Philosophers have the highest IQ

PMT, don't piss me off. Read my context a little more carefully and check your interpretations before you even try to begin debunking my statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Facial:
Hmm. Rather hostile. Sorry I upset you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would imagine any serious scientist (clearly the most inteligent breed!) would never consider using the IQ test as an accurate test of inteligence. Especially seeing as the results can be vary depending on how may times you've taken the test before, specifics of the test (i.e. it is not broad) etc.

I seem to be coming to the conclusion that philosophers are an extremely arrogant type. Or perhaps it is just the lower echolons that give me the wrong impression.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is basically concerned with the observation of reality while philosophy is basically concerned with (logical) speculation. The scientist is then a keen observer (observation is what he uses/relies upon the most and is trained for using) but the scientist describes the reality which he does not understand (eg you can <i>describe</i> a motorcycle without knowing anything about electricity, combustion, etc). The philosopher is trying understand the reality (and beyond) eg. to make some sense of of the motorcycle, what is it for and how it works. It should be obvious that the second manner requires a higher grade of thinking capacity

 

I did not bother to read all threads (rather obviously) so if this has already been stated I apology in advance...

The greater geniuses are math-people. The greatest geniuses are philosophers.
This being because the exact is very objective and obvious.
Philosophy is subjective and abstract. There is no true or false in philosophy.
If you are a genius you can easily master very advanced math. There is a certain level which is hard to get past in math regarding difficulty. Math is merely a toy, it is only hard to use for mediocre beings.

The only limit of "difficulty" in philosophy is your ability to think.

 

I haven't done the test to prove it or seen data that should prove it (since I can't get into your link), but I assume this is incorrect. I assume that physicists should score highest, then philosophers.

 

Philosophy,as a rule, isn't only touching simple subjects of logic and so on. Philosophy has touched much more than mathematical calculations and sequential logics of math. Though I probably would honor Cartesius' contributions to mathematics, philosophy is what he is most known for. Among other things, what can one say about politics without getting into philsophy of politics, or about psychology and philosophy of the mind. Philosophy is probably a massive subject touching hundreds of smaller, less abstract, subjects.

 

IQ is worthless

 

Its interesting to me that without the top 1% of intelligence, the vast majority of humanity would still be living in caves or mudhuts.

Intelligence is also how we tend to value animals. We feel less guilty about killing a stupid animal like a snail, than a smarter one like a dolphin or a border collie.

 

Philosophy is MUCH harder than any discipline like math or science. Im an actuary... but I spend my free time pursuing philosophy.

Math is directed... (although very poorly) and for this reason alone will never be as difficult as philosophy. The smartest philosophers can direct people through philosophy along with them so it is easy for the people who they explain things to, but philosophy is not supported socially as an important pursuit. (although it should be) So most people who pursue philosophy just do it on their own.

All knowledge is extremely difficult to pioneer, but trivial once understood the first time. Every philosopher's set of arguments is like an entirely new belief set where you have to start by chucking out 95% of what you know in order to be open minded enough to understand what he is saying. And of course there is no definitive sources in philosophy (despite what some might tell you) so its up to you to decide which is best or even make your own. Math is a single belief set where everything you learn builds on ideas you have learned before, and there are tons of resources to help you learn them.

But if you doubt that philosophy is harder, consider this. Philosophy includes speculation on different approaches and foundations for mathematics. If you think math is tougher, then go read people like Brauer and Hilbert and other authors even to today that do things like speculate on the nature of infinity. Mathematicians try to give the false impression that math is simple and undebatable but it isn't. I know a certain phd of mathematics that regurarly gives lectures on the foundations of mathematics (and usually has mathematicians swinging from the rafters in anger in response)

@ Carcano, I doubt its because collies and dolphins are smarter. I think its because collies have smiles like we do, and dolphins make cute noises.

Philosophy is the creation of such systems and the comparison of them to determine which is better. And that is alot more difficult than just using the algorithms of a precreated systems, even if it is as poorly communicated as mathematics. None of these systems created themselves. Thats what the Godel incompleteness theorem proves. That means your precious systems wouldn't exist without philosophers...

Math can and will be increasingly simplified as time goes by. The only thing that makes it difficult at this point is the fact that there is little to no economic incentive to evolve the learning process. Math is considered valuable, but noone cares how easy it is to learn. Try privatizing secondary education and see easy it becomes for people to learn mathematics. Because of a lack of understanding of the learning process mathematicians tend to sneeze at the knowledge that would make math easy to learn for everyone. What is needed is clear statement of the algorithms needed to solve different kinds of problems. State the problem. Write down what you know. See what else you can determine from what you know. etc. Mathematicians laugh and call information of that nature common sense, but its only common sense once you learn it, it could easily be where non mathematicians get caught up before they really get into it. And then of course there is the same type of information no matter how far you get into mathematics. Are you an engineer? Consider your goal, then matehmatically determine the limiting factor(s) in reaching this goal, and then the factors in those factors, until you get to something you can change to reach that goal. Math is only difficult at all because mathematicians are too ignorant of the learning process to know how to teach it.

