All big Errors about measuring
Intelligence per IQ
(appeared in Worldnews wn and Pravda
- as also "8 Steps of Thoughts")
- as also "8 Steps of Thoughts")
I have recently loaded down a listing called "The List of the most
successful IQ in History" - Wikipedia - (see also "8 Steps of Thoughts").
There we all can learn a lot about intelligence and measuring it. But believe me, dear Readers, the scientists in intelligence have not many valid ideas about intelligence and even less about an acceptable Intelligence Quotient - or tout court "IQ".
There we all can learn a lot about intelligence and measuring it. But believe me, dear Readers, the scientists in intelligence have not many valid ideas about intelligence and even less about an acceptable Intelligence Quotient - or tout court "IQ".
Look at this remarkable piece of consciousness and recognition:
A. Listing of most intelligent
heads of History
According to this "Recognizing the best in IQ" we find for
best reasons as first: Goethe IQ 183, second Leibniz 178, third 173 Grotius and
Wolsey, forth Blaise Pascal and Sarpi with 168. With IQ 164 about ten persons
like Newton Laplace and Voltaire. Come some other 10 with 159 being:
Galileo Galilei, da Vinci, Mirabeau, Humboldt, Campanella. And already it goes
down the drain, many times for no reasons at all, with the real geniuses like:
Descartes, Kant, Milton, Michelangelo, Bacon, Madame de Stael, Kepler, Spinoza
etc. 150 to 154 IQ.
And not so high geniuses is one who predicted today's downfall in
ecology: Jean-Jacques Rousseau 126 and a real highly gifted person: Franklin
126. And they are comparable to following persons! Napoleon 122 (just as Dschingis
Khan and Mao), Washington
And have a look in the Listing of the most brilliant heads still alive
today or recently gone:
Albert Einstein IQ 160, Hawkins 160, Pauling 170, Wittgenstein 190 and
my beloved Bertrand Russell only 180. - More to the point come GW Bush with 91,
Bill Clinton with 182 (!), Hilary with 140, Kennedy with 117 and Tricky Nixon
with 143. Now seriously: These jokes were found as a copy of scientific work,
as most famous internet-listing on IQ of this Earth.
Geniuses are some amateurs or home constructors with name Bill Gates and
Paul Allen, because according to scales of US American Cretins, these
cash-machines can get 160 IQ points! Marylin Vos Savant, of which I never heard
any new theory, says to have 228 points. Jesus, where was God when this
dullness in science came on Earth?
Look at some other geniuses: Madonna IQ 140, Jane Mansfield 149,
Brigitte Bardot 79, Andy Warhol, Judie Foster 132 and Marilyn Monroe 71. Well,
who ever had a brain in his head knows: A truthful listing must be complete
contrary to this horrid measuring of IQ.
This brings up the question of measuring intelligence by any sort of IQ
and their listings.
B. How is IQ measured?
This brings the first catastrophe: As we see later on in this text, intelligence
can not be measured at all because we have no basic knowledge what intelligence
is. Can it be the piecemeal-idiocies of specialist, the little-bits of the
usual Nobel Prize holders? Can it be the art of finding just one important
thought during a whole lifetime? Can it be to sell its own personality to the
rest of scientific idiots, who mean by error to be geniuses? Or is it the art
of understanding the complexity of universal chaos in all respects of politics,
economics, philosophy, arts and sciences? Is intelligence without universal
touch thinkable at all?
I don't think so. How we just have learnt: To play chess, football, golf
or tennis can be called an idiot of specialisation, not more. And this is valid
for 99 percent of folks habits and pre-occupations on this planet. Don't look
out twice for more. To work on new thoughts of universal importance is so
seldom as a fish falling from heaven.
Under these circumstances, it is a complete failure to measure IQ by
schemes, computer programs, pictures, geometrical figures, reading a few
sentences of a prosaic nothing or believing that publishing a lot for blind
matters out of mice-brains of universities would prove higher intelligence.
This is an absolute error or even worse: A discrimination of real intelligence
on a truly high scale-basis of intellect.
