right. Of course, the problem was not hers originally, but the experience probably convinced her to trust her instincts.

The premise of the Fermat book, boiled down, was that if you couldn't use hyperbolas to solve the trisection of the angle problem, then Wiles should not be allowed to use hyperbolic functions to solve Fermat's Last Theorem.

bobjohnston:
Supposedly, she claims to have the highest IQ ever recorded, but the test was changed right after she took it to disallow such scores.
It was an entry in an edition or two of the Guiness Book of World Records, I believe. That's what she parlayed into that column gig.

Brady Yoon
2004-Jul-30, 06:09 PM
There is something in the back of my mind that says her last name was originally Mach. I think I read that in a book or something...

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 06:11 PM
There is something in the back of my mind that says her last name was originally Mach. I think I read that in a book or something...

She changed her name to her mother's maiden name, so Mach probably was her original last name.

SeanF
2004-Jul-30, 06:33 PM
She had been emboldened by her success with the Car and Goats (the Monty Hall problem). She received tons of angry mail from mathematicians, and they were wrong and she was right. Of course, the problem was not hers originally, but the experience probably convinced her to trust her instincts.
You don't happen to have a link to her original column with the Car and Goats, do you? I'd like to see how she worded it . . .

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 06:41 PM
SeanF:
You don't happen to have a link to her original column with the Car and Goats, do you? I'd like to see how she worded it . . .
No, as someone else mentioned, they've policed the web, to make sure. The problem was quoted in a followup article in the American Math Monthly, and the author discussed the subtleties of the problem and possible ambiguities--but admitted that for reasonable assumptions, vos Savant had been right and the legions of mathematicians wrong. Not all mathematicians thought she got it wrong, of course, but some were adamant--they even wrote back after it had been explained.

A year or two before, Games magazine had featured it on one of their puzzle pages, and they had received a similar flood of protests, although not quite as great I think. However, it was their last issue for a few months as they went through reorganization, and they couldn't capitalize on the publicity.

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 06:49 PM
She had been emboldened by her success with the Car and Goats (the Monty Hall problem). She received tons of angry mail from mathematicians, and they were wrong and she was right. Of course, the problem was not hers originally, but the experience probably convinced her to trust her instincts.
You don't happen to have a link to her original column with the Car and Goats, do you? I'd like to see how she worded it . . .

Here is a copy of her original column. It looks legit to me:

December 2, 1990 (http://www.bus.utk.edu/stat/spss1/Ask%20Marilyn%20Monte%20Hall.pdf)

Maksutov
2004-Jul-30, 06:53 PM
TTBOMK, this one wasn't caught by the "Marilyn is Wrong" site. It's quoted by the "Stop Cassini" website (somehow that seems appropriate). The question had to do with orbiting space debris. Part of her reply was


Even a small chunk of rubble traveling at that speed -- 25,000 miles an hour -- can have the impact of a hand grenade.

Sorry, Marilyn, but space debris traveling at 25,000 MPH wouldn't be in Earth orbit for very long.

You can see the entire quote (unless the "Stop Cassini" website was sued by Marilyn's lawyers while I typed this) here (http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/nltrs/nltr0052.htm).

She strikes me as a smarter, better educated version of Clifford C 'Cliff' Clavin Jr. of Cheers, the bar's resident know-it-all. In fact I need to do a search sometime to see how many times she's used the phrase "It's a little-known fact..." :D

[edit/add word]

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 06:58 PM
Here is a copy of her original column. It looks legit to me:

December 2, 1990 (http://www.bus.utk.edu/stat/spss1/Ask%20Marilyn%20Monte%20Hall.pdf)
That's not the original column--that column carried some of the responses to the original column. But it looks like it contains a copy of the original wording of the problem:


Suppose you're on a game show and given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others are goats. You pick Door No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind them, opens No. 3, which has a goat. He then asks if you want to pick No. 2. Should you switch?

