Philosophers have the highest IQ

<a href =http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm>Estimated IQs of some of the Greatest Geniuses</a>

excerpt

Philosophers (22) average IQ 160; Scientists (39) 159; Fiction writers (53) 152; Statesmen (43) 150; Musicians (11) 149; Artists (13) 153; Soldiers (27) 136.



As a curiosity it can be mentioned that the famous english philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell sometimes interpreted Nietzsche's overman as a person with an IQ of at least 180 (Actually Russell considered himself to have this IQ!). I read in some paper that Einstein , regarded as the prototype for a genius, may "only" have had just above 160 .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do you think Philosphers have the highest score?
What faculties are they using that inspire such results?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't be surprised if those who designed the tests for IQ used measurements and qualities that were biased towards higher ranking of those who would consider themselves as philosophers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sometimes i think that i ve a high IQ (ok i am not a philospher but i think everyone has a philosopher in themselves and it needs to be waken up) Then i look around and realize that other people are so much more smarter than me because they are happy. They get happy from simple things and dont question things like me. Instead of spending their time here on this board and reading every single topic they talk about football or girls with their friends (i do that too actually) and then go to bed without thinking about "who am i" or this kind of things. They just live a simple life and dont question things. So, who is smarter now? We, who sepend this short life with asking questions or other people who just enjoy their time and dont care about the rest? :bugeye:

 

I'm going to have to take Socrates's side on this one.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

 

The criteria used to "estimate" the IQs of past famous people referred to here were so flawed that the results are meaningless.

 

Some people know more then others. High inventivity and the influence of these people on the history can be look at statistiaccally. (as the site does). In schools they sometimes do not test gifted children by putting in the front of them a paper which they are supposed to fill with answers on unintersting questions. They look how these children built their sentences an what is the structure of treir arguments...etc. These methods showed pretty acurate in establishing estimation IQ. When the same children were later tested on real IQ test the result largely cpomplied with erlier assesement. Therefor I believe you can assess (proximitely) an IQ of a person if his writings are available. (e.g. the claim that Eistein had "only" 160 IQ I have seen more times at differen sites).


I consider philosophy more difficult than the maths because in philosophy you have a huge field which you must handel satisfactorily (all must be related to all else). In maths you can establish an area and tackle it and then enlarge it or add an another area.

 

well I suppose as I have read at this forum before, that the maths guys and the physics guys don't like the infinite or the subjective where as the philosopher tends to deal allways with the infinite and the subjective

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even if it could be done, it was not in the specific instance this site gives:

"In 1926, psychologist Dr. Catherine Morris Cox - who had been assisted by Dr. Lewis M. Terman, Dr. Florence L. Goodenaugh, and Dr. Kate Gordon - published a study "of the most eminent men and women" who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been."


I've seen these numbers at quite a few sites, probably because its fun to compare the IQs of famous people, but the methodology used by these individuals, amounted essentially to educated guessing, and failed to take into account a number of factors, one of which was the fact that for some of these people, we just don't know what they did in childhood. Such people were just given a lower score. On top of this, the approach to IQ used then was flawed, so the results would be questionable even if they'd sat down with these people and tested them personally.

I agree, philosophy is definitely more difficult.

 

Some brains just need quality feed. That's not easily awailable. You have to go to some length to get it. (cq dr. Faust)

 

that may explain why we have so many Ph.ds.

 

An average IQ of 160 for a whole group? Impossible.

 

Philosophy is not harder than math. In fact they're pretty similar except one uses a specially designed more sophisticated language and is more abstract.

It's interesting that there were more scientists listed than philosophers. Even if philosophy was harder that might indicate smart people recognize science is a more useful enterprise. For instance the very fact you state that one can make more progress makes it seem to me someone who wants to contribute would do math not philosophy.

Then again someone who wanted to be famous would sing crappy pop, so humans on average apparently have bad taste and all human opinions (like mine) are quite suspect.

 

It is harder because philosophy is built upon broad knowledge basis but math can be itsown, so a young can be a mathematian, but seldom a successful philosopher. The biggest should take more time to cook.

 

I concur.

I would say that the similarities end at the motivating idea that both fields share: the exploration of the constructs of the mind.

Again, I agree. That makes it 2/2. Thankfully, there's at least one person with some who applied some logic to the issue of the thread.

If Mathematicians and Physicists "[didn't] like "the infinite" then they would avoid dealing with integrals and infinite limits. However they do not, thus your claim is invalid.

Subjectivity is a lost cause in the Physical Sciences, and essentially a nonexistent one in Mathematics. Why? Simply because there are few reliable ways to reliably deal with a structure that doesn't have well defined behavior, or that one assumes will have well-defined behavior when experimental data is taken. (Note: To those who are about to reply "Quantum Mechanics contradicts your logic!", it doesn't. Probabilities and the constructs that describe them are indicators of well defined behavior.)

Lifting an idea from scilosopher's post, I simply state "What do Philosophers have to show for it?".

Support your assertion. Simply dealing with a subjectively (there goes that word again) "broader" field of discourse would only be grounds for superiority if Philosophers used methods whose rigor met or surpassed that of Mathematicians. Currently, they do not, so your justification is invalid.

Mathematics is built upon a well-defined, axiomatic knowledge basis, thus it is more compact. The knowledge base for Philosophy is so large because it has little rigorous foundation, and few definite answers, both factors contributing to the "murkiness" of the basis. Thus, simply because the basis is large doesn't mean Philosophy is "harder". In fact, this scarcity of proper definitions allows one to contest the pillars rather easily, and add one's ideas to the "basis" with considerably less effort than is required in Mathematics.

I think you have it backwards. I contest that the logical rigor that supports Mathematics lends easily to Philosophical pursuits, but the scarcity of such structure in Philosophy presents a rather large barrier to students of Philosophy who wish to study Mathematics.

 

Dapthar
/Mathematics is built upon a well-defined, axiomatic knowledge basis, thus it is more compact. The knowledge base for Philosophy is so large because it has little rigorous foundation, and few definite answers, both factors contributing to the "murkiness" of the basis. Thus, simply because the basis is large doesn't mean Philosophy is "harder". In fact, this scarcity of proper definitions allows one to contest the pillars rather easily, and add one's ideas to the "basis" with considerably less effort than is required in Mathematics./
"axiomatic" means no constrain. you don't have to care much about the physical reality.
Have we ever seen a young successful philosopher who at least built a phi-structure of understanding?
How many young math men have we seen?
The history performance tells that we have considerablly less philosopher than any other professions, why? And a successful profession become a philosopher in some way because they have to think that way. The ambiguity of the job is the logic dead-corner, which baffles mathman.
Yes, any one can have his life philosophy and can challeng the pillar, that makes a success more difficult because there are limitless examiners around to attack you from all directions. As a mathman, the only thing you care is self-consistancy. You can assume the sun is made up of gold as a mathman, but if you do so as a phi-man, you become everybody's laugh stuff. That is what we say,depicting a ghost is easy but a cow is far more difficult.
Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary. I think a phi-concept is far more difficult to grasp than a math one since you said they are"axiomatic".
How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject.

 

Dapthar
/I think you have it backwards. I contest that the logical rigor that supports Mathematics lends easily to Philosophical pursuits, but the scarcity of such structure in Philosophy presents a rather large barrier to students of Philosophy who wish to study Mathematics./
When I can solve a math problem, I have no idea of philosophy, not to mention to answer a question.

 

RE Dapthar

In the domain of philosophy you can ask: What is mathematics?
Can you ask in the domain of mathematics: What is philosophy?

Mathematics is a subordinate of philosophy. Mastering a subdomain compared to the mastering in of the whole domain speaks for itself (at least for some).

 

It could be said that "mathematics is a construct "of" the mind and Philosophy is a "contruct" about the mind"

Oops!! Did I just say that? Or did I think it? Maybe both or all or maybe I just imagined the whole thing?

Hi Mom!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I find IQ dubious. However, it's worth nothing that the inspiration for Einstein's theories - as credited by Einstein himself - was Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher generally considered to score in the 180s on hypothetical IQ tests.

We will discuss Einstein's plagiarism elsewhere perhaps.