Smartest man who ever lived?

[drudman]

I say Leibniz.

[fnord_too]

Da Vinci would be my first choice, followed by Gauss. Archimedes may be a good choice, but I really don't know enough about his work.

(The reason Da Vinci gets the nod from me is that he was at least in the running for the best in so many areas at once (Math, Phys, Painting, etc.). Gauss was just astounding, too, but almost exclusively in math. A lot of people sent him new and novel work only to get back a response like "Yeah, I looked at that but never liked my results enough to publish it. Here are a few notebooks worth of work I did on your topic..." It is truly awe inspiring how much he did.)

[CallMeIshmael]

We almost certainly don't know his name.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
We almost certainly don't know his name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the question itself is bullshit on any serious level - what metric are we using to assess smartness, and how can it be quantified? - just toss out some names. Besides, I think you would find it very difficult to substantiate what you are saying even if we had rigorous definitions.

I'll go for Newton. Take that, OP.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
just toss out some names.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin.
Bohr.
Newton.


Also, fwiw, I am amazingly impressed by Shakespeare's intelligence, but I feel that is not what OP is going for.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I think you would find it very difficult to substantiate what you are saying even if we had rigorous definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that the smartest man who ever lived necessarily made a contribution to the world so great that I know who he is?

The odds against that seem pretty slim (despite the fact that incredible intelligence does tend to increase the chances that you are made world famous)

[Ulysses]

Pretty sure it's David Sklansky.

[M2d]

what's the guy's name who invented sliced bread?

[The4Aces]

earl of sandwich

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

The odds against that seem pretty slim (despite the fact that incredible intelligence does tend to increase the chances that you are made world famous)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statement of faith, as far as I can tell. I'd be curious to see any halfway decent argument you can make to support the claim that the odds are actually pretty slim.

[tbach24]

Ozzie Guillen

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a statement of faith, as far as I can tell. I'd be curious to see any halfway decent argument you can make to support the claim that the odds are actually pretty slim.

[/ QUOTE ]

What percentage of people in the world today do you think are given the background necessary to be considered the most intelligent person alive? Its certainly not a big number.

If you were somehow able to place two genetically identical individuals in different situations, one with two PhD physicists, the other into a family in Ethiopia, do you really think they are equally likely to one day be considered the most intelligent person alive?


Same thing with, say, tennis: Is Roger Federerer a favourite over anyone alive today? Yes. Is he the most genetically gifted tennis player in the world? I have my doubts.

[drudman]

Taken! And I don't think it's a coincidence we both named inventors of calculus. Someone else named the third independant inventor of calculus, Archimedes.

It's not meant as a serious question either.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

If you were somehow able to place two genetically identical individuals in different situations, one with two PhD physicists, the other into a family in Ethiopia, do you really think they are equally likely to one day be considered the most intelligent person alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that genetically equivalent = equally intelligent. My understanding of neurology is nearly nonexistent, but I'm reasonably sure that it is not the case that our neural pathways form independent of the stimulation that we receive. Also, a lifetime of malnourishment probably has dire consequences on these sorts of things. So I'm not interested in potential at birth, but what you actually become, and consequently, I think we really only have to consider the relatively small fraction of people who are in position to contend. It's kind of tautological.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that genetically equivalent = equally intelligent. My understanding of neurology is nearly nonexistent, but I'm reasonably sure that it is not the case that our neural pathways form independent of the stimulation that we receive. Also, a lifetime of malnourishment probably has dire consequences on these sorts of things. So I'm not interested in potential at birth, but what you actually become, and consequently, I think we really only have to consider the relatively small fraction of people who are in position to contend. It's kind of tautological.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh... I was going more along the lines of inherent ability, rather than realized ability.

But, I would say that if we are looking at only realized ability, it is far more likely that we know this person's name.

But, I still have no way to estimate a range for that probability. Anyone wanna take a shot at it?

[contentless]

Jesus Christ. All the magic tricks!