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 07:14 PM
Milli is right of course. The original column was September 9, 1990, if anyone wants to go to the trouble of going to the library and checking the archives. :)

SeanF
2004-Jul-30, 07:14 PM
Here is a copy of her original column. It looks legit to me:

December 2, 1990 (http://www.bus.utk.edu/stat/spss1/Ask%20Marilyn%20Monte%20Hall.pdf)
That's not the original column--that column carried some of the responses to the original column. But it looks like it contains a copy of the original wording of the problem:


Suppose you're on a game show and given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others are goats. You pick Door No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind them, opens No. 3, which has a goat. He then asks if you want to pick No. 2. Should you switch?

Thanks, guys.

So, the question is . . . is the simple clause ". . . who knows what's behind them . . ." unambiguous enough? In her response, in SciFi's Link, where she talks about the pea under the shell, she specifically says, "As I can (and will) do this regardless of what you've chosen . . ." which is unambiguous.

The pertinent factor is that the host does not randomly choose a door to open, but intentionally chooses a door with a goat behind it.

If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 07:19 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .

Why?

SeanF
2004-Jul-30, 07:39 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .
Why?
Well, let me ask you this:

Two contestants. First contestant chooses Door 1. Second contestant chooses Door 2. Host opens Door 3, revealing a goat.

Which contestant is better off changing?

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 07:40 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .

Why?
Changes the probabilities. Because you have to account for the times when he opened the door with the car, and just said nyah, nyah.

Regarding this problem, Monty Hall has hinted that he sometimes was malicious. But the mathematicians objections don't seem to be based on that.

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 07:43 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .
Why?
Well, let me ask you this:

Two contestants. First contestant chooses Door 1. Second contestant chooses Door 2. Host opens Door 3, revealing a goat.

Which contestant is better off changing?

How can either contestant change?

SeanF
2004-Jul-30, 07:46 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .
Why?
Well, let me ask you this:

Two contestants. First contestant chooses Door 1. Second contestant chooses Door 2. Host opens Door 3, revealing a goat.

Which contestant is better off changing?
How can either contestant change?
Nobody said they can't choose the same door. :)

But that's not the point. The original puzzle stipulates that a contestant's unchosen door is twice as likely to have the car. Is that Door 1 or Door 2?

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 07:47 PM
They could change with each other. SeanF's point is that neither is going to improve their probability by changing--if the second door is chosen randomly. Or the third. If the third door is chosen randomly (by the host), then sometimes it will be the car, and you have to account for that.

It can get worse. What if the host only shows you a goat if you've chosen the car on the first pick? And doesn't allow you the option of switching if you choose a goat. Then you'd never want to switch...

Betenoire
2004-Jul-30, 07:50 PM
From what I've heard the claim of a 230 IQ is patently false, because Stanford-Binet doesn't go past 200. Anybody know about this?

And, yeah, she's pointless. A strange appeal to false authority coming from a nation that fears intelligence.

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-30, 07:50 PM
Argh! This is why I'm an English major, rather than a math one. I can probably figure this out if I concentrate really, really hard, but I'm at work, and now my head hurts. :lol:

I guess it's a good thing I stopped with precalculus. I have to take one more math class though. Is statistics where I run into this, because I seriously want to run in the other direction. :o

milli360
2004-Jul-30, 07:54 PM
Betenoire:
From what I've heard the claim of a 230 IQ is patently false, because Stanford-Binet doesn't go past 200. Anybody know about this?
It was a different test. Someone mentioned that she's still at the Guiness Hall of Fame.

SeanF
2004-Jul-30, 07:58 PM
Argh! This is why I'm an English major, rather than a math one. I can probably figure this out if I concentrate really, really hard, but I'm at work, and now my head hurts. :lol:

I guess it's a good thing I stopped with precalculus. I have to take one more math class though. Is statistics where I run into this, because I seriously want to run in the other direction. :o
Ah, it's not so bad. But then, I minored in math while I was in college, so . . . :)

Yeah, this kind of stuff will probably come up in statistics.

daver
2004-Jul-30, 10:28 PM
Yeah, this kind of stuff will probably come up in statistics.
I'd heard (but haven't verified) that statistics for non-majors tends to be a cookbook approach. This isn't necessarily bad, but it's hard to figure out which recipe to use if you don't understand why and when the recipes are valid.

