I would define the smartest person in the world as the one who can make the biggest positive impact on humanity. That person hasn't been identified here, it will take perhaps another hundred years for the world to truly understand his enormous accomplishments that are presently being realized. That's usually the way it is anyway, those who see so far beyond the rest of the world are too often not understood as even genius. It will take time.
Why is Einstein ahead of Newton? Ok he corrected his theory but he was born more than 200 years later. I think Newton was smarter. Newton not only made his physical theory's but was one of the fathers of calculus too. He was actualy a mathematician and a physicist at the same time. And what about the old school, ppl like Archimedes and Plato? Or some very smart Egyptian or Chinese? It is impossible to determine who is smartest of all those great thinkers....
@dekippiesip : Einstein learned calculus at the age of twelve. The mathematical core of the photoeletric effect, alone, is more complex than calculus, newtonian laws and the laws of optics altogheter. Newton was more influential, because he propulsionated the scientific revolution, but in absolute terms, einstein far outweighted him.
@Maurbel Goethe wasn’t Muslim, but he did study the Islamic religion, as well as nearly every other subject of knowledge. In the end, however, at the age of 81 he commented in retrospect: “I have found no confession of faith to which I could ally myself without reservation”. Goethe’s religion was a mixture of nature and knowledge; as he said so himself:
if Goethe's work that showed how human relationships are similar to chemical reactions was so great to earn him the #1 spot (and I'm not saying it wasn't a work of pure genius), how come I have never heard of this, when I have heard of the other geniuses contributions. How did you even prove it was accurate? How do you measure numerically human qualities such as attraction? What is the signifigance of the work?
@Jshect You seem to be a smart guy, asking intelligent questions. Firstly, to correct you a bit: Goethe was already ranked #1 by Cox (1926) and #2 by Buzan (1994), not based on his Elective Affinities, but by his overall genius. Neither Cox nor Buzan had any kind of physical chemistry / chemical thermodynamics background to understand what was in that work.
@Jshect Re: “how come I have never heard of this”, I often ask myself the same question? It took me 11 years to find Goethe (I had never heard of him before 2006), starting from a 1995 chemical engineering thermodynamics student mental question about how does one go about applying the spontaneity criterion to human relations. The problem has to do with the fragmenting of knowledge (e.g. C.P. Snows’ two cultures): the humanities don’t mix with the hard sciences.
@Jshect Re: “how did you prove it was accurate?”, Helmholtz proved (1882) that free energy is the measure of “affinity” (the force of reaction between molecules); Lewis proved that Gibbs free energy is the type of energy that governs the spontaneity of reactions that occur on the surface of the earth; Sterner and Elser proved (2002) that humans are “single abstract molecules” that "interact with each other (on the surface of the earth) in the form of complex chemical reactions".
@Jshect Re: “how do you measure numerical quantities such as attraction”, that’s a large subject, to say the least. Leon Winiarski, who taught a course on this at the University of Geneva (1894-1900), was the first to outline this thermodynamically. Google “human thermodynamic instruments” to learn more (as to instruments). Re: “what is the significance”, this is the stuff they will be teaching children in the year 3,000.
@Jshect Re2: “how come I have never heard of this”, another reason (complexity aside), is that the bottom line of Goethe’s theory is that morality is based not on the Bible, as told by God, but on physical chemistry, as told by the Clausius inequality. Most of the modern world is God-based (to remind us all) and there is great resistance to these types of Bible-overthrowing theories (evolution as a case in point). Google “Rossini debate” to see this resistance on the front lines.
@Jshect Re3: “how come I have never heard of this”, the third dominate reason (religion and two cultures aside) is complexity: you have to be a relative expert in chemical thermodynamics to understand (in equation detail) what Goethe is saying in Elective Affinities. The last real expert in chemical thermodynamics (the hardest of all sciences) was Gilbert Lewis, and no one as of yet has come forward to fill his shoes, let alone taken a digression into applications in the humanities.
i dont think we can ever know who were the smartest people that ever lived, we can create a list of the ones who have had more achievements and impact on the world we live in, but does that really mean they were the smartest people that ever lived? they surely are smart but it woul be impossible to determine who si the smartest, at least by todays measurements and stantdars
@hovsec Explaining things that have never been explained before is considered being genius. As the years go on, less and less can be explained and the harder it becomes to be considered as one of the brightest. However, breaking these frontiers or expanding on them will certainty be listed as an achievement if it is ever proven to be true. How can we ever really determine who is genius if we haven't yet proved what those who came before have proposed? Just my view.
Leibnitz and Descartes should be moved up with Descartes on top and Newton lowered beneath the two of them. We know now that Liebnitz got most of his ideas from Descartes. Descartes was the better mathematician of all three. And where the hell is Pascal?
@Spandex08 That was my point. But it is arguable that most IQ tests are tests of short term memory based on trained patterms (number sequences, shapes, color patterns, etc...). Humans are doing nothing more than a slightly more complicated version of recognizing "shapes".
Einstein fused energy and matter as the same, but there is a missing element which also follows the laws of entropy and conservation, which states that it cannot be created or destroyed just transformed and this is information (shannon's information). So we need a equation to integrate information = energy = matter and perhaps we cant begin to understand what consciousness really is.
@chiguazo Shannon's information is scientific fool's gold, made by a spurious namesake connection to entropy (originally done as an inside joke). As Shannon later had to recant: “Workers in other fields should realize that the basic results of the subject [telegraphy communication channels] are aimed in a very specific direction, a direction that is not necessarily relevant to such fields as psychology, economics, and other social sciences.”
after watching this video, the documentary Dangerous Knowledge and the movie PI. I wonder why things often go wrong for these smart people. Are they too ahead of their time, cant share their knowledge, or they actually peak into the "mind of God" (for religious people) or true reality (for the atheist). and end up either committing suicide or end up in a mental asylum as the only escape or just hiding away as ordinary people in disguise working at the nearest grocery store packing bags.
@chiguazo PI is a good surreal film, the documentary is interesting although it tries to make things look mysterious - even though they have reasonable explanations, and this video is bullshit - ranking Einstein in the top 5 - when he actually sucked at math - got bad grades, the equations to his theories were developed thx to his wife, and his theories are older at least 2000 years. Nikola Tesla should be in the top 3 - a man ahead of his time - who invented practical things unlike Einstein.
@Spandex08 Actually, Einstein did not suck at math. This is a misconception. Einstein was doing calculus at 12. Part of the reason this misconception exists is that he needed mathematicians to help him with his theories. It's not that he was bad, it's that the math was very complex and he needed the assistance of professional mathematicians. But he definitely did not suck at it.
@angela1894 "Makes sense" != "only cases that are provable" I have been studying Fermat's work for 20 years, including FLT. The one thing you haven't yet explained is, why are there TWO theorems missing their proofs (FPNT and FLT)??????
@ThinkTank255 LOL, so you're saying cases n=5 and n=7 didn't make sense to prove ? In other words, the great, eminent mathematicians Dirichlet and Lebesgue were wrong, but YOU are right ? Call me crazy, but I'd sooner side with Dirichlet and Lebesgue before I side with some internet quack.
@ThinkTank255 If you have a general proof, it also doesn't make sense to prove FLT for cases n=3 and n=4 (or any other special cases) like Fermat did.
@angela1894 If his proof used an extension of the integers, it would make sense to try to prove FLT using ONLY integers on at least a couple of cases. Besides, we haven't found his proof for his Polygonal Number Theorem, yet you seem to just ignore that fact. Both theorems use figurate numbers. It makes sense that FPNT was a stepping-stone toward proving FLT, which is why we have the original proof of neither.
@angela1894 Fermat's achievements are well documented (with the exception of FLT, which he DID prove) exactly as I have said. Newton "borrowed" the method of tangents from Fermat. So that debunks the theory that Newton/Leibnitz invented calculus. On Optics it was Fermat who invented the principle of least time and derived snell's law.
Newton wrote that his own early ideas about calculus came directly from "Fermat's way of drawing tangents". What Newton was referring to here was a technique called "adequality" which Fermat developed for determining the extrema and tangents to various curves. This method was somewhat equivalent to differentiation but Fermat never developed this idea further and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus never occurred to him.
The development of calculus was a gradual process with many contributors. Even before Newton, others like Barrow, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal had discussed the idea of a derivative. However, it was Barrow who finally gave the first full proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus. And then Newton, building on this work, developed the surrounding theory of infinitesimal calculus in the late 17th century. Thus, to credit Fermat with the invention of calculus is ridiculous.
@angela1894 "Why on earth would you prove special cases of a theorem if you have the GENERAL proof???" VERY good question. In fact, that question holds the key to understanding BOTH FLT and FPNT. It turns out that with ordinary integers, only cases 3 & 4, make sense to solve. If you want to solve the FULL problem you have to extend the integers.
@ThinkTank255 Lol, what you just said makes no sense. You didn't answer my question: why would he prove it for cases 3 and 4 if he had the generalized proof for all cases ? And you're wrong when you say only cases 3 and 4 make sense to solve because other cases have been done e.g. case n=5 (proven by Dirichlet), case n=7 (proven by Lebesgue).
@ThinkTank255 The ONLY place Fermat ever claimed that he had a proof was in that marginal comment in Diophantus' Arithmetica. If he really thought he had a proof, he would have announced the result publicly, or challenged other mathematicians to prove it (which was popular in that era). It is likely that he found the flaw in his own proof before he had a chance to announce the result, and never bothered to erase the marginal comment because it never occurred to him that anyone would see it there
@angela1894 So are you saying you believe Fermat just got lucky and stumbled upon the discovery of Calculus, Optics, Number Theory, Polygonal Number Theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, etc.... If he had just discovered one it would be amazing. But all of them??? That takes genius the likes of which has never been seen in history.