Seriously. If you do believe in him, this is your answer. If you don't believe in him, then the fact that ~2000 years after he died, there are still billions of people that worship him means that his pyramid scheme worked out pretty well.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ. All the magic tricks!

Seriously. If you do believe in him, this is your answer. If you don't believe in him, then the fact that ~2000 years after he died, there are still billions of people that worship him means that his pyramid scheme worked out pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've proposed the same logic to friends of mine.

Nice post.

[kiffl]

Stu Ungar was the smartest man who ever lived when it came to games.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Smartest man who ever lived?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate these questions.

Einstein is that master of complex physics yet he's a retard at politics and love.

Casanova is the master of seduction but could never hold down a long term relationship.

Watson is a master at managing a lab in the scientific community, however he couldn't manage to impress a wholesome female if he tried to.

Hitler was a master politician but a horrible general.

Sklansky is a master poker player, but can't write worth [censored].

Clear enough?

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smartest man who ever lived?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate these questions.

Einstein is that master of complex physics yet he's a retard at politics and love.

Casanova is the master of seduction but could never hold down a long term relationship.

Watson is a master at managing a lab in the scientific community, however he couldn't manage to impress a wholesome female if he tried to.

Hitler was a master politician but a horrible general.

Sklansky is a master poker player, but can't write worth [censored].

Clear enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I said Da Vinci, that guy seemed to be a master of everything.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that genetically equivalent = equally intelligent. My understanding of neurology is nearly nonexistent, but I'm reasonably sure that it is not the case that our neural pathways form independent of the stimulation that we receive. Also, a lifetime of malnourishment probably has dire consequences on these sorts of things. So I'm not interested in potential at birth, but what you actually become, and consequently, I think we really only have to consider the relatively small fraction of people who are in position to contend. It's kind of tautological.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh... I was going more along the lines of inherent ability, rather than realized ability.

But, I would say that if we are looking at only realized ability, it is far more likely that we know this person's name.

But, I still have no way to estimate a range for that probability. Anyone wanna take a shot at it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, how did you get that sweet title?

Second, I would wager that even if you were to talk about inherent ability, we would still know the person's name for a couple of reasons:

1. A person who is gifted in a given area is likely to gravitate towards that area. If a person is 7-feet time and has a good jump shot, it's quite likely that they'll find their way into the basketball system somewhere and eventually make it to the NBA. A person who is extremely smart will likely find an area in which he/she excels and will find plenty of ample opportunities to advance to the top of their field and make a name for themself.

2. Intelligence is largely genetic and people practice selective mating. In America for instance, a lot of people meet their future spouses at college. Since these people both went to college, they are (generally speaking) above average intelligence. When they mate, it is quite likely that their children will also be above average.

In general, somebody who is extremely smart will likely not want to marry someone else unless that person also has far above average intelligence. Since the pools of people to pick from in a large country are so large, they will frequently be able to find such a person. They will then be able to have children with this person and their children are then also likely to be extremely gifted, and possibly more gifted than their parents. A genius who lives in a small village for his entire life will often not be able to find someone who is at or near the same level of intelligence as him and therefore, his offspring are not as likely to be the smartest person who ever lived as the two people who live in a major country.

This is by no means a proof, but more of a probabalistic argument.

[bholdr]

choosing a 'smartest' person in history is tough for a whole lot of obvious reasons, primarily because the very term 'smart' is a subjective one, unless one uses a universal measure like IQ (which hasn't been around and isn't particularily accurate, imo). but i'll go ahead and throw out a few names:

Motzart
J.S. Bach
Voltaire
Sun Tzu

all 'smart' talk aside, i believe that the highly educated person in history was easily John Stuart Mill. form the forward of my edition of 'on liberty':

"By the time he was eight he knew everything that a doctor of philosophy knows nowadays"

geez! eight?

also, i remember reading about an indian man that, with zero formal training in mathematics, and only an old algebra textbook to work with, extrapolated mathematical theroy all the way up to some very advanced calculus... i don't remember his name, but i belive he did the bulk of his work in the latter half of the last century.