Maksutov
2004-Jul-30, 11:21 PM
Argh! This is why I'm an English major, rather than a math one. I can probably figure this out if I concentrate really, really hard, but I'm at work, and now my head hurts. :lol:

I guess it's a good thing I stopped with precalculus. I have to take one more math class though. Is statistics where I run into this, because I seriously want to run in the other direction. :o

It's covered in classes on probability and statistics. You get to know such things as combinations, permutations, and our old friend, the factorial. 8)

Normandy6644
2004-Jul-31, 02:36 AM
Argh! This is why I'm an English major, rather than a math one. I can probably figure this out if I concentrate really, really hard, but I'm at work, and now my head hurts. :lol:

I guess it's a good thing I stopped with precalculus. I have to take one more math class though. Is statistics where I run into this, because I seriously want to run in the other direction. :o

It's covered in classes on probability and statistics. You get to know such things as combinations, permutations, and our old friend, the factorial. 8)

I love factorials!!!!!

:wink:

pteranodon
2004-Jul-31, 05:16 PM
I think IQ tests are highly controverisal and seem to work with specific types of intelligence.

I recall I scored 98 :oops: then I solved a Rubik cube in less than 2 minutes before the doctor and I asked him how that was possible (I got an evasive answer). :lol:

pteranodon
2004-Jul-31, 05:22 PM
From what I've heard the claim of a 230 IQ is patently false, because Stanford-Binet doesn't go past 200. Anybody know about this?

And, yeah, she's pointless. A strange appeal to false authority coming from a nation that fears intelligence.

That was her child IQ (meaning a 10-year-old girl thinking like a 23-year-old adult). Then her adult IQ was determined to be about 180, the same as Stephen Hawking if my memory serves well.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-31, 05:22 PM
98? You seem a hell of a lot smarter than that, Pteranodon. Maybe the IQ test was somehow botched? I dunno...

About "Mrs. Savant", she does seem to be smarter than your average person, but I seriously doubt that she has such a massive IQ. Being a very smart, even being what people might call "a wiz", is different from being a genius like Ramanujan or Turing.

BTW, isn't "savant" the wrong word? I thought being a savant entailed having a sort of very specialized genius in one particular area...

pteranodon
2004-Jul-31, 05:37 PM
98? You seem a hell of a lot smarter than that, Pteranodon. Maybe the IQ test was somehow botched? I dunno...

I do not know why I scored so low, I think I have at least a normal intelligence. Perhaps I should take a second test, but I fear to score even lower :lol:. I prefer to trust my performance in the exams at college, which fortunately is good.


About "Mrs. Savant", she does seem to be smarter than your average person, but I seriously doubt that she has such a massive IQ. Being a very smart, even being what people might call "a wiz", is different from being a genius like Ramanujan or Turing.

BTW, isn't "savant" the wrong word? I thought being a savant entailed having a sort of very specialized genius in one particular area...

Intelligence comes in many forms, the test can not be well suited for all of them.

SciFi Chick
2004-Jul-31, 05:45 PM
Argh! This is why I'm an English major, rather than a math one. I can probably figure this out if I concentrate really, really hard, but I'm at work, and now my head hurts. :lol:

I guess it's a good thing I stopped with precalculus. I have to take one more math class though. Is statistics where I run into this, because I seriously want to run in the other direction. :o

It's covered in classes on probability and statistics. You get to know such things as combinations, permutations, and our old friend, the factorial. 8)

I love factorials!!!!!

:wink:

Me too. There are certain types of math I adore. I'm also fond of matrices. :D

Normandy6644
2004-Jul-31, 06:22 PM
About "Mrs. Savant", she does seem to be smarter than your average person, but I seriously doubt that she has such a massive IQ. Being a very smart, even being what people might call "a wiz", is different from being a genius like Ramanujan or Turing.


She seems really good at pattern recognition and things like that, which is what you would expect. As we've said though, that doesn't mean her answers concerning life or philosophy are any better than a real scholar or something.

Anyone know what her educational background is?

jrkeller
2004-Jul-31, 06:35 PM
I have a friend in Mensa (the high IQ group). Her comment about her Mensa membership was that she's good at multiple choices tests.