@ThinkTank255 Fermat didn't invent Calculus. That honor goes to Newton/Leibnitz. And he didn't discover Optics. In fact, Newton's work on Optics was superior to the those of Fermat and Goethe on the subject. Many of Newton's conclusions on Optics have been confirmed as correct, while many of Goethe's conclusions (published in his Theory of Colours book) have been debunked. Anyway, back to Fermat, you are either deluded or poorly informed about the achievements of other scientists/thinkers.
So, angela1894, I take it you then accept that the only way to determine the most intelligent person who has ever lived is by comparison of achievements. In that case, Fermat is the most intelligent person who has ever lived. No other person even comes close to replicating his achievements, and I will not let the anger, bitterness, and jealousy of a few powerful mathematicians overshadow a lifetime of incredible achievements. We should truly be celebrating the genius that is Pierre de Fermat.
@ThinkTank255 Wrong! Extremely intelligent people don't always live up to their full potential, i.e. their achievements do not always match up with their true ability. The correlation between IQ and intellectual life achievements is not perfect. Intellectual achievements do not depend ONLY on innate ability, but rather, a combination of innate ability and other things (e.g. hardwork, choice of what to work on, etc.). These other factors influencing achievement vary from one genius to the other.
@ThinkTank255 And you're wrong about Fermat. To say that no other person even comes close to replicating his achievements is ridiculous. Ever heard of Newton, Euler, Gauss ? Most mathematicians doubt that Fermat had a correct solution to his theorem. He claimed he did early in his career, but later in his career, he spent lots of time proving only special cases of the theorem (for n=4 and n=5). Why on earth would you prove special cases of a theorem if you have the GENERAL proof ?
(H/T)K*U/T=E E/K^T=S I just made this up but it's better than any other hypothesis.
(Health over time) times Knowledge times Usage over Time= Efficiency. Efficiency over Knowledge times it self Time times equals Smartness. Let's put an example (1/1)4*1/1=4 and the more times you use the knowledge the higher efficiency. 4/4^1=1 Smart. So still knowledge is important.
Mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries did believe that Fermat had a proof for both FLT and FPNT. Can you imagine how frustrated and bitter they must have been that Fermat did not write his proof??? Even today there is great resentment. Since Fermat proved his "last" theorem, he is undoubtedly the most intelligent person who has ever lived.
@Brian90402 I completely agree, speculation on the IQ's of people who never took an IQ test, and who lived centuries ago is likely to lead to specious conclusions.
Fermat did prove his own theorems. There are not 1 but 2 of his theorems that are lacking their original proofs. That is indisputable evidence that he DID have a proof for what we now call his "last" theorem and his polygonal number theorem. Thus, Fermat is undeniably the most intelligent person who has ever lived.
Are you kidding me??? Newton and Leibniz stole Calculus from Fermat. It is well documented how Fermat invented the idea of calculating tangents to a curve, and how Newton "borrowed" this idea. Goethe, Mill and Voltaire didn't do squat for mathematics, and in my book, their works are as good as worthless. Mill's work is interesting, but nowhere near as incredible achievements of Fermat.
You are getting very boring Libb Thims/Sadi Carnot/Wavesmikey (wikipedia)/HumanChemistry101.
Has it not occurred to you that I share the same interest in this video and your site, as Cawley does? Clearly, he is reading what I write. I am reading what he writes. We are looking in the same places. So there is cross infection of thought.
I also read many other people's work. That doesn't make me into them, either...even if I agree with what they write, as I do with him.
@ThinkTank255 - If you're solely talking about mathematics, then Carl Gauss is the greatest ever. I was talking in general, as in overall who is the smartest person of all time, which is Goethe (210 IQ - Ceiling Genius).
The smartest of all time would have to be somebody from mathematics or applied mathematics (science). I can't measure a dead person's IQ. I can only attempt to assess their intelligence by the quality their achievements. Gauss still doesn't hold a candle to Fermat, when ones takes into account that he was born in the late 18th century. However, Gauss would certainly be very high on the list of the most intelligent people of all time.
@ThinkTank255 Fermat isn’t even in the top 10 greatest mathematicians of all time listing, let alone smartest of all time (see: greatest mathematician link, pull down). Rahully2j is more on target, albeit Gauss is ranked second behind Euler, currently as “greatest mathematician ever” (see ranking methodology of four merged rankings + descendants (link mentioned).
Have you actually emailed Hirata to get his opinion on his humorous article about the chemistry of human relationships? Because you seem to take it far more seriously than he did. You've actually written up a publication-style paper of something the original author meant as a complete and absolute joke !! If that's not a glaring sign of crackpottery, I don't know what is !!
@angela1894 To clarify, what about the 493 people listed in the HT pioneers page (as well as the 77 people listed in the HC pioneers page), links in pulldown: are they all crackpots as well, or is it just Hirata and me (or is it just Hirata) (or is it just me)?
Angela1894 has a point. It is quite clear, from what you say, that you are comparing achievement and not intelligence. This will underestimate, greatly, many geniuses, depending on their various personalities, age and circumstances. You would, for instance, give a very low IQ to someone who had no achievements, even though their IQ might actually be 200. So,she is right to speak of potential, over achievement. A bright person might achieve nothing, but still be smart.
I feel I should explain the admin's "crackpot" remark. It was clear he thought you a crackpot because of the views you were expressing on Wikipedia. The discussion was about whether to permanently ban you from altering Wikipedia because you had been compulsively altering articles in ways which the admins considered were corrupting or vandalizing articles. They believed that your information was demonstrably wrong, or "crackpot". They believed you were causing damage to WP.
Firstly, that two people should conclude that you seem mad, at times, is hardly proof that they are the same person - though it is strongly suggestive that you need to start focussing a little more on reality. No-one has a monopoly on the word "mad" and its use in a sentence. You should note that the common factor between the two remarks is that they are about you - and not written by a single author, as you believe.
@HumanChemistry101 As to the identity of "MrTrueGenius", Valentine Cawley as posted at Hmolpedia: "As for MrTrueGenius. Again he is not me. I do, however, know who he is, since we have corresponded and are in touch over certain matters." Whatever the case, MrTrueGenius trolling around YouTube being a Ainan Cawley groupie is pretty fishing, as far as I'm concerned.
The #1 smartest person of all time is Pierre de Fermat. The only reason people don't recognize him as such is because they are so jealous of his intelligence that they refuse to recognize it. Fermat proved NUMEROUS mathematical theorems that were CENTURIES ahead of his time. And it took nearly 350 years and hundreds of thousands of mathematicians to prove his "last" theorem. That genius is like no other ever seen in human history, and not likely to be seen again any time soon.
You're biased when it comes to your methodology for judging the value of intellectual achievements, e.g. you tend to attach too much weight to any work remotely resembling that human-thermo stuff, which is crackpottery. For example, Hirata developed a series of humorous links between chemistry and human relationships (AS A JOKE!!) and you regard this as his crowning intellectual achievement. Even he will tell you that stuff shouldn't even be taken seriously.
....cont. Also, you seem biased against mathematicians and mathematical achievements in general. You once even said you don't regard mathematicians as particularly intelligent because some poll indicated that among all scientists, mathematicians had the highest percentage of people who believe in god. How biased, basing your estimate of mathematicians' intellect on what percentage of them believe in god. Last time I checked, Newton believed in god, he was even an alchemist.
@MrTrueGenius Re: “secretiveness” and “openness”, how’s about you fess up to us that you are Valentine Cawley (Ainan Cawley's father). The following two facts prove that you are:
Valentine Cawley (Email comment to me): “It does seem rather mad, actually” (Dec 2011)
MrTrueGenius (YouTube comment to me): “You are coming across as a bit mad, I am afraid” (Oct 2011)
@HumanChemistry101 Yes that style of speech is common in the UK (especially their peculiar use of the word 'mad'), so I'd say that limits the possibilities to Valentine or a close relative of Ainan's on his father's side. Either way, who cares, this wouldn't be the first instance of a parent on Youtube promoting/defending their kid, e.g. almost all the videos of child prodigy Jacob Barnett I found on Youtube were posted by his own mother.
You say that open minds will see maths to be the only test of intelligence - yet, of course, it takes a remarkably closed mind to dismiss all other human endeavours as unworthy of being evidence of intelligence. So, to hold the "open minded" position that you have, you would have to be incredibly closed minded, in fact.
I have a very open mind...and I see maths just as one more intellectual endeavour out of a myriad. It is not special in any way. There are many ways to think.
Very funny. You critique my name, yet your name equates you to a whole committee of thinkers, simultaneously. Your name is, therefore, much more grandiose than my claim to one brain.
As for me not thinking, I have spent my life doing just that. You presume to know the contents of my life, whilst knowing nothing about me at all. That doesn't suggest that you are thinking, at all.
Your statement about mathematics is a belief system - it is not a proven fact. It is your religion.
"You critique my name, yet your name equates you to a whole committee of thinkers, simultaneously."
Yes, THINKING, as in the prerequisite to having any intelligence whatsoever. I never claimed any of these thinkers were "geniuses". I never claimed they were smart at all. My name is supposed to inspire others to THINK before they respond. Clearly, you did not. My name is also a reference to various cognitive theories of the mind.
Fermat was the ORIGINAL inventor of: Calculus, Probability, a LARGE amount of number theory, Optics, Polygonal Number Theorem (to this day not well understood, and his original proof never found), Fermat's Last Theorem (to this day not well understood, and his original proof never found), Fermat's Factorization method, the Principle of Least Time (which he used to derive what is now called "Snell's law"), etc.... He INVENTED modern mathematics, although mathematicians will deny this vigorously.