 

Seriously??? I would be surprised if it were so! Be more positive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Haven't read all these posts but has everyone here missed the point made in first post 'estimated IQ's' which means large groups of these people have not accurately been studied, so this all is 'make believe' and there is NO evidence to suggest philosophers have higher IQ's that scientists or footballers or bin men even.

I myself am 'nothing' when it comes to these fields, yet I have IQ of 150, what does that make me, slighlty less of a genius that Einstein...no I don't think so. His IQ MAY have been 160 (according to foirst post) NOT WAS 160. Who knows what is really was if he wasn't tested?

Hypothetical and make believe results

 

I think that maybe the reason the average IQ of philosophers is the highest is because normal people do not want to bother with it and normal people do not want to do deal with the super-intelligent people, so they end up alienated from society... essentially leaving them them to escape society by thinking all the time. Look at Bobby Fisher... he essentially disappeared and we only here about him from time-to-time... his IQ is in the 180 range.

 

Well according to the foloving compilation it is not the highest IQ population who really rocks the boat (meaning develops the highest-level-knowledge), it is the guys and galls of high IQ who do the job but their IQ is lower then that of the top group...

<i>It has been repeated again and again until it has passed into psychometric folklore that above a threshold IQ of about 120, there is no relationship between measured intelligence and creative accomplishment. This bit of common wisdom, like many other myths, is a misinterpretation of the facts and is only half true. The facts are these: that the correlation between IQ and creativity is a twisted pear correlation, and that in a classic twisted pear correlation there is no systematic relationship between individual measurements on one variable and individual measurements on a second variable above a given threshold. There is, however, a definite relationship between measured intelligence and creative accomplishment for groups of people. <u>There is a definite, empirically-observable, optimum IQ for creative accomplishment in intellectually demanding fields, that lies well below the maximum IQ, but also well above the 120 IQ limit.</u> </i> (mijn underline)

from:

IQ, Creativity and the Twisted Pear,
or
Why the Sidekick Gets theGirl



<i>
II. Good Guys

Good Guys are always ruggedly handsome.
Good Guys are always athletic and muscular.
If there are a group of good guys, only one will be left at the end.

Good guys have monosyllabic first names, usually Nick or Max.
Good guys have simple English surnames (even when portrayed by Austrian
or Belgian actors).

Good guys never run out of ammo.
Exception: If they run out of ammo, they at least have another weapon.
Good guys never run out of weapons.

Good guys always get caught by the bad guys at least once, after which
they escape.

If a good guy is caught by a thug, the thug is always under orders to
present the good guy to the boss alive.


III. Sidekicks

Every Good guy has at least one sidekick.
The sidekick never gets the girl.
The sidekick is wittier than the good guy.
The sidekick is uglier and less athletic than the good guy.
The sidekick always dispatches exactly one thug.
The sidekick always does something stupid to get the good guy in trouble once.
The sidekick always does something lucky to get the good guy out of
trouble once.
The sidekick always favors higher-tech/less personal methods of fighting.
The sidekick never dies.
Exception: if the sidekick is a partner, they die early in the movie.

Sidekicks have ethnic surnames, usually Polish, Italian or Czech.

</i>

from Action movie cliches

 

To steal quotes from a book I own "What's Your IQ?"

-------------------
IQ over 189

"In all of human history only about two dozen people have been this smart... William James Sidis (insert a bunch of great shit this guy did to 22 when he talked about black holes, 15 years before Chandrasekhar). He eventual refused to do anything academic or have anything to do with the academic society."

IQ 172-188

"They tend to read competently before they are three years old. They find even grand system building relatively easy. They are seldom understood or appreciated. Most feel profoundly isolated from society - even when they are appreciated. A large portion of this group opt out of society and never make revolutionary contributions in the standard academic fields or professions. It seems to be very difficult to motivate them to play the academic/scholarly/professional game because they regard even the most venerable of traditions and institutions as aburd or silly."

IQ 156-172

Basically this range is about what we see for the smarted Nobel Prize winners and historical geniuses (Einstein, Hawkins Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Russell, Rand). I think that this group fits the stereotype of the super smart.

IQ 140-156

"Most orginal ideas start with these people, however their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces rather than a whole new system or new way of seeing things."

IQ 124-140

"These people tend to be the keepers, and transmitters, of knowledge and the higher points of any culture, but cannot create it themselves."