About twenty years ago, IIRC I took about 8 IQ tests in a row which all had the same format. After each test, it was corrected and I was told why I got it wrong. Over the course of a few hours, my IQ rose almost 30 points. In other words, I learned the format and tricks of the test.

BTW, the Marilyn Overwhelmed by Water problem (http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/water.html) is one of the basic fluid mechanics problems given to undergraduate engineering students. So by inference, all engineers have IQs greater than 230 :D :P

The definition of savant (Merriam-Webster's) is "one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field"

milli360
2004-Jul-31, 06:59 PM
Gullible Jones:
BTW, isn't "savant" the wrong word? I thought being a savant entailed having a sort of very specialized genius in one particular area...
Not necessarily. The general meaning of the word (dictionary.com) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=savant) is "A learned person; a scholar."

pteranodon:
I do not know why I scored so low, I think I have at least a normal intelligence.
100 is normal intelligence, though.

jrkeller:
BTW, the Marilyn Overwhelmed by Water problem (http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/water.html) is one of the basic fluid mechanics problems given to undergraduate engineering students. So by inference, all engineers have IQs greater than 230

Is that an example of engineering inference? :)


The definition of savant (Merriam-Webster's) is "one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field"
I was surprised by that, in light of the dictionary.com definition, so I looked it up at merriam-webster online (www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=savant&x=20&y=11)) and you seem to have left off the entire first part of the definition: "a person of learning; especially : one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field (as of science or literature)". So, it doesn't have to be specialized knowledge. Idiot savants are folk who seem to be deficient in general intelligence, but excel tremendously at special skills such as mental computing or even puzzles.

jrkeller
2004-Jul-31, 10:06 PM
The definition of savant (Merriam-Webster's) is "one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field"
I was surprised by that, in light of the dictionary.com definition, so I looked it up at merriam-webster online (www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=savant&x=20&y=11)) and you seem to have left off the entire first part of the definition: "a person of learning; especially : one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field (as of science or literature)". So, it doesn't have to be specialized knowledge. Idiot savants are folk who seem to be deficient in general intelligence, but excel tremendously at special skills such as mental computing or even puzzles.

You are correct in stating that I left it off. I did that, since a previous post mentioned that he or she thought that's what the definition of the word was.

For idiot savant

1 : a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (as mathematics or music) -- called also savant

2 : a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else

milli360
2004-Jul-31, 10:24 PM
jrkeller:
For idiot savant

1 : a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (as mathematics or music) -- called also savant

2 : a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else
See, savant is often distinguished from idiot savant--although I have heard some people use it in that sense ignorantly or maybe as a shorthand.

Brady Yoon
2004-Jul-31, 11:18 PM
What was Einstein's IQ?

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-31, 11:58 PM
Probably very high.

Remember, though, that genius and high IQ are different things...

pteranodon
2004-Aug-01, 12:52 AM
98? You seem a hell of a lot smarter than that, Pteranodon. Maybe the IQ test was somehow botched? I dunno...

I forgot to thank you! :oops:

Gullible Jones
2004-Aug-01, 02:21 AM
No thanks necessary; I was merely stating the facts.

You're welcome.

DyslexicGenius
2004-Nov-01, 05:32 AM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.

01101001
2004-Nov-01, 06:20 AM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive.
Welcome, DG.

I was just thinking about her today, because... it's Sunday, and I'm reading BABB. She had a comment that pertains to some discussions on this board.

A reader asked how you can change the mind of a conpiracy-theory believer. Marilyn said she never had and didn't know how. I think she said she doesn't even try now, and she speculated that just maybe the conspiracy mindset is so resistant to change that it might actually be a mental disorder.

I don't know. I suspect she probably hasn't studied it much, and was just offering up an entertaining statement. That's her job. I wonder what the mind-experts think about it.

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 07:25 AM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.


Welcome

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 07:55 AM
I think IQ tests are highly controverisal and seem to work with specific types of intelligence.