The #1 smartest person of all time is Pierre de Fermat. The only reason people don't recognize him as such is because they are so jealous of his intelligence that they refuse to recognize it. Fermat proved NUMEROUS mathematical theorems that were CENTURIES ahead of his time. And it took nearly 350 years and hundreds of thousands of mathematicians to prove his "last" theorem. That genius is like no other ever seen in human history, and not likely to be seen again any time soon.
Only mathematics can test for intelligence. That statement is clearly and obviously true, and anybody with a reasonably open mind on the subject can see it plainly for themselves. I am not debating this. You have clearly made up your mind already, and nothing I say can change it. Someone who goes around the internet with the name "MrTrueGenius" is obviously an arrogant fool. You have to THINK before you can call yourself a genius.
Absolute nonsense. Firstly, most prodigies are self-driven. They are teaching THEMSELVES the patterns. They also tend to have high general intelligence. They are not being fed nuggets by mentors. What a prejudiced - and incorrect view.
Furthermore, your idea that maths is the only test of intelligence, actually made me laugh out loud. ANY activity that requires rational thought is a test of intelligence. Brightness may be seen in any aspect of life that benefits from intellect.
Intelligence is about the ability to recognize patterns, that is, the ability to take the complex and simplify it. Most of these so called "intelligent" people were trained to recognize specific patterns (by their parents, mentors, etc...). This is like training a monkey at the zoo to recognize shapes or numbers. Monkeys can actually do this better than humans. Does that mean they are more intelligent??? Of course not. Only mathematics can test true intelligence.
@ThinkTank255 nah, that would mean that a person who scores high on a math test but doesnt do so well in other fields is more intelligent than a person who scores slightly less on the same test but outperforms him/her in every other way.
Pre-pythagorean era, the test for intelligence would be the Pythagorean theorem. This tends to imply that that Beal's conjecture is the new test for intelligence, since Fermat's Last Theorem was proven in the mid 90's.
I disagree with the video. The top 2 most intelligent people of all time are:
1. Pierre de Fermat
2. Anonymous
There are most likely very many anonymous people who were or are at least as intelligent as Fermat. There should be exactly one test of intelligence: x^n + y^n = z^n, n>2 has no solutions. If this can be proven in the human's lifetime in under 3 pages, then the person is among the most intelligent people who have ever lived. Prolificness is not an indication of intelligence.
@ThinkTank255 That hypothesis (Fermat #1) is easily disproved: Newton, e.g. wrote that his own early ideas about calculus came directly from Fermat's way of drawing tangents, and Leibniz commented on Newton (as told to the Queen of Prussa): that in mathematics there was all previous history, from beginning of the world, and then there was Newton; and that Newton was the better half.
@ThinkTank255 you're wrong, even Fermat likely didn't prove his own theorem. He claimed to have done so but his solution was probably one of the many incorrect solutions that have been produced since the problem first received wide attention.
@HumanChemistry101, on your website, you CLAIM Christopher Hirata's IQ of 225 is "verified". I've studied him as much as you have and I have not found any evidence that the IQ of 225 reported in the newspaper articles about him were actually verified. Someone with an actual verified IQ of 225 (rather, between 220 and 230) is Terence Tao. He was tested twice (at age 6, then at age 10) and found to have an IQ exceeding 200. However, on your website, you do not mark Tao's IQ as verified.
@angela1894 That listing table has been archived and frozen as is; the new expanded and re-ordered listing is the "Genius IQs" Hmolpedia page (see link in pulldown), in which Tao is realistically listed at 175 and Hirata is realistically listed at 190.
@HumanChemistry101 But you're wrong to list Tao's IQ at 175. It is around 50 points higher than that. Would you like me to give you the links to the articles that cite his IQ as 225 ?
And again, how did you arrive at an IQ of 190 for Hirata ? Is this just a guess on your part, or is it based on actual concrete evidence ? If so, do you mind providing a link to it?
@HumanChemistry101 By the way, as far as Hirata is concerned, what work of value has he done as an adult ? Tao became a full professor at 24 and won the Fields Medal (the highest possible honor for mathematicians) at 31. Christopher Hirata has a rather undistinguished career (so far) as a physicist.
@HumanChemistry101 I just went through your "Genius IQs" Hmolpedia page and I don't understand why you're replacing the verified IQs of some geniuses with your own estimate of their IQs. How is your own estimate more accurate than an actual IQ test ? By the way, you have "Adrian Seng" on the list, this name is just an alias for Terence Tao in Miraca Gross' book about Australian geniuses. She didn't want to use the real names of the kids she profiled so she chose aliases
@angela1894 Yes, I know about Gross’ aliases; yes we all know what the Fields Medal is; yes the “IQ 200+ (references)” page has all citations to IQs above 200; regarding the other queries, why exactly are you so interested in the methodology used on the Genius IQ page?
@HumanChemistry101 Why exactly am I so interested in your methodology ? Well forgive me for committing the presumptuous act of requesting some clarification and justification for your highly questionable methodology.
@angela1894 Re: “highly questionable methodology” (hardly). I’ve merged the Cox genius list (300 greatest geniuses by IQ, from 1450 to 1850) with the Buzan genius list (100 greatest geniuses by IQ all time) into one table and the 23 geniuses common to both listings give me a hardened “realistic” IQ ruler with which to gauge and rank others (up or down).
@HumanChemistry101 Oh dear, there are so many things wrong with that technique. Let me focus on one. IQ is a measure of potential, not achievement. So you can't reliably estimate a person's IQ by comparing his/her achievements to those of the eminent geniuses studied by Cox/Buzan. You know as well as I do that many child prodigies which genuinely high IQs do not go on to achieve anything of value. Doesn't make them any less intelligent.
@angela1894 Re: "IQ is a measure of potential, not achievement." [incorrect] Correctly: “IQ a measure of the relative brightness or intelligence of any given individual.” [Catherine Cox, 1926] The graduate student of the person who invented the IQ scale. This is the genius version of IQ. In any event your previous post [crackpottery] shows that you are ignorant.
Haha, good one, I'm ignorant because I refuse to accept the patently ridiculous notion that a human is nothing but a big ol' molecule. And your quote from Cox doesn't disprove my statement, if anything, it disproves yours, because nowhere in that statement does it imply that IQ is a measure of achievement. Read it again if you're confused. Your score on an IQ test is an indication of your potential to achieve, not a measure of what you've achieved so far in your life.
@angela1894 You’re ignorant because you refuse to accept the fact that thermodynamics governs human existence as it does the universe. Speaking plainly, you have probably never read through a thermodynamics textbook and been tested on it, hence you are ignorant about thermodynamics (as are most people, engineers aside); that a human is a chemical geometry, is an aside.
How can you say Da Vinci is smarter than Newton and Maxwell and more importantly Gauss?? It makes no sense at all! Newton was the main character in the creation of physics as we know it and made several contributions for mathematics. Maxwell, as you said, was a great physicist, considered by many the second (only after Newton). And about Gauss, how could not include the great Prince of Mathematics in the top 5? This list does not correspond to reality. Gauss should be 1# or 2#.
Tesla, although one of the smartest people ever, did not have an IQ above 200. He understood electricity more than any person before him, and most likely any since, but that was the extent of his genius. His IQ is estimated around 180.
I think Alan Turing deserves a mention. He basically won the war for the allies due to him decoding the Enigma code. He is also considered a father of the computer. If he had not had his life made so unbearable by the police that he took his own life then his achievements would no doubt been more numorous.
That was a quick response. Thanks. Here is an honest question. Given that the majority of people who have ever lived were born after 1900, why is it that most of your top IQs belong to people born prior to 1900? Are people now (much) less likely to be a "super-genius" or is it a flaw in your methodology?
BTW, my opinion regarding Gell-Mann was based on Gleick's Feynman bio. I seem to recall that not only is Gell-Mann great at math and physics, but that he also has fantastic language abilities
@tpsmith800 Genius ranking has a certain structure and methodology. Someone like Newton whose influence is still being felt 200-300 years in retrospect is a big factor. Recent so-called genius candidates are harder to rank because their work is still green. Take Peter Tait’s now defunct 19th century “knot theory” (of atoms); the same might be said of the current “string theory” next century; hence claims of someone like Brian Greene as a genius might be superfluous in the same manner.
@tpsmith800 Also, one delineating factor that does give precedence to the rankings of modern age geniuses is if the person, independently, did work on affinity or free energy theory applied to the humanities or the question of life in general, as did von Neumann, in regards to economics (1934) and automaton theory (1945), or Hirata, applied to relationships, (2000), etc., which is the same problem most great geniuses (Helmholtz, Goethe, Newton, etc.), have been drawn to.
@tpsmith800 Re: “post-1900 super-geniuses”, another point to note, is in regard to knowledge fragmenting: Max Weber (IQ=170) (1864=1920) is known as the “last universal genius of social science” and Enrico Fermi (IQ=190) (1901-1954) is known as the “last universal physicist”, meaning, in modern time, because there is so much knowledge, that it has become increasingly difficult to become a genius even in one subject, hence super-geniuses do not seem to exist anymore. Sidis was perhaps the last?
@tpsmith800 Neumann's IQ has been estimated at 163-185 and he is ranked in the top 45 currently in the big list (Genius IQs link, pulldown). Gell-Mann is harder to estimate: he’s a top 30 greatest physicist; Fermi, however, described him as less smart than Richard Garwin; and most would likely argue that Feynman (#28) was smatter than all four—although Neumann might be a close contender. I'm guessing Gell-Mann might go in the top 100, but I'll have to read through his quark work more first.