Again, the book is "What's Your IQ" by Nathan Haselbauer.

 

Absane the quotes you posted are generally also stated in the review I posted at the opening (link is now dead) so there is an active one: Estimated IQs of some of the Greatest Geniuses...according to this source there were (are) exceptions to the cathegorisation (and the examples in it) you provided :
<TABLE BORDER=1>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><H3>Name</H3></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><H3>Nationality</H3></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><H3>Active as &amp; Comments</H3></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><H3>Ratio IQs</H3></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><H3>Deviation IQs<SUP><A HREF="#Note">*</A></SUP></H3></TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Goethe()">Johann Wolfgang von Goethe</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Germany</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Poet/Writer. Universal genius.<SUP><A HREF="#Note2">**</A></SUP></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">210</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">179</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Swedenborg()">Emanuel Swedenborg</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Sweden</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Religious writer. Universal genius.</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">205</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">176</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Leibniz()">Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Germany</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Philosopher/Mathematician, etc. The greatest universal genius together with Leonardo da Vinci.<SUP><A HREF="#Note2">**</A></SUP></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">205</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">176</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Mill()">John Stuart Mill</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">England</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Philosopher/Economist/Political theorist</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">200</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">174</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ascal()">Blaise Pascal</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">France</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Mathematician/Physicist/Religious thinker</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">195</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">171</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Wittgenstein()">Ludwig Wittgenstein</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Austria</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Philosopher</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">-</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">190</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Fischer()">Bobby Fischer</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">U.S.A.</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Chess player</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">187</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">167</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Galilei()">Galileo Galilei</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Italy</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Physicist/Astronomer/Philosopher</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">185</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">165</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

escartes()">René Descartes</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">France</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Philosopher/Mathematician</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">180</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">162</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Stael()">Madame De Stael</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">France</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Woman of letters/Novelist/Political Philosopher</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">180</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">162</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Kant()">Immanuel Kant</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Germany</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Philosopher</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">175</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">159</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

auling()">Linus Carl Pauling</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">U.S.A.</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Chemist - Double Nobel Prize Winner</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">170</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">156</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Kovalevskaya()">Sofia Kovalevskaya</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Russia/Sweden</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Mathematician/Writer</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">170</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">156</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Chatterton()">Thomas Chatterton</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">England</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Poet/Writer</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">170</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">156</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

arwin()">Charles Darwin</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">England</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Naturalist</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">165</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">153</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Mozart()">Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Austria</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Composer</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">165</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">153</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Eliot()">George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans)</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">England</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Writer - Close friend to J.S. Mill.</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">160</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">150</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Copernicus()">Nicolaus Copernicus</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Poland</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Cleric/Astronomer</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">160</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">150</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

alme()">Olof Palme</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Sweden</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Prime Minister (Murdered)</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">-</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">156</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Rembrandt()">Rembrandt van Rijn</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Holland</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Painter/Etcher</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">155</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">146</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Lindh()">Anna Lindh</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Sweden</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Foreign Minister (Murdered)</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">152</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">145</TD></TR>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3"><A HREF="javascript:Sand()">George Sand (Aurore Dupin)</A></TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">France</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">Writer</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">150</TD><TD BGCOLOR="#D3D3D3">143</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

 

The guy that put that page together did a great job. I have come across that site numerous times and found it very helpful.

 

Personally I would add to the first 20 (the group above) Robert M. Pirsig

<i>
Robert Maynard Pirsig (born September 6, 1928) is an American author, famous for his first book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974). The book outlined Pirsig's ideas about the Good, in the form of a mostly-autobiographical tale of a man's motorcycle trip across North America with some friends and his son. The book remains a best seller to this day. In 1974 Pirsig was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship to allow him to write its follow-up, Lila: An Inquiry into Morals (1991), in which he elaborates a Metaphysics of Quality.

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota (and having grown up at 85 Clarence Avenue SE in its Prospect Park neighborhood near the University of Minnesota), Pirsig was a precocious child, with an IQ of 170 at age 9. [citation needed](see discussion) He was promoted several grades, which, along with a stammer, made for a difficult childhood school experience. Pirsig began his studies at the University of Minnesota in 1943..... </i>

 

Theoryofrelativity IQ kan be measured (in an IQ test) but it also can be estimated. eg. to test children is difficult (if they do not find the questions interesting then they do not score compliantly with their capacity) but a specialised psychologist can estimate pretty good the IQ level of such child (eg. by observing the manner of thinking/reasoning which the child aplies in a general chat over eg. a game. Ditto with the untested groep you have been complaining about. You can estimate their IQ from eg. their writings (forming of the argument, manner of reasoning etc.)

 

your mother has the highest IQ.