I recall I scored 98 :oops: then I solved a Rubik cube in less than 2 minutes before the doctor and I asked him how that was possible (I got an evasive answer). :lol:


I got 120 for my IQ and 126 for my EQ (has any one done one of those) I was told that I had one of the most unusal ansers to the qusetions

We've found that your particular combination of ansers is rare — only 1 in 10,000 people
, is that a good thing or a bad thing :-?

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 12:13 PM
I think IQ tests are highly controverisal and seem to work with specific types of intelligence.

I recall I scored 98 :oops: then I solved a Rubik cube in less than 2 minutes before the doctor and I asked him how that was possible (I got an evasive answer). :lol:


I got 120 for my IQ and 126 for my EQ (has any one done one of those) I was told that I had one of the most unusal ansers to the qusetions

We've found that your particular combination of ansers is rare — only 1 in 10,000 people
, is that a good thing or a bad thing :-?

What? I thought that you had to have a IQ of 140 to be on this board.

Well, enough slumming for me. I am off to the Giraldo board now.

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 12:15 PM
Hmphh i'm only a kid (my exuse for everything)

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 12:22 PM
What! You are only a kid? I thought this board was for adults. That is it! I am off to the Giraldo board.

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 12:24 PM
did't u know? my coverers blown 8-[

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 12:29 PM
How the heck was I to know? All you New Zealander's look the same!

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 12:30 PM
I'm an Australian :x

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 12:39 PM
I'm an Australian :x

Well, at least you spelt that right.

mickal555. Do yourself a favour. Learn how to spell. Or, learn how to use a dictionary.

I am not trying to be a bad guy, I mean it. Learn how to be articulate. I will guarantee that people will take you way more seriously.

By the way. The earlier taunts, and that I was going to the Giraldo Board.

In North America there is a fool called Giraldo, and I said what I said as a joke. :D

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 01:00 PM
Sorry,
I'll try to fix up my mistakes before I post I used to warn people about my poor grammer and spelling but I put it in my sig. and I thought that'll be the end of it. Unless i'm writing somthing important I generally post how I would in an instant messenger, the way I would talk. I'm am truly very sorry.

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 01:09 PM
Sorry,
I'll try to fix up my mistakes before I post I used to warn people about my poor grammer and spelling but I put it in my sig. and I thought that'll be the end of it. Unless i'm writing somthing important I generally post how I would in an instant messenger, the way I would talk. I'm am truly very sorry.

This is much better.

You say that you only do the good stuff for "IMPORTANT" stuff. This site is important. This site is quoted by large media groups.

Honestly. Everyone on this board appreciates your input mickal555. I hope you will appreciate ours.

Apology excepted. I see a smart person in you. Keep up the good posts bud! :D

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-01, 02:04 PM
FYI - It's Geraldo.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-01, 02:05 PM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.


Welcome to the board.

The job of President requires more than a high IQ. There are certain things like life experience and personality that are really important. Having a high IQ is merely an indicator of knowledge not wisdom.

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 02:05 PM
So much for the lecture on spelling.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-01, 02:06 PM
So much for the lecture on spelling.

:lol:

Moose
2004-Nov-01, 02:20 PM
So much for the lecture on spelling.

On the snopes message board, this is actually formalized as "Todd's Law", which is approximately stated as: "Any post correcting the spelling of another will itself have a spelling error."

(Case in point, I'd originally typoed "smelling error".)

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-01, 02:30 PM
So much for the lecture on spelling.

On the snopes message board, this is actually formalized as "Todd's Law", which is approximately stated as: "Any post correcting the spelling of another will itself have a spelling error."

(Case in point, I'd originally typoed "smelling error".)

That is why my post was short and to the point. Less room for error. :D

Ilya
2004-Nov-01, 08:39 PM
If the wording leaves it open to interpretation whether the host's opening of Door No. 3 was intentional or random, then it's also open to interpretation whether it makes any difference if you switch . . .
Why?
Well, let me ask you this:

Two contestants. First contestant chooses Door 1. Second contestant chooses Door 2. Host opens Door 3, revealing a goat.

Which contestant is better off changing?

With two contestants the situation is different - because if both happened to choose goat doors, the host will not be able to reveal a goat behind remaining door. The Monty Hall problem depends on the host always being able to demonstrate a goat door.