@HumanChemistry101 You are Kidding me right?? Im sorry but Von Neuman´s work has been to the behavioral sciences pretty much what Newtons Laws are to phisycs, with applications ranging from linguistics, to evolution, from economics, to politics, and so on.Tough, granted not quite there as far as advancement goes (wich is to be espected from such a young science) there is no doubt that Von Neumans contributions for his game theory work alone earned him a much more reaspectable place.
@jaimeivantamayo Re: “Von Neumann, you are Kidding me right??”, what rank do you think he deserves? #45 smartest of all time is a fairly high. He notably made a few detracting errors, e.g. telling Claude Shannon to call information by the name “entropy”, and discerning free energy as cash value, is close, but nowhere near as accurate as it should be coming from a genius chemical engineer (as he was), especially as compared to Goethe #1 who explained free energy, beautifully.
@HumanChemistry101 - I would like to ask you about these 2 particular guys (just having debate with my mates). What do you think about goethe and leibniz, as in comparison? I mean even though goethe is considered the smartest, I just feel Leibniz has more and better contributions than goethe. He is more diverse and did something important such as maths and physics compared to goethe who was, in my opinion, 1 dimensional (only contributing in drama- poetry etc.).
@rahully2j Re: “Goethe vs Leibniz”, firstly Goethe was the most multi-dimensional genius of all contributing in every field (except astronomy); see, e.g. his 1826 treatise On Mathematics and its Misuse. While Leibniz clearly outranks Goethe in math, Goethe clearly outranks Leibniz in chemical philosophy: compare Leibniz’ monad with Goethe’s elective affinity; although Goethe is said to have compared his Homunculus (origin of mind theory) to the Leibnizian entelechy or monad.
@HumanChemistry101 - Sidis was basically destroyed by the media and sudden fame. And, one thing I would like to know is the difference between 205 and 210 iq. Is it a day-night difference or a slight difference. I just feel at that extreme level the difference would be ridiculously high. 205 iq is 1 in 37 billion I think, but 210 is only 1 in 200 billion. So, would those guys see the world in a different way? I mean 2 guys with iq of 105-110 would view it in a similar way.
@rahully2j Re: the difference between 210 and 205 is the difference between Clausius and Maxwell (see: Genius IQs link, pull down). When you get into the 140+ bell curve range, you have to let go of the percentile ideology, and rank based on 5 point increments, in regards to who is smarter than whom. There is no doubt that a genius views the world differently than a non genius.
@rahully2j Re: the difference between 210 and 205 is the difference between Maxwell and Clausius (see: Genius IQs link, pull down). When you get into the 140+ bell curve range, you have to let go of the percentile ideology, and rank based on 5 point increments, in regards to who is smarter than whom. There is no doubt that a genius views the world differently than a non-genius.
@wrathofvengance67 From Bach to the rise of Hitler, Germany produced a very curious large number of geniuses. As Peter Watson explains in his book, before 1933, the Germans had won more Nobel Prizes than America and the Britain combined. The word “genius”, to the Germans, "has a special overtone, even a tinge of the demonic, a mysterious power and energy.” (Fritz Stern). The character Faust (who is striving to learn everything that can be known) is the embodiment of this idea.
@HumanChemistry101 - I would like to ask you about gauss and sidis. It's a hypothetical question, me and my mate are debating about. As we know carl gauss is considered the greatest mathematician, there is someone who was compared to him and that is william sidis. MIT professor - Daniel Comstock said, "Karl Friedrich Gauss is the only example in history, of all prodigies, whom Sidis resembles". He was known for his exceptional mathematics abilities at that time.
@HumanChemistry101 - So, lets say if william sidis completely focused on maths, do you think he would have out done carl gauss? I mean if he had taken maths seriously, would his accomplishments surpass him (gauss)? I think overall Sidis was smarter and mufti-dimensional compared to gauss who was only 1 dimensional. So, I think he could have out-done anyone if he pushed himself.
@HumanChemistry101 - Another thing - how big is the difference between 205 and 210 iq? In my opinion that 5 point difference would be definitely greater than 2 people with 105 and 110 iq, cause of extreme level (the graph goes up significantly). So, will it be a day-night difference or just a slight difference? I m sorry if I m being ignorant but I don't really know much about this stuff, and I m really curious to find out everything.
@HumanChemistry101 - Last question - This one is about william sidis. Some guys say that he was pushed by boris sidis and he wasn't really a genius. It's just that he received special education he was able to do stuff at younger age. I have seen people claiming his iq to be 250-300 and one of my mate saying he only had around 150-160 iq. So, I just wanna find out how smart the guy was. Was he in the same league with goethe-leibniz or he was just an ordinary child prodigy?
@rahully2j Re: “Sidis”, although not in the same league as Goethe and Leibniz, who both pushed their genius into the 70s and 80s (Sidis withdrew in his 20s), Sidis likely had the biggest mind of any 18-year-old that has ever existed, as evidenced by the fact that at that age he was trying to figure out the big questions of: the origin of life, life vs. non-life, black holes, and the second law of thermodynamics, all during that year, in one unified theory.
@HumanChemistry101 - The thing is william sidis has better feats than both goethe and leibniz from 1-18. In my opinion, if he continued like that he would have done more stuff than both of them. The professor of MIT flat out stated that he would be the greatest mathematician of 20th century and compared him to Carl gauss. Also, terman disproved the theory of getting "burned out". Even Abraham sperling said that there is no evidence that sidis burned out.
@rahully2j Yes Sidis was great, but after his Animate and the Inanimate (1920) he never produced anything of intellectual note. Call it what you want "burn out", "pull out", etc., but that was his last great work.
i have an IQ of 154, but i have aspergerssyndrome so i have a very selective learning structure.
in simple words: I learn what I like to learn, I prefer for example history or geology instead of French and tend to get higher grades on that. but give me a good game with much facts and story lines and a wikipedia about it, and I totally get into it and I know everything about it in mere weeks of looking up little things about it =3
I think musicians are under represented on this list, but I'm not sure why. I would put JS Bach and Mozart as being near the top of this list.
TheAngeltoDemon 6 hours ago
No John Von Neumann?
D0g63rt 5 days ago
How were these I.Q. values evaluated for people who lived before I.Q. tests were invented?
For that matter, where do you go to take I.Q. tests like the ones you were using in this video?
All the stuff online except possibly MENSA and High I.Q. society are fake.
I once scored 144 on High I.Q. society's test around 2001, 21 yrs old at the time.
I was scored at 122, for verbal I.Q. only, by a psychologist, but I think the tests are not diverse enough to test me fairly.
Wade23581 1 week ago
I would define the smartest person in the world as the one who can make the biggest positive impact on humanity. That person hasn't been identified here, it will take perhaps another hundred years for the world to truly understand his enormous accomplishments that are presently being realized. That's usually the way it is anyway, those who see so far beyond the rest of the world are too often not understood as even genius. It will take time.
AUNEEKUZIRNAIM 1 week ago
Wow, I really enjoyed these videos. Thank you so much for posting them.
sirmarkthomas 1 week ago
My favorite Goethe quote is from his book Theory of Colours published in 1810 which reads
"I am like a bazillion times smarter than you, neener neener neener."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
eppinizer 1 week ago
"mis happen head" ...it's pronounced "miss shapen"
cartossin 1 week ago
Why is Einstein ahead of Newton? Ok he corrected his theory but he was born more than 200 years later. I think Newton was smarter. Newton not only made his physical theory's but was one of the fathers of calculus too. He was actualy a mathematician and a physicist at the same time. And what about the old school, ppl like Archimedes and Plato? Or some very smart Egyptian or Chinese? It is impossible to determine who is smartest of all those great thinkers....
dekippiesip 2 weeks ago
@dekippiesip : Einstein learned calculus at the age of twelve. The mathematical core of the photoeletric effect, alone, is more complex than calculus, newtonian laws and the laws of optics altogheter. Newton was more influential, because he propulsionated the scientific revolution, but in absolute terms, einstein far outweighted him.
MrAquinoflavio 1 week ago
Derrida? Zizek? Foucault? There seems to be some significant left-hemisphere bias here.
Fredgar125 3 weeks ago
Ah' Tesla has been added at 14:16...
Rakibrown111 4 weeks ago
Where the heck is Tesla in all of this, I would always have placed Leonardo as a first and Tesla as a second, the rest scrambling behind ;)
Rakibrown111 4 weeks ago
What about Nietzsche?
imjstsfckingdprss 4 weeks ago
goethe is the smartest one of them and he discovered that islam is the true relegion, he was a muslim , i think that all the world should know that.
EYAD601 1 month ago
@EYAD601 You're full of shit, pal
Maurbel 2 weeks ago
@Maurbel Goethe wasn’t Muslim, but he did study the Islamic religion, as well as nearly every other subject of knowledge. In the end, however, at the age of 81 he commented in retrospect: “I have found no confession of faith to which I could ally myself without reservation”. Goethe’s religion was a mixture of nature and knowledge; as he said so himself:
“He who possesses science and art,
Possesses religion as well;
He who possesses neither of these,
Had better have religion.”
HumanChemistry101 2 weeks ago
@Maurbel I concur
slw2222 2 weeks ago
Those who are producers of knowledge should not be compared with those who are consumers.
Masterp10337 1 month ago
Goethe still pales in comparison to Einstein though.
ultim4t32 1 month ago
if Goethe's work that showed how human relationships are similar to chemical reactions was so great to earn him the #1 spot (and I'm not saying it wasn't a work of pure genius), how come I have never heard of this, when I have heard of the other geniuses contributions. How did you even prove it was accurate? How do you measure numerically human qualities such as attraction? What is the signifigance of the work?
