191–200 of 284 posts
Its a failure to be the smartest person in the room. Or, if you think you are- you are likely not, and thinking about yourself instead of listening...
In my experience the gut feeling of being the smartest person in the room is often true. Many highly smart people don't have the social position that they are surrounded by like-minded or even smarter people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wondering what being 'smart' means? Is it: 1. being right most of the time? 2. knowing a lot (breadth)? 3. knowing a couple things in depth? 4. knowing in breadth and depth? 5. understanding new things fast (which is only measurable by someone who knows more?)? 6. solving puzzle and brainteasers easily? 7. being able to speak multiple languages? 8. being self-taught in what people may claim to be complex subjects? 9.…
I've heard it defined as the ability to learn quickly. Not just in the narrow, academic sense, but also by observing the world and people and drawing conclusions about them. It has to do with pattern recognition and abstraction. Usually these people are knowledgeable because they are constantly learning. Eventually they become wise. What do you think of that definition?
I have probably met a lot of people who might be highly rated in terms of IQ but I haven't found anyone particularly clever so far. So I am curious.
When I was at Google a long time ago, the hiring criteria were simple: Smart, and gets things done. A lot of people are smart, but don't get much brilliant work done. Even more people do a lot of work, but aren't very smart about it. To be a genius with important contributions, you need to have both the brains and the work ethic.
It keeps astounding me that people assign value to a score whose purpose was mainly intended to find outliers in the education system as being anything besides that. Or to quote the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking: "People who boast about their IQ are losers".
My wife's nephew is the smartest person I've ever met (and I've met a lot of really smart people). Aced the SAT as a teen, and interned at JPL, etc. Got a free full ride, wherever he wanted. He got his undergraduate at CalTech. Ph.D at Some midwest college -a good one, but can't remember which one -may have been Urbana-Champagne. His mother was adamant that he have as normal a childhood as possible. She deliberately…
They don't check your memory association skills. You mostly solve patterns and logic puzzles, but future questions don't refer to the previous ones.
IQ and EQ are two different things often not found in the same individual. IQ is being smart enough to know that something is happening. EQ is being smart enough to be able to convince other humans to do something about it. High IQ low EQ folks often struggle in careers and life because they’re “right” but can’t get anything done. The most successful tend to be high-ish IQ but with enough EQ to get things done. Those…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it is possible, and you just calculated the probability of that happening.
It's possible in the same way its possible that you will spontaneously phase through the floor due to a particular outcome of atomic resonance. Possible, but so unlikely it almost certainly has not, nor ever will happen. Might something a small as a grain of sand have phased through a solid barrier as thin as a piece of paper somewhere on earth, at some point over billions of years? Sure. Paper is still pretty thick,…
In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.
210 on a standard IQ scale (15 points per std dev) would mean more than 7 std deviations, order of 10^-12 it's hard for me to not reject the article already for it's click bait headline... ps: 170 is 4.666 std dev, about 10^-6. that's very rare, hard to measure but at least real.
There are no such thing as 210 IQ. It correlates to 7.3 sigma, meanwhile 7-sigma event has a probability of approximately 1 in 390 billion. We only have 8 billion humans on Earth. These absurd claims about IQ is almost evidence that the claimant are nowhere close. For starters, any IQ tests are not going to be normalized to that range because it is impossible to normalize to that range as there are 0 realistic sample…
That's not really how statistics works. It is not impossible to roll two sixes on a single roll of two dies because it is more likely you won't.