If you have FOUR doors and TWO contestants, they pick a door each, host shows a goat behind one of two remaining doors, then each of them is (equally) better off switching to the last unpicked door.

Part of the reason the problem is so counterintuitive is because most people think of probability as some objective quality of a given situation, whereas in reality it is simply a measure of our ignorance. A toss of a coin is 100% predictable if you know all the vectors involved, air density and air eddies. If you know only some of that information, you might correctly predict coin tosses say, 65% of time. In Monty Hall problem, you start out with zero information (33% chance of correct prediction), then host provides you with additional, but incomplete, information, thus changing the probability.

mickal555
2004-Nov-01, 10:02 PM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.


Welcome to the board.

The job of President requires more than a high IQ. There are certain things like life experience and personality that are really important. Having a high IQ is merely an indicator of knowledge not wisdom.

I thought That IQ was an indicator of logic not necisserly how much you actully know.

Makgraf
2004-Nov-01, 10:36 PM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.

Probably the President with the highest IQ of the last century was Nixon. :o
And we all know how well that turned out.

Harvestar
2004-Nov-01, 11:00 PM
Well, you can say she isn't a achiever but the facts show she is much smarter then average, if not the smartest person alive. we could all debate about this, speaking of debate why dont the people with the highest IQ's run for president? Prehaps they see it isnt worth it? Have a look around observe but dont try to destroy.

Probably the President with the highest IQ of the last century was Nixon. :o
And we all know how well that turned out.

People don't want a "smarty-pants" for President. They think that because someone is using logical arguments and/or big words, they are boring, snobbish, and not in touch with the common person.

I don't get it, but that seems to be the trend. :(

People elect someone they "want to have a beer with" not the smartest person.

Donnie B.
2004-Nov-02, 05:26 PM
People elect someone they "want to have a beer with" not the smartest person.
If this is literally true it's a very bad sign for democracy. There are plenty of people I'd enjoy tipping back a brew with, but would never want them anywhere near the Big Red Button.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are other important qualifactions to consider beyond pure brainpower. Silly example, but do you remember the episode of Trek (the original) in which Spock commands a landing party and gets them into deep trouble by always making the correct, logical decision? The same problem could apply to the Presidency, I think.

Gerrsun
2004-Nov-02, 05:55 PM
"If this is literally true it's a very bad sign for democracy. There are plenty of people I'd enjoy tipping back a brew with, but would never want them anywhere near the Big Red Button."

Not the right analogy....

Do you want the person who would tip a brew back with you or the one who sniffs a vintage wine and swishes before drinking? :D

die Nullte
2004-Nov-02, 05:58 PM
Probably the President with the highest IQ of the last century was Nixon. :o
And we all know how well that turned out.

Really!? I would have thought maybe Herbert Hoover. I'm not kidding -- wasn't he educated as an engineer? Incidentally, in reply to a previous question -- no, IQ tests are not merely logic. I've taken two in my life (one was when I was in the Army), and IIRC they included logic things (e.g. "Which shape doesn't fit?") and items of general knowledge like word definitions and trivia questions. A flaw I perceived in the tests (and I got very high scores both times, so I'm not dissing them because I flunked) is that they were very culture-dependent. The tests rather assumed a native-English-speaking, Northern-European-ancestry, U.S.-born background.

papageno
2004-Nov-02, 06:33 PM
Probably the President with the highest IQ of the last century was Nixon. :o
And we all know how well that turned out.

Really!? I would have thought maybe Herbert Hoover. I'm not kidding -- wasn't he educated as an engineer? Incidentally, in reply to a previous question -- no, IQ tests are not merely logic. I've taken two in my life (one was when I was in the Army), and IIRC they included logic things (e.g. "Which shape doesn't fit?") and items of general knowledge like word definitions and trivia questions. A flaw I perceived in the tests (and I got very high scores both times, so I'm not dissing them because I flunked) is that they were very culture-dependent. The tests rather assumed a native-English-speaking, Northern-European-ancestry, U.S.-born background.