Jshect 1 month ago 2
@Jshect You seem to be a smart guy, asking intelligent questions. Firstly, to correct you a bit: Goethe was already ranked #1 by Cox (1926) and #2 by Buzan (1994), not based on his Elective Affinities, but by his overall genius. Neither Cox nor Buzan had any kind of physical chemistry / chemical thermodynamics background to understand what was in that work.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@Jshect Re: “how come I have never heard of this”, I often ask myself the same question? It took me 11 years to find Goethe (I had never heard of him before 2006), starting from a 1995 chemical engineering thermodynamics student mental question about how does one go about applying the spontaneity criterion to human relations. The problem has to do with the fragmenting of knowledge (e.g. C.P. Snows’ two cultures): the humanities don’t mix with the hard sciences.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@Jshect Re: “how did you prove it was accurate?”, Helmholtz proved (1882) that free energy is the measure of “affinity” (the force of reaction between molecules); Lewis proved that Gibbs free energy is the type of energy that governs the spontaneity of reactions that occur on the surface of the earth; Sterner and Elser proved (2002) that humans are “single abstract molecules” that "interact with each other (on the surface of the earth) in the form of complex chemical reactions".
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@Jshect Re: “how do you measure numerical quantities such as attraction”, that’s a large subject, to say the least. Leon Winiarski, who taught a course on this at the University of Geneva (1894-1900), was the first to outline this thermodynamically. Google “human thermodynamic instruments” to learn more (as to instruments). Re: “what is the significance”, this is the stuff they will be teaching children in the year 3,000.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@Jshect Re2: “how come I have never heard of this”, another reason (complexity aside), is that the bottom line of Goethe’s theory is that morality is based not on the Bible, as told by God, but on physical chemistry, as told by the Clausius inequality. Most of the modern world is God-based (to remind us all) and there is great resistance to these types of Bible-overthrowing theories (evolution as a case in point). Google “Rossini debate” to see this resistance on the front lines.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@Jshect Re3: “how come I have never heard of this”, the third dominate reason (religion and two cultures aside) is complexity: you have to be a relative expert in chemical thermodynamics to understand (in equation detail) what Goethe is saying in Elective Affinities. The last real expert in chemical thermodynamics (the hardest of all sciences) was Gilbert Lewis, and no one as of yet has come forward to fill his shoes, let alone taken a digression into applications in the humanities.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
TESLA!
petelebu 1 month ago 2
Einstein publushed SR in 1905.
xkoenigseggx 1 month ago
what about sheldon cooper?!!?!?
IL0NGHORNS 1 month ago
i dont think we can ever know who were the smartest people that ever lived, we can create a list of the ones who have had more achievements and impact on the world we live in, but does that really mean they were the smartest people that ever lived? they surely are smart but it woul be impossible to determine who si the smartest, at least by todays measurements and stantdars
hovsec 1 month ago
@hovsec Explaining things that have never been explained before is considered being genius. As the years go on, less and less can be explained and the harder it becomes to be considered as one of the brightest. However, breaking these frontiers or expanding on them will certainty be listed as an achievement if it is ever proven to be true. How can we ever really determine who is genius if we haven't yet proved what those who came before have proposed? Just my view.
ChrisDoll44 1 month ago
Leibnitz and Descartes should be moved up with Descartes on top and Newton lowered beneath the two of them. We know now that Liebnitz got most of his ideas from Descartes. Descartes was the better mathematician of all three. And where the hell is Pascal?
karnzkeltic 1 month ago
@StrangeDeimos Not necessary. Many activities can be shown to be exactly equivalent to mathematical problems.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@Spandex08 That was my point. But it is arguable that most IQ tests are tests of short term memory based on trained patterms (number sequences, shapes, color patterns, etc...). Humans are doing nothing more than a slightly more complicated version of recognizing "shapes".
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
Einstein fused energy and matter as the same, but there is a missing element which also follows the laws of entropy and conservation, which states that it cannot be created or destroyed just transformed and this is information (shannon's information). So we need a equation to integrate information = energy = matter and perhaps we cant begin to understand what consciousness really is.
chiguazo 1 month ago
@chiguazo Shannon's information is scientific fool's gold, made by a spurious namesake connection to entropy (originally done as an inside joke). As Shannon later had to recant: “Workers in other fields should realize that the basic results of the subject [telegraphy communication channels] are aimed in a very specific direction, a direction that is not necessarily relevant to such fields as psychology, economics, and other social sciences.”
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
after watching this video, the documentary Dangerous Knowledge and the movie PI. I wonder why things often go wrong for these smart people. Are they too ahead of their time, cant share their knowledge, or they actually peak into the "mind of God" (for religious people) or true reality (for the atheist). and end up either committing suicide or end up in a mental asylum as the only escape or just hiding away as ordinary people in disguise working at the nearest grocery store packing bags.
chiguazo 1 month ago
@chiguazo PI is a good surreal film, the documentary is interesting although it tries to make things look mysterious - even though they have reasonable explanations, and this video is bullshit - ranking Einstein in the top 5 - when he actually sucked at math - got bad grades, the equations to his theories were developed thx to his wife, and his theories are older at least 2000 years. Nikola Tesla should be in the top 3 - a man ahead of his time - who invented practical things unlike Einstein.
Spandex08 1 month ago
@Spandex08 Actually, Einstein did not suck at math. This is a misconception. Einstein was doing calculus at 12. Part of the reason this misconception exists is that he needed mathematicians to help him with his theories. It's not that he was bad, it's that the math was very complex and he needed the assistance of professional mathematicians. But he definitely did not suck at it.
hrivethead 1 month ago
@Spandex08
Nonsense, Einstein was good at math. Look at his matriculation certificate on his Wikipedia page. Passed with a 6 which was the highest you could get.
BrutalValor 1 month ago
I can't understand what the fuck u guys are saying. Looking in the comments section is like reading another language
illegalsareamigos24 1 month ago
@angela1894 "Makes sense" != "only cases that are provable" I have been studying Fermat's work for 20 years, including FLT. The one thing you haven't yet explained is, why are there TWO theorems missing their proofs (FPNT and FLT)??????
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 LOL, so you're saying cases n=5 and n=7 didn't make sense to prove ? In other words, the great, eminent mathematicians Dirichlet and Lebesgue were wrong, but YOU are right ? Call me crazy, but I'd sooner side with Dirichlet and Lebesgue before I side with some internet quack.
angela1894 1 month ago
@angela1894 I didn't say there were wrong. But, again, if you have a general proof it doesn't make sense to prove FLT for cases n=5 and n=7.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 If you have a general proof, it also doesn't make sense to prove FLT for cases n=3 and n=4 (or any other special cases) like Fermat did.
angela1894 1 month ago
@angela1894 If his proof used an extension of the integers, it would make sense to try to prove FLT using ONLY integers on at least a couple of cases. Besides, we haven't found his proof for his Polygonal Number Theorem, yet you seem to just ignore that fact. Both theorems use figurate numbers. It makes sense that FPNT was a stepping-stone toward proving FLT, which is why we have the original proof of neither.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@angela1894 Fermat's achievements are well documented (with the exception of FLT, which he DID prove) exactly as I have said. Newton "borrowed" the method of tangents from Fermat. So that debunks the theory that Newton/Leibnitz invented calculus. On Optics it was Fermat who invented the principle of least time and derived snell's law.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255
Newton wrote that his own early ideas about calculus came directly from "Fermat's way of drawing tangents". What Newton was referring to here was a technique called "adequality" which Fermat developed for determining the extrema and tangents to various curves. This method was somewhat equivalent to differentiation but Fermat never developed this idea further and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus never occurred to him.
angela1894 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255
The development of calculus was a gradual process with many contributors. Even before Newton, others like Barrow, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal had discussed the idea of a derivative. However, it was Barrow who finally gave the first full proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus. And then Newton, building on this work, developed the surrounding theory of infinitesimal calculus in the late 17th century. Thus, to credit Fermat with the invention of calculus is ridiculous.
angela1894 1 month ago
@angela1894 "Why on earth would you prove special cases of a theorem if you have the GENERAL proof???" VERY good question. In fact, that question holds the key to understanding BOTH FLT and FPNT. It turns out that with ordinary integers, only cases 3 & 4, make sense to solve. If you want to solve the FULL problem you have to extend the integers.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Lol, what you just said makes no sense. You didn't answer my question: why would he prove it for cases 3 and 4 if he had the generalized proof for all cases ? And you're wrong when you say only cases 3 and 4 make sense to solve because other cases have been done e.g. case n=5 (proven by Dirichlet), case n=7 (proven by Lebesgue).
angela1894 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 The ONLY place Fermat ever claimed that he had a proof was in that marginal comment in Diophantus' Arithmetica. If he really thought he had a proof, he would have announced the result publicly, or challenged other mathematicians to prove it (which was popular in that era). It is likely that he found the flaw in his own proof before he had a chance to announce the result, and never bothered to erase the marginal comment because it never occurred to him that anyone would see it there
angela1894 1 month ago
@angela1894 So are you saying you believe Fermat just got lucky and stumbled upon the discovery of Calculus, Optics, Number Theory, Polygonal Number Theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, etc.... If he had just discovered one it would be amazing. But all of them??? That takes genius the likes of which has never been seen in history.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Fermat didn't invent Calculus. That honor goes to Newton/Leibnitz. And he didn't discover Optics. In fact, Newton's work on Optics was superior to the those of Fermat and Goethe on the subject. Many of Newton's conclusions on Optics have been confirmed as correct, while many of Goethe's conclusions (published in his Theory of Colours book) have been debunked. Anyway, back to Fermat, you are either deluded or poorly informed about the achievements of other scientists/thinkers.