[fluff]

Anurag Dikshit

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, how did you get that sweet title?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason_t and Rmarotti convinced GoT to change it. And, no money was transfered!!


[ QUOTE ]
Second, I would wager that even if you were to talk about inherent ability, we would still know the person's name for a couple of reasons:

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you go any further. Right now, estimate how many people you know existed. That is, think of the number of people whose name you know, and, say, where/when they lived (or around about).

Now, think of how many people have ever existed.

Now, think of how small the first number / second number is. Pretty small, huh?

The fact that that number is SOOO small, means you have to overcome a lot. And, simply put, its impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
1. A person who is gifted in a given area is likely to gravitate towards that area. If a person is 7-feet time and has a good jump shot, it's quite likely that they'll find their way into the basketball system somewhere and eventually make it to the NBA. A person who is extremely smart will likely find an area in which he/she excels and will find plenty of ample opportunities to advance to the top of their field and make a name for themself.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Basketball statement should have looked more like:

This person is 7 feet tall, has a great jump shot, and lived in an area of the world where basketball was played and was introduced into basketball and encouraged to play basketball when he was young.

I mean... think about it: how many people who have ever lived even know what basketball IS. 5 billion has to be too large, but erring on your side is fine. Now, take that same number of the total all time human population. And figure out A/B again.

Do you really think its likely that the most genetically capable basketball player to EVER lived actually:

- Was alive since the introduction of basketball
- Was introduced to it
- Took up and interest in it, and continued to play it???


[ QUOTE ]

2. Intelligence is largely genetic and people practice selective mating. In America for instance, a lot of people meet their future spouses at college. Since these people both went to college, they are (generally speaking) above average intelligence. When they mate, it is quite likely that their children will also be above average. In general, somebody who is extremely smart will likely not want to marry someone else unless that person also has far above average intelligence. Since the pools of people to pick from in a large country are so large, they will frequently be able to find such a person. They will then be able to have children with this person and their children are then also likely to be extremely gifted, and possibly more gifted than their parents. A genius who lives in a small village for his entire life will often not be able to find someone who is at or near the same level of intelligence as him and therefore, his offspring are not as likely to be the smartest person who ever lived as the two people who live in a major country.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im not really sure what this is trying to say.

But... the most intelligent people that we have examples for, are certainly not necessarily the result of the mating of who people of incredible intellect.


Also... fwiw, keep in mind that a vast majority of all people lived before college was widespread. Its not like it was that easy to discover supreme intelligence 2000 years ago.



EDIT: Anyone have a decent estimate for the number of people who have ever lived? I know, given the exponential growth pattern of the human pop in recent time, the living should represent a non trivial chunk of it.

[miajag81]

[ QUOTE ]
Gauss.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

Nicole Kidman

PTB

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
I say Leibniz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good choice. My first thought before opening the thread.

[Triumph36]

Genetically capable has nothing to do with it. Intelligence is expressed in language, whether it be words, mathematical symbols, music, etc. Therefore, without a written language or complicated spoken language, I see it as very unlikely that many people would arise who we would call 'geniuses' outside of those who have existed in societies with writing, because quite simply they would not have the ability to express genius-level thoughts in strictly functional languages.

I'd go with Leibniz or Gauss. Leibniz because he wrote the Discourse on Metaphysics when 'he had a few days to spare', Gauss because he invented non-Euclidian geometry at 18..and many other achievements for both of them, of course.

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure it's David Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's Sklansky's father. Remember, when Sklansky did his "smartest people ever" list, he specifically said "I am excluding my father from this list", which was a clear sign that Einstein et al were no match for him.

[morello]

Surprised to see only one person mentioned Shakespeare. While the other guys certainly were accomplished in math/physics areas, it is quite likely that their discoveries were only a matter of time from happening.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Surprised to see only one person mentioned Shakespeare. While the other guys certainly were accomplished in math/physics areas, it is quite likely that their discoveries were only a matter of time from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar vein, one can say that perhaps if Shakespeare hadn't been around, today we'd all love Christopher Marlowe.