Sounds like the "intelligence test" Heston's character underwent in the first Planet of the Apes movie.

mickal555
2004-Nov-02, 09:31 PM
[b]
is that they were very culture-dependent. The tests rather assumed a native-English-speaking, Northern-European-ancestry, U.S.-born background.

They probably give you different tests depending on your background when I took mine it was Aussie based.

Brady Yoon
2004-Nov-03, 05:30 AM
I heard Marilyn vos Savant's adult IQ is "only" 180. Bobby Fischer at 187 seems to beat that.


http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list.html

toolazytotypemyname
2004-Nov-11, 02:30 AM
180, 230 whatever.

If she was really so smart shouldn't she be doing something more useful than answering questions in Parade magazine?

Normandy6644
2004-Nov-11, 04:06 AM
180, 230 whatever.

If she was really so smart shouldn't she be doing something more useful than answering questions in Parade magazine?

That's always been my thought....

01101001
2004-Nov-11, 06:05 AM
180, 230 whatever.

If she was really so smart shouldn't she be doing something more useful than answering questions in Parade magazine?
That's always been my thought....
Yeah! Why isn't she, oh, say, like a Chief Financial Officer of some well-known company or something, say, like Jarvik Heart Inc. maker of the Jarvik heart-assist devices?

Jarvik Heart, Inc. (http://www.jarvikheart.com/basic.asp?section=About+Us)


Marilyn vos Savant, columnist for Parade magazine, is Chief Financial Officer.

ToSeek
2004-Nov-11, 01:23 PM
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are other important qualifactions to consider beyond pure brainpower. Silly example, but do you remember the episode of Trek (the original) in which Spock commands a landing party and gets them into deep trouble by always making the correct, logical decision? The same problem could apply to the Presidency, I think.

That episode annoys me somewhat. I think Spock has problems because he can't empathize with the natives of the planet, not because of overly logical decisions.

pghnative
2004-Nov-11, 02:11 PM
180, 230 whatever.

If she was really so smart shouldn't she be doing something more useful than answering questions in Parade magazine?
Yeah! Why isn't she, oh, say, like a Chief Financial Officer of some well-known company or something, say, like Jarvik Heart Inc. maker of the Jarvik heart-assist devices?

Jarvik Heart, Inc. (http://www.jarvikheart.com/basic.asp?section=About+Us)


Marilyn vos Savant, columnist for Parade magazine, is Chief Financial Officer.That may not be a great example of achievement. Isn't she married to Dr. Jarvik? She may have major tasks to perform or she may be a figurehead.

As a side note, earlier in this thread it was mentioned that she uses her mother's maiden name. This is interesting, since in one of her columns (I confess, I'm a Marilyn fan) she recommended this technique as an option to society's typical style of passing the father's surname onto all children. That is, the father's surname would pass to sons, and the mother's to daughters. So she may have taken her mother's maiden name as a philosophical choice, and not because it sounded neat.

toolazytotypemyname
2004-Nov-12, 12:08 AM
since her mother's name came from her grandfatther, I don't get it.

and I've met several CFOs. I don't see where that requires an IQ of 200+. besides its a blatant case of nepotism

why not use all that brain power to cure cancer or develop clean burning fuels or an operating system that doesn't crash all the time. Or a million other things that I'm not smart enough (or am I just too lazy?) to think of right now.

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-12, 02:40 AM
Because that would take about 20 times more brainpower.

(My thoughts: vos Savant is probably a very intelligent person, with an IQ of at least 140. 180 doesn't sound right though... People in that range have a tendency to be much bigger achievers than vos Savant would appear to be.)

01101001
2004-Nov-12, 06:12 AM
and I've met several CFOs. I don't see where that requires an IQ of 200+. besides its a blatant case of nepotism.
So, now the question isn't why she doesn't do something more useful than her column, it's:


why not use all that brain power to cure cancer or develop clean burning fuels or an operating system that doesn't crash all the time. Or a million other things that I'm not smart enough (or am I just too lazy?) to think of right now.
Gee, just perhaps, she's happy doing what she is doing. She has no obligation to solve these problems, and, I doubt, no matter the degree of her intelligence, that she alone has any more ability to solve these problems than some small teams of bright people.