angela1894 1 month ago
So, angela1894, I take it you then accept that the only way to determine the most intelligent person who has ever lived is by comparison of achievements. In that case, Fermat is the most intelligent person who has ever lived. No other person even comes close to replicating his achievements, and I will not let the anger, bitterness, and jealousy of a few powerful mathematicians overshadow a lifetime of incredible achievements. We should truly be celebrating the genius that is Pierre de Fermat.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago 2
@ThinkTank255 Wrong! Extremely intelligent people don't always live up to their full potential, i.e. their achievements do not always match up with their true ability. The correlation between IQ and intellectual life achievements is not perfect. Intellectual achievements do not depend ONLY on innate ability, but rather, a combination of innate ability and other things (e.g. hardwork, choice of what to work on, etc.). These other factors influencing achievement vary from one genius to the other.
angela1894 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 And you're wrong about Fermat. To say that no other person even comes close to replicating his achievements is ridiculous. Ever heard of Newton, Euler, Gauss ? Most mathematicians doubt that Fermat had a correct solution to his theorem. He claimed he did early in his career, but later in his career, he spent lots of time proving only special cases of the theorem (for n=4 and n=5). Why on earth would you prove special cases of a theorem if you have the GENERAL proof ?
angela1894 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
K=knowledge U=usage E=efficiency S=smart T=time H=Health. G=gen. Know and S=spc. Know G+S=K
(H/T)K*U/T=E E/K^T=S I just made this up but it's better than any other hypothesis.
(Health over time) times Knowledge times Usage over Time= Efficiency. Efficiency over Knowledge times it self Time times equals Smartness. Let's put an example (1/1)4*1/1=4 and the more times you use the knowledge the higher efficiency. 4/4^1=1 Smart. So still knowledge is important.
livedandletdie 1 month ago
@livedandletdie nerd
sharamandarata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries did believe that Fermat had a proof for both FLT and FPNT. Can you imagine how frustrated and bitter they must have been that Fermat did not write his proof??? Even today there is great resentment. Since Fermat proved his "last" theorem, he is undoubtedly the most intelligent person who has ever lived.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
speculation on the iq's of people who never took an iq test seems specious.
Brian90402 1 month ago
@Brian90402 I completely agree, speculation on the IQ's of people who never took an IQ test, and who lived centuries ago is likely to lead to specious conclusions.
angela1894 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fermat did prove his own theorems. There are not 1 but 2 of his theorems that are lacking their original proofs. That is indisputable evidence that he DID have a proof for what we now call his "last" theorem and his polygonal number theorem. Thus, Fermat is undeniably the most intelligent person who has ever lived.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you kidding me??? Newton and Leibniz stole Calculus from Fermat. It is well documented how Fermat invented the idea of calculating tangents to a curve, and how Newton "borrowed" this idea. Goethe, Mill and Voltaire didn't do squat for mathematics, and in my book, their works are as good as worthless. Mill's work is interesting, but nowhere near as incredible achievements of Fermat.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
lol at Fermat being the smartest person of all time. He is not even in the same league with the likes of Goethe, Leibniz, Mill, Newton, Voltaire etc.
rahully2j 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanChemistry101
You are getting very boring Libb Thims/Sadi Carnot/Wavesmikey (wikipedia)/HumanChemistry101.
Has it not occurred to you that I share the same interest in this video and your site, as Cawley does? Clearly, he is reading what I write. I am reading what he writes. We are looking in the same places. So there is cross infection of thought.
I also read many other people's work. That doesn't make me into them, either...even if I agree with what they write, as I do with him.
MrTrueGenius 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255 - If you're solely talking about mathematics, then Carl Gauss is the greatest ever. I was talking in general, as in overall who is the smartest person of all time, which is Goethe (210 IQ - Ceiling Genius).
rahully2j 1 month ago
@rahully2j
The smartest of all time would have to be somebody from mathematics or applied mathematics (science). I can't measure a dead person's IQ. I can only attempt to assess their intelligence by the quality their achievements. Gauss still doesn't hold a candle to Fermat, when ones takes into account that he was born in the late 18th century. However, Gauss would certainly be very high on the list of the most intelligent people of all time.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Fermat isn’t even in the top 10 greatest mathematicians of all time listing, let alone smartest of all time (see: greatest mathematician link, pull down). Rahully2j is more on target, albeit Gauss is ranked second behind Euler, currently as “greatest mathematician ever” (see ranking methodology of four merged rankings + descendants (link mentioned).
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101
Have you actually emailed Hirata to get his opinion on his humorous article about the chemistry of human relationships? Because you seem to take it far more seriously than he did. You've actually written up a publication-style paper of something the original author meant as a complete and absolute joke !! If that's not a glaring sign of crackpottery, I don't know what is !!
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 To clarify, what about the 493 people listed in the HT pioneers page (as well as the 77 people listed in the HC pioneers page), links in pulldown: are they all crackpots as well, or is it just Hirata and me (or is it just Hirata) (or is it just me)?
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101
Angela1894 has a point. It is quite clear, from what you say, that you are comparing achievement and not intelligence. This will underestimate, greatly, many geniuses, depending on their various personalities, age and circumstances. You would, for instance, give a very low IQ to someone who had no achievements, even though their IQ might actually be 200. So,she is right to speak of potential, over achievement. A bright person might achieve nothing, but still be smart.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanChemistry101
I feel I should explain the admin's "crackpot" remark. It was clear he thought you a crackpot because of the views you were expressing on Wikipedia. The discussion was about whether to permanently ban you from altering Wikipedia because you had been compulsively altering articles in ways which the admins considered were corrupting or vandalizing articles. They believed that your information was demonstrably wrong, or "crackpot". They believed you were causing damage to WP.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101
Hilariously inadequate reasoning, dear boy.
Firstly, that two people should conclude that you seem mad, at times, is hardly proof that they are the same person - though it is strongly suggestive that you need to start focussing a little more on reality. No-one has a monopoly on the word "mad" and its use in a sentence. You should note that the common factor between the two remarks is that they are about you - and not written by a single author, as you believe.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
@MrTrueGenius (MrTrueGenius = Valentine Cawley)
Just fess up that you are Valentine Cawley (father of Ainan, video part one):
MrTrueGenius (YouTube, Jan 02): “Ainan has since got many As in Chemistry and other subjects at various levels.”
Valentine Cawley (Hmolpedia, Jan 02): “Ainan has subsequently got many As in Chemistry at other higher levels.”
Or are you going to continue to have us believe there are two people running around the Internet spitting out the same exact lines.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101 As to the identity of "MrTrueGenius", Valentine Cawley as posted at Hmolpedia: "As for MrTrueGenius. Again he is not me. I do, however, know who he is, since we have corresponded and are in touch over certain matters." Whatever the case, MrTrueGenius trolling around YouTube being a Ainan Cawley groupie is pretty fishing, as far as I'm concerned.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101 Why do you even care?? haha
MRTRUEable 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101 (MrTrueGenius = Valentine Cawley)...
MRTRUEable 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The #1 smartest person of all time is Pierre de Fermat. The only reason people don't recognize him as such is because they are so jealous of his intelligence that they refuse to recognize it. Fermat proved NUMEROUS mathematical theorems that were CENTURIES ahead of his time. And it took nearly 350 years and hundreds of thousands of mathematicians to prove his "last" theorem. That genius is like no other ever seen in human history, and not likely to be seen again any time soon.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago 8
@HumanChemistry101
You're biased when it comes to your methodology for judging the value of intellectual achievements, e.g. you tend to attach too much weight to any work remotely resembling that human-thermo stuff, which is crackpottery. For example, Hirata developed a series of humorous links between chemistry and human relationships (AS A JOKE!!) and you regard this as his crowning intellectual achievement. Even he will tell you that stuff shouldn't even be taken seriously.
angela1894 2 months ago
....cont. Also, you seem biased against mathematicians and mathematical achievements in general. You once even said you don't regard mathematicians as particularly intelligent because some poll indicated that among all scientists, mathematicians had the highest percentage of people who believe in god. How biased, basing your estimate of mathematicians' intellect on what percentage of them believe in god. Last time I checked, Newton believed in god, he was even an alchemist.
angela1894 2 months ago
@MrTrueGenius Re: “secretiveness” and “openness”, how’s about you fess up to us that you are Valentine Cawley (Ainan Cawley's father). The following two facts prove that you are:
Valentine Cawley (Email comment to me): “It does seem rather mad, actually” (Dec 2011)
MrTrueGenius (YouTube comment to me): “You are coming across as a bit mad, I am afraid” (Oct 2011)
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Yes that style of speech is common in the UK (especially their peculiar use of the word 'mad'), so I'd say that limits the possibilities to Valentine or a close relative of Ainan's on his father's side. Either way, who cares, this wouldn't be the first instance of a parent on Youtube promoting/defending their kid, e.g. almost all the videos of child prodigy Jacob Barnett I found on Youtube were posted by his own mother.
angela1894 2 months ago
Tesla? Nash? Von Neumann?
1994anmol 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255
Mathematicians are not superior to other types of thinker - they are just one type among many. Each has strengths the other may not.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255
You say that open minds will see maths to be the only test of intelligence - yet, of course, it takes a remarkably closed mind to dismiss all other human endeavours as unworthy of being evidence of intelligence. So, to hold the "open minded" position that you have, you would have to be incredibly closed minded, in fact.