C. Were the major geniuses of the world recognized in former times?
This internet scrap brings the answer itself: Only those
"geniuses" who understood to sell themselves best, who were worldwide
known, considered, many times by error, to be best, still at life-time, have a
chance of being known and come on a listing of high IQ. So, at least over 90
percent of the most intelligent folks on Earth will never have been known
during life-time or later on.
Proof: I know personally farmers who talk ten times more intelligently
than any CEO I met in my profession during a whole life. To say the truth: None
of the idiots in banks, insurances, industries and in the service or consulting
business, earning millions in salary, were on the height of children more than
10 years of age. Absolutely true. The manager-type of men do know nothing then
to sell them, like GW Bush does, to sell for no good reasons at all their own
person, winning other people for the major part of their intellectual work, be
surrounded by hundreds of consultants and intelligent employees, and finally
bringing the company to its own bankruptcy. That's the truth about the
Abzockers of this World. Don't look out twice for more information on them. You
won't find them, nowhere.
We can assume that the major part of real intelligent people in Asia , Africa , Russia South America , with highest genius-factors were not known,
because of lack of education and the possibility to express themselves. We may
assume that even in Europe, covered through by Goethe, Leibniz, Machiavelli,
Kant, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Voltaire etc., humans of the importance of
Descartes, Pascal, Rousseau or even higher in intellect, were not recognized by
their times since 3000 years - and still today remain dead characters or
letters.
And be absolutely sure of this: The universal geniuses were never
recognized because "lower" IQ did not recognize them and their
specific genius did at no times make the music. Only average "geniuses"
have in fact a chance of being heard in a world with very low average IQ all
together. Thus, the second and third row in intelligence only made clear who
would be allowed to be the highest brains of this world (see my "8 Steps of
Thoughts", explaining the mechanics).
D. Major errors about intelligence
1. Measuring ONE (achievement)
for ALL (universal IQ). This is to say: Who invents one simple thing as first,
which may prove to destroy later on the geo-sphere of our Earth, is by all
means a "genius" - and this is valid for almost all Nobel Prize
Winners, even worse for entrepreneurs, generating lots of cash and creating
"Social and culture Funds" of any sorts.
2. Measuring the brain streams by
this new science-industry of research, in favour of humans or animals living nowadays,
is meant to be genial. However, this science is pure junk because the content
of brains cannot be measured, nor the value of thoughts, nor the universality
of brain-streams, nor the quality of intellect nor newness or importance, nor
the uniqueness of thinking - and thus of intelligence as such.
3. It is an idiocy of meaning
that chess or other given specialisation by lots of learning by-heart, like a
computer, some Vos Savant syndromes, would be equal to intelligence. It is not.
An intelligent person would never be satisfied to cover just one per mille of
overall knowledge of humanity.
4. Intelligence can not be qualified. There is a difference between a
cretin and Einstein, as I showed in my text "8 Steps of thoughts". In
the great measure of average folks, intelligence can be qualified. But when it
is question about the future effects of intellectual efforts on humanity in say
1000 years, all scientists on this Earth are at a loss. Not one person on this
Earth is capable to think in streams of origins and effects
(Ursachen-Wirkungs-Ketten), truthful and useful enough to be taken for serious.
5. It is one of the greatest errors to believe that people, worshipped
in their times of life, are important and have by nature high IQ. The contrary
is true: The most relevant people of their times never were recognized by
contemporaries - never. Some may have had some importance at their end of
life-time, but most great brains were recognized after death only or most of
the time very long periods after their natural death. So never think to "know"
the most important people around the year 2000. Only the most intellectual
persons in the year 2100 will know, after all collapses had gone over this
overpopulated Earth in ecology, economics and culture, will grasp what has happened,
who were the very few people of value at the beginning of the 21st Century.
I could write some other 100 pages and more about the phenomenon of
intelligence, in fact already written in my German literature. But considering
what I just said, this would be at this place without real effect and value.
You, dear Reader, risk to die one day, according to the plans of your
fate, without having understood reality as such. It is important to try to be more
intelligent than the actual Boulevard of wrong thinking, indoctrinating you
since WW II, just before WW III may probably be launched by GW Bush or any other
"genius" with big power on this globe - and very low IQ.
Author of Worldnews wn and Pravda:
Books "CHAOS", "PLADESNIEKANT", Letters "8 Steps of
Thoughts" and some Editors Letters