Just look at the members here. Overall it's quite a smart bunch of people. I wouldn't dare ask why they aren't busy curing cancer rather than BABBling.

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-12, 10:47 AM
Just look at the members here. Overall it's quite a smart bunch of people. I wouldn't dare ask why they aren't busy curing cancer rather than BABBling.
statistics show that BABB members have contributed more to curing cancer than the statistical average would expect :)

Argos
2004-Nov-12, 01:21 PM
From what I've heard the claim of a 230 IQ is patently false, because Stanford-Binet doesn't go past 200. Anybody know about this?

The S-B scale is not supposed to work for adults. It was originally intended to measure the off-set between the expected degree of development and the effectively observed development, for children. It´s a way to determine the mental age. An IQ of 100 (for children) means that there´s no deviation, and the expected mental age matches the observation. It makes no sense saying that an adult at 40 has a mental age of 100 years.

Edited for grammar

pghnative
2004-Nov-12, 01:38 PM
since her mother's name came from her grandfatther, I don't get it.What don't you get? Should she have used her grandmother's maiden name instead? But wait, that came from her great grandfather.

Now obviously this is a chicken-and-egg situation. Did she like her mother's maiden name and then develop this mother-daughter naming philosophy to justify her choice? Or did she develop the philosophy and then decide that she should take her mother's name to make a point, even if that name had been Schwartzfigglemeister. We'll never know.

(the above is not meant to insult any BABBlers named Schwartzfigglemeister)

Bawheid
2004-Nov-12, 04:58 PM
Speaking as a Schwartzfigglemeister........ :D

Some societies have similar systems to MvS's suggestion. In Spain you take both your parents' surnames; in Iceland you take a name based on the name of the parent of the same gender, eg A boy born to a man called Johan would have the surname Johanson, a girl born to a woman called Ingrid would have the surname Ingridsdottir. Inelegantly explained but you get the idea. In Scotland, traditionally women did not take the surname of their husband but retained their maiden name, Mrs Bawheid remains Miss Heid-the-baw despite many years of marriage. (For simplicity I will continue to refer to her as Mrs B).

Makgraf
2004-Nov-16, 01:04 AM
Probably the President with the highest IQ of the last century was Nixon. :o
And we all know how well that turned out.

Really!? I would have thought maybe Herbert Hoover. I'm not kidding -- wasn't he educated as an engineer? Incidentally, in reply to a previous question -- no, IQ tests are not merely logic. I've taken two in my life (one was when I was in the Army), and IIRC they included logic things (e.g. "Which shape doesn't fit?") and items of general knowledge like word definitions and trivia questions. A flaw I perceived in the tests (and I got very high scores both times, so I'm not dissing them because I flunked) is that they were very culture-dependent. The tests rather assumed a native-English-speaking, Northern-European-ancestry, U.S.-born background.
It very well could've been Hoover (or even Clinton!). Of course of those three men: one was impeached, one resigned before being impeached and the other presided over the greatest economic depression in US History. Intelligence does not correlate with virtue after all. Often intelligent people feel they can get away with things that neurotypicals cannot. Clinton's a good example of this. Or intelligence can bread the kind of paranoia that sunk Nixon's presidency. It's also interesting that engineers were overrepresented in (I believe) soviet revolutionaries and members of al-qaeda (Not to suggest that the many fine engineers on this board are terrorists or communists :))

As Irving Kristol said about engineers and politics:

Scientists and engineers, on the other hand, have the inclination to think that the world is full of "problems" to which they should seek "solutions." But the world isn't full of problems; the world is full of other people. That's not a problem, that's a condition. Politics exist precisely because the world is full of other people. These other people have ideas, different ways of life, different preferences, and in the end, there is no "solution" to the existence of other people. All you can do is figure out a civilized accommodation with them.

A Thousand Pardons
2004-Nov-16, 01:59 AM
As Irving Kristol said about engineers and politics:

All you can do is figure out a civilized accommodation with them.
only an engineer-phobe would say that wasn't a "solution" :)

why is it always the "two cultures (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/heraldsn.htm)"? what's with that?