I have a very open mind...and I see maths just as one more intellectual endeavour out of a myriad. It is not special in any way. There are many ways to think.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255
Very funny. You critique my name, yet your name equates you to a whole committee of thinkers, simultaneously. Your name is, therefore, much more grandiose than my claim to one brain.
As for me not thinking, I have spent my life doing just that. You presume to know the contents of my life, whilst knowing nothing about me at all. That doesn't suggest that you are thinking, at all.
Your statement about mathematics is a belief system - it is not a proven fact. It is your religion.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
@MrTrueGenius
"You critique my name, yet your name equates you to a whole committee of thinkers, simultaneously."
Yes, THINKING, as in the prerequisite to having any intelligence whatsoever. I never claimed any of these thinkers were "geniuses". I never claimed they were smart at all. My name is supposed to inspire others to THINK before they respond. Clearly, you did not. My name is also a reference to various cognitive theories of the mind.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255 oh shut up you quack
angela1894 2 months ago
Fermat was the ORIGINAL inventor of: Calculus, Probability, a LARGE amount of number theory, Optics, Polygonal Number Theorem (to this day not well understood, and his original proof never found), Fermat's Last Theorem (to this day not well understood, and his original proof never found), Fermat's Factorization method, the Principle of Least Time (which he used to derive what is now called "Snell's law"), etc.... He INVENTED modern mathematics, although mathematicians will deny this vigorously.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago 7
The #1 smartest person of all time is Pierre de Fermat. The only reason people don't recognize him as such is because they are so jealous of his intelligence that they refuse to recognize it. Fermat proved NUMEROUS mathematical theorems that were CENTURIES ahead of his time. And it took nearly 350 years and hundreds of thousands of mathematicians to prove his "last" theorem. That genius is like no other ever seen in human history, and not likely to be seen again any time soon.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
Only mathematics can test for intelligence. That statement is clearly and obviously true, and anybody with a reasonably open mind on the subject can see it plainly for themselves. I am not debating this. You have clearly made up your mind already, and nothing I say can change it. Someone who goes around the internet with the name "MrTrueGenius" is obviously an arrogant fool. You have to THINK before you can call yourself a genius.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
copernicus i think is overrated on astronomy, it was kepler who did the hard work in that field.
antcowan 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255
Absolute nonsense. Firstly, most prodigies are self-driven. They are teaching THEMSELVES the patterns. They also tend to have high general intelligence. They are not being fed nuggets by mentors. What a prejudiced - and incorrect view.
Furthermore, your idea that maths is the only test of intelligence, actually made me laugh out loud. ANY activity that requires rational thought is a test of intelligence. Brightness may be seen in any aspect of life that benefits from intellect.
MrTrueGenius 2 months ago
Intelligence is about the ability to recognize patterns, that is, the ability to take the complex and simplify it. Most of these so called "intelligent" people were trained to recognize specific patterns (by their parents, mentors, etc...). This is like training a monkey at the zoo to recognize shapes or numbers. Monkeys can actually do this better than humans. Does that mean they are more intelligent??? Of course not. Only mathematics can test true intelligence.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255 no - monkeys have short term memory (better than all humans) but don't have long term memory like humans do.
Spandex08 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 nah, that would mean that a person who scores high on a math test but doesnt do so well in other fields is more intelligent than a person who scores slightly less on the same test but outperforms him/her in every other way.
StrangeDeimos 1 month ago
Pre-pythagorean era, the test for intelligence would be the Pythagorean theorem. This tends to imply that that Beal's conjecture is the new test for intelligence, since Fermat's Last Theorem was proven in the mid 90's.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
I disagree with the video. The top 2 most intelligent people of all time are:
1. Pierre de Fermat
2. Anonymous
There are most likely very many anonymous people who were or are at least as intelligent as Fermat. There should be exactly one test of intelligence: x^n + y^n = z^n, n>2 has no solutions. If this can be proven in the human's lifetime in under 3 pages, then the person is among the most intelligent people who have ever lived. Prolificness is not an indication of intelligence.
ThinkTank255 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255 That hypothesis (Fermat #1) is easily disproved: Newton, e.g. wrote that his own early ideas about calculus came directly from Fermat's way of drawing tangents, and Leibniz commented on Newton (as told to the Queen of Prussa): that in mathematics there was all previous history, from beginning of the world, and then there was Newton; and that Newton was the better half.
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@ThinkTank255 you're wrong, even Fermat likely didn't prove his own theorem. He claimed to have done so but his solution was probably one of the many incorrect solutions that have been produced since the problem first received wide attention.
angela1894 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you skipped all of the prior videos to watch this one.
MagoMinelli 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101, on your website, you CLAIM Christopher Hirata's IQ of 225 is "verified". I've studied him as much as you have and I have not found any evidence that the IQ of 225 reported in the newspaper articles about him were actually verified. Someone with an actual verified IQ of 225 (rather, between 220 and 230) is Terence Tao. He was tested twice (at age 6, then at age 10) and found to have an IQ exceeding 200. However, on your website, you do not mark Tao's IQ as verified.
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 That listing table has been archived and frozen as is; the new expanded and re-ordered listing is the "Genius IQs" Hmolpedia page (see link in pulldown), in which Tao is realistically listed at 175 and Hirata is realistically listed at 190.
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 But you're wrong to list Tao's IQ at 175. It is around 50 points higher than that. Would you like me to give you the links to the articles that cite his IQ as 225 ?
And again, how did you arrive at an IQ of 190 for Hirata ? Is this just a guess on your part, or is it based on actual concrete evidence ? If so, do you mind providing a link to it?
angela1894 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 By the way, as far as Hirata is concerned, what work of value has he done as an adult ? Tao became a full professor at 24 and won the Fields Medal (the highest possible honor for mathematicians) at 31. Christopher Hirata has a rather undistinguished career (so far) as a physicist.
angela1894 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 I just went through your "Genius IQs" Hmolpedia page and I don't understand why you're replacing the verified IQs of some geniuses with your own estimate of their IQs. How is your own estimate more accurate than an actual IQ test ? By the way, you have "Adrian Seng" on the list, this name is just an alias for Terence Tao in Miraca Gross' book about Australian geniuses. She didn't want to use the real names of the kids she profiled so she chose aliases
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 Yes, I know about Gross’ aliases; yes we all know what the Fields Medal is; yes the “IQ 200+ (references)” page has all citations to IQs above 200; regarding the other queries, why exactly are you so interested in the methodology used on the Genius IQ page?
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Why exactly am I so interested in your methodology ? Well forgive me for committing the presumptuous act of requesting some clarification and justification for your highly questionable methodology.
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 Re: “highly questionable methodology” (hardly). I’ve merged the Cox genius list (300 greatest geniuses by IQ, from 1450 to 1850) with the Buzan genius list (100 greatest geniuses by IQ all time) into one table and the 23 geniuses common to both listings give me a hardened “realistic” IQ ruler with which to gauge and rank others (up or down).
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Oh dear, there are so many things wrong with that technique. Let me focus on one. IQ is a measure of potential, not achievement. So you can't reliably estimate a person's IQ by comparing his/her achievements to those of the eminent geniuses studied by Cox/Buzan. You know as well as I do that many child prodigies which genuinely high IQs do not go on to achieve anything of value. Doesn't make them any less intelligent.
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 Re: "IQ is a measure of potential, not achievement." [incorrect] Correctly: “IQ a measure of the relative brightness or intelligence of any given individual.” [Catherine Cox, 1926] The graduate student of the person who invented the IQ scale. This is the genius version of IQ. In any event your previous post [crackpottery] shows that you are ignorant.
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101
Haha, good one, I'm ignorant because I refuse to accept the patently ridiculous notion that a human is nothing but a big ol' molecule. And your quote from Cox doesn't disprove my statement, if anything, it disproves yours, because nowhere in that statement does it imply that IQ is a measure of achievement. Read it again if you're confused. Your score on an IQ test is an indication of your potential to achieve, not a measure of what you've achieved so far in your life.
angela1894 2 months ago
@angela1894 You’re ignorant because you refuse to accept the fact that thermodynamics governs human existence as it does the universe. Speaking plainly, you have probably never read through a thermodynamics textbook and been tested on it, hence you are ignorant about thermodynamics (as are most people, engineers aside); that a human is a chemical geometry, is an aside.
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
Where is Nikola Tesla ?
Pr3fixProducts 2 months ago
How can you say Da Vinci is smarter than Newton and Maxwell and more importantly Gauss?? It makes no sense at all! Newton was the main character in the creation of physics as we know it and made several contributions for mathematics. Maxwell, as you said, was a great physicist, considered by many the second (only after Newton). And about Gauss, how could not include the great Prince of Mathematics in the top 5? This list does not correspond to reality. Gauss should be 1# or 2#.
MarceloMuzzi 2 months ago
@MarceloMuzzi - Goethe, Leibniz and Stuart Mill are top 3 greatest Guinness going by IQ. Gauss was mostly 1 dimensional.
rahully2j 2 months ago
@MarceloMuzzi IQ has nothing to do with accomplishments
lukejtmulder 1 week ago
Smartest genius ever is Nicola Tesla
DJDahoe 2 months ago
@DJDahoe Nikola*
Tesla, although one of the smartest people ever, did not have an IQ above 200. He understood electricity more than any person before him, and most likely any since, but that was the extent of his genius. His IQ is estimated around 180.
jewfrothunder2 2 months ago
Da Vinci i still rank #1
shmoriy 2 months ago
truly magnificent, no doubt about it
Galeriacores 3 months ago
I think Alan Turing deserves a mention. He basically won the war for the allies due to him decoding the Enigma code. He is also considered a father of the computer. If he had not had his life made so unbearable by the police that he took his own life then his achievements would no doubt been more numorous.
pajcfws 3 months ago
@pajcfws Yes, he was a pretty smart guy. I'm guessing he will likely fall somewhere in the top 200 range (maybe top 100)?