I'm not sure you realize how much creativity and imagination is needed for truly breakthrough science.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Surprised to see only one person mentioned Shakespeare. While the other guys certainly were accomplished in math/physics areas, it is quite likely that their discoveries were only a matter of time from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im glad somebody mentioned this.

I got into like an hour long debate with jason_t (who is a bright guy, and a PhD student in math). I think his choice of study tends to close his mind towards 'other' types of intelligence.

There are very few people whose intelligence I am more impressed by than Shakespeare's (if he did exist).

Also... he is on a very short list of the most influential people of the last millenium.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

There are very few people whose intelligence I am more impressed by than Shakespeare's (if he did exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

What about his writing gives you the impression of vast intelligence?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

also, i remember reading about an indian man that, with zero formal training in mathematics, and only an old algebra textbook to work with, extrapolated mathematical theroy all the way up to some very advanced calculus... i don't remember his name, but i belive he did the bulk of his work in the latter half of the last century.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy you're thinking of is Srinivasa Ramanujan. The stories about him are insane. No formal training in mathematics might not be 100% accurate but it's pretty damn close. He filled notebooks full of bizarre, complicated results and series summations, without proof, most of them actually being true. He claimed that some of these things came to him in visions. He had a somewhat brief correspondence with G.H. Hardy, took ill and died not too long afterward. He's probably one of the biggest "what if"s of mathematics.

[Mason Malmuth]

Evariste Galois

[tylerdurden]

The guy that invented the Pill.

[Mano]

Feynman was pretty bright. So was Dirac.

[Mano]

Didn't he die really young in a duel over some chick?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mano:

He died young in a duel, but it had to do with politics. He also knew he had no chance to win the duel, but he made some notes about his mathematical theories the night before his death.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

Goethe
Leibnitz
JS Mill
E Swedenborg
Da Vinci
Newton

[Zeno]

As pointed out by a few other posters in this thread, this is a difficult to impossible question to really answer for a variety of reasons, some obvious and already pointed out. Still, it is fun to speculate on the question nonetheless.

There are many people throughout history that excelled in a specific technical and scientific sphere and they usually top most people’s lists (Einstein, Newton etc.). Some, in addition to technical (mathematical)/scientific accomplishments, may have also excelled in other areas of human endeavor, say in art, engineering, music, literature, politics, etc; a person such as Leonardo De Vinci is a prime example. Thus, if I were forced to make a list of the 'smartest humans', I would be bias toward known polymaths, or persons of wide learning, that also displayed a variety of skills, achievements, and creativity across a broad spectrum of human activities. A person like Thomas Jefferson comes to mind, Euclid (what can be known of him), Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Leibniz, Plato, and Aristotle are other examples and many more that it would take too long to mention.

As regards Shakespeare, he borrowed much from early writers and histories. Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes are at least his equal, in my opinion.

There are other individuals, that I would categorize as ‘wise people’, that have lived that have achievements both initial and also in starting a chain of thought, or sparking radical changes in human societies and cultural, or profoundly altering previous thinking (in a positive direction). Confucius, I think, is an excellent example as is Buddha or Lao Tzu (if he really existed).

In addition, there obviously has been remarkablely smart or wise individuals throughout human history that are not well known or lost in obscurity for various reasons, or completely unknown (who originated writing or first codified it?). For example, one very remarkable and learned person that lived very recently is today almost completely unknown; John Mackinnon Robertson (1856-1933) is his name. He could be classified has an ‘Encyclopedist’. He was an expert in many languages, both ancient and modern, and wrote 110 books on everything from free thought, the origins of Christianity, to 22 books on Shakespeare. I simply throw out this man as one example – there is no doubt that many such individuals have existed from the dawn of human culture and thinking, from ancient Egypt to China to more modern times, in other words, spread about the globe in time and space.

-Zeno

[young nut]

[ QUOTE ]
I say Leibniz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Napoleon, there is no way that anyone could possibly know that

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Surprised to see only one person mentioned Shakespeare. While the other guys certainly were accomplished in math/physics areas, it is quite likely that their discoveries were only a matