[Tuthmosis]

Why aren't any of these "prodigies" ever brilliant writers? Because math/science skills are rather common. Impressive writing, especially at a young age, is extraordinarily rare, since it hinges on experience, creativity, and--for the content--intelligence. It tests on many levels. In that way, it's not that different from tight game (social intelligence), which these guys also lack massively.

When one of these "geniuses" sits down and pens some impressive turn of phrase--or picks up mad hot chicks--I'll take notice. For now, they're just puzzle solvers who, more than likely, will never do anything on the order of a community-college science professor, never mind Einstein.

[Bad Hussar]

(10-02-2013 04:15 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Why aren't any of these "prodigies" ever brilliant writers? Because math/science skills are rather common. Impressive writing, especially at a young age, is extraordinarily rare, since it hinges on experience, creativity, and--for the content--intelligence. It tests on many levels. In that way, it's not that different from tight game (social intelligence), which these guys also lack massively.

When one of these "geniuses" sits down and pens some impressive turn of phrase--or picks up mad hot chicks--I'll take notice. For now, they're just puzzle solvers who, more than likely, will never do anything on the order of a community-college science professor, never mind Einstein.

I think it's because verbal intelligence isn't given enough weight in IQ tests. Especially in "Culture Fair" tests, where relying on language knowledge is thought to be unfair.

In real life it's obvious from observation that there are two major strains of intelligence. Verbal and quantitative. I think the intelligence of people with strong verbal skills is often underrated. People aren't as "impressed" with verbal skills, at least when considering the users intelligence, as they are with more abstract quantitative skills. Probably because everyone inevitably learns at least one language naturally simply by existing, whereas quantitative skills are more abstract and not as inevitable. Doesn't mean that anyone can be a good writer, say, but it just SEEMS easier. It's misleading.

So, Stephen Hawking is considered an amazing genius, which no doubt he is. But a really, really top international standard lawyer working in a top global firm is likely pretty close in IQ to Hawking. It's just that the lawyer has very high verbal intelligence, whereas Hawking is obviously strong quantitatively.

As for your question of geniuses good at game, the obvious choice is Richard Feynman. I know you're asking specifically about people in high IQ clubs, and I doubt Feynman was ever a member of one. His career led him to his peers so it wouldn't have been necessary. So probably not many Mensa, 999 or Prometheus members who are good players, but hey, there's a first for everything. Give it some time and we'll have a post by a member titled "High IQ Society Game". Game is like a gas. It must permeate every available space.

[cardguy]

I spoke to one of the best theoretical physicists in the world a few years ago. Indeed the year before he had won an important prize for being the world's best theoretical physicist that year.

Anyway - he mentioned to me that Stephen Hawking's reputation with the public far outweighs his reputation in the physics community. The impression I got is that there are 50-100 guys on Hawking's level (or above). But they don't have anywhere near the same level of celebrity with the public.

And as for this guy's hero. It was Richard Feynman (who he knew when he was younger). Couldn't say enough good things about him.

[cardguy]

The thing with Richard Feyman is that he would prepare sneaky tricks to make himself come across as even more of a genius than he really was. So - sometimes you have to wonder which parts of his reputation was based on such tricks.

You can read about them here:

http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/m...ynman.html

[rlongo924]

You could have an insanely high IQ but not do shit intellectually or academically, all that means is that you have the capacity to excel at an extremely rapid rate.

People put way too much stock into IQ translating to academic or intellectual success.

Yes, more often than not high IQ people do the best at things, but I would have to say work ethic is definitely more important.