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
That was a quick response. Thanks. Here is an honest question. Given that the majority of people who have ever lived were born after 1900, why is it that most of your top IQs belong to people born prior to 1900? Are people now (much) less likely to be a "super-genius" or is it a flaw in your methodology?
BTW, my opinion regarding Gell-Mann was based on Gleick's Feynman bio. I seem to recall that not only is Gell-Mann great at math and physics, but that he also has fantastic language abilities
tpsmith800 3 months ago
@tpsmith800 Genius ranking has a certain structure and methodology. Someone like Newton whose influence is still being felt 200-300 years in retrospect is a big factor. Recent so-called genius candidates are harder to rank because their work is still green. Take Peter Tait’s now defunct 19th century “knot theory” (of atoms); the same might be said of the current “string theory” next century; hence claims of someone like Brian Greene as a genius might be superfluous in the same manner.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@tpsmith800 Also, one delineating factor that does give precedence to the rankings of modern age geniuses is if the person, independently, did work on affinity or free energy theory applied to the humanities or the question of life in general, as did von Neumann, in regards to economics (1934) and automaton theory (1945), or Hirata, applied to relationships, (2000), etc., which is the same problem most great geniuses (Helmholtz, Goethe, Newton, etc.), have been drawn to.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@tpsmith800 Re: “post-1900 super-geniuses”, another point to note, is in regard to knowledge fragmenting: Max Weber (IQ=170) (1864=1920) is known as the “last universal genius of social science” and Enrico Fermi (IQ=190) (1901-1954) is known as the “last universal physicist”, meaning, in modern time, because there is so much knowledge, that it has become increasingly difficult to become a genius even in one subject, hence super-geniuses do not seem to exist anymore. Sidis was perhaps the last?
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
Any listing of the 30+ smartest people ever without Murray Gell-Mann and John von Neumann is dubious at best.
tpsmith800 3 months ago
@tpsmith800 Neumann's IQ has been estimated at 163-185 and he is ranked in the top 45 currently in the big list (Genius IQs link, pulldown). Gell-Mann is harder to estimate: he’s a top 30 greatest physicist; Fermi, however, described him as less smart than Richard Garwin; and most would likely argue that Feynman (#28) was smatter than all four—although Neumann might be a close contender. I'm guessing Gell-Mann might go in the top 100, but I'll have to read through his quark work more first.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 You are Kidding me right?? Im sorry but Von Neuman´s work has been to the behavioral sciences pretty much what Newtons Laws are to phisycs, with applications ranging from linguistics, to evolution, from economics, to politics, and so on.Tough, granted not quite there as far as advancement goes (wich is to be espected from such a young science) there is no doubt that Von Neumans contributions for his game theory work alone earned him a much more reaspectable place.
jaimeivantamayo 3 months ago
@jaimeivantamayo Re: “Von Neumann, you are Kidding me right??”, what rank do you think he deserves? #45 smartest of all time is a fairly high. He notably made a few detracting errors, e.g. telling Claude Shannon to call information by the name “entropy”, and discerning free energy as cash value, is close, but nowhere near as accurate as it should be coming from a genius chemical engineer (as he was), especially as compared to Goethe #1 who explained free energy, beautifully.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - I would like to ask you about these 2 particular guys (just having debate with my mates). What do you think about goethe and leibniz, as in comparison? I mean even though goethe is considered the smartest, I just feel Leibniz has more and better contributions than goethe. He is more diverse and did something important such as maths and physics compared to goethe who was, in my opinion, 1 dimensional (only contributing in drama- poetry etc.).
rahully2j 3 months ago
@rahully2j Re: “Goethe vs Leibniz”, firstly Goethe was the most multi-dimensional genius of all contributing in every field (except astronomy); see, e.g. his 1826 treatise On Mathematics and its Misuse. While Leibniz clearly outranks Goethe in math, Goethe clearly outranks Leibniz in chemical philosophy: compare Leibniz’ monad with Goethe’s elective affinity; although Goethe is said to have compared his Homunculus (origin of mind theory) to the Leibnizian entelechy or monad.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - Sidis was basically destroyed by the media and sudden fame. And, one thing I would like to know is the difference between 205 and 210 iq. Is it a day-night difference or a slight difference. I just feel at that extreme level the difference would be ridiculously high. 205 iq is 1 in 37 billion I think, but 210 is only 1 in 200 billion. So, would those guys see the world in a different way? I mean 2 guys with iq of 105-110 would view it in a similar way.
rahully2j 3 months ago
@rahully2j Re: the difference between 210 and 205 is the difference between Clausius and Maxwell (see: Genius IQs link, pull down). When you get into the 140+ bell curve range, you have to let go of the percentile ideology, and rank based on 5 point increments, in regards to who is smarter than whom. There is no doubt that a genius views the world differently than a non genius.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@rahully2j Re: the difference between 210 and 205 is the difference between Maxwell and Clausius (see: Genius IQs link, pull down). When you get into the 140+ bell curve range, you have to let go of the percentile ideology, and rank based on 5 point increments, in regards to who is smarter than whom. There is no doubt that a genius views the world differently than a non-genius.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Tell me more about German genius hahahahhahaha
wrathofvengance67 2 months ago
@wrathofvengance67 From Bach to the rise of Hitler, Germany produced a very curious large number of geniuses. As Peter Watson explains in his book, before 1933, the Germans had won more Nobel Prizes than America and the Britain combined. The word “genius”, to the Germans, "has a special overtone, even a tinge of the demonic, a mysterious power and energy.” (Fritz Stern). The character Faust (who is striving to learn everything that can be known) is the embodiment of this idea.
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 even today they produce some fine material.
wrathofvengance67 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - I would like to ask you about gauss and sidis. It's a hypothetical question, me and my mate are debating about. As we know carl gauss is considered the greatest mathematician, there is someone who was compared to him and that is william sidis. MIT professor - Daniel Comstock said, "Karl Friedrich Gauss is the only example in history, of all prodigies, whom Sidis resembles". He was known for his exceptional mathematics abilities at that time.
rahully2j 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - So, lets say if william sidis completely focused on maths, do you think he would have out done carl gauss? I mean if he had taken maths seriously, would his accomplishments surpass him (gauss)? I think overall Sidis was smarter and mufti-dimensional compared to gauss who was only 1 dimensional. So, I think he could have out-done anyone if he pushed himself.
rahully2j 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - Another thing - how big is the difference between 205 and 210 iq? In my opinion that 5 point difference would be definitely greater than 2 people with 105 and 110 iq, cause of extreme level (the graph goes up significantly). So, will it be a day-night difference or just a slight difference? I m sorry if I m being ignorant but I don't really know much about this stuff, and I m really curious to find out everything.
rahully2j 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - Last question - This one is about william sidis. Some guys say that he was pushed by boris sidis and he wasn't really a genius. It's just that he received special education he was able to do stuff at younger age. I have seen people claiming his iq to be 250-300 and one of my mate saying he only had around 150-160 iq. So, I just wanna find out how smart the guy was. Was he in the same league with goethe-leibniz or he was just an ordinary child prodigy?
rahully2j 3 months ago
@rahully2j Re: “Sidis”, although not in the same league as Goethe and Leibniz, who both pushed their genius into the 70s and 80s (Sidis withdrew in his 20s), Sidis likely had the biggest mind of any 18-year-old that has ever existed, as evidenced by the fact that at that age he was trying to figure out the big questions of: the origin of life, life vs. non-life, black holes, and the second law of thermodynamics, all during that year, in one unified theory.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 - The thing is william sidis has better feats than both goethe and leibniz from 1-18. In my opinion, if he continued like that he would have done more stuff than both of them. The professor of MIT flat out stated that he would be the greatest mathematician of 20th century and compared him to Carl gauss. Also, terman disproved the theory of getting "burned out". Even Abraham sperling said that there is no evidence that sidis burned out.
rahully2j 3 months ago
@rahully2j Yes Sidis was great, but after his Animate and the Inanimate (1920) he never produced anything of intellectual note. Call it what you want "burn out", "pull out", etc., but that was his last great work.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
i have an IQ of 154, but i have aspergerssyndrome so i have a very selective learning structure.
in simple words: I learn what I like to learn, I prefer for example history or geology instead of French and tend to get higher grades on that. but give me a good game with much facts and story lines and a wikipedia about it, and I totally get into it and I know everything about it in mere weeks of looking up little things about it =3
plooploo00 3 months ago
i have an iq of 100 and my mom is proud of me.
880330145789 3 months ago 7
Solid list. Was kurt Godel anywhere on this though?
pryor699 3 months ago
I have an iq of 136 an my friend is 140 are these good scores or should i be worried we are both 15
ChiefRequiem 3 months ago
@ChiefRequiem your both retards im afraid....
Numeronx 3 months ago
@ChiefRequiem worry what?
educassiano 3 months ago
@ChiefRequiem Don't worry about score
Worry about your accomplishments if you want to be considered awesome
combatdstar 3 months ago
If you have 140IQ you are a genius.
Einstein had not 205 or 225 IQ.
It is a LIE.
He had 180IQ and not more or less.
MRTRUEable 3 months ago
@MRTRUEable Finally a value that makes sense on Einstein yet Ive mostly heard IQ of 160IQ yet he´s probably the greatest genius of time or Newton.
piloooogen 2 months ago
@piloooogen Okey. Do you know what?
I dont care.
Imagination matters and not IQ.
Einstein have done everything anyway.
MRTRUEable 2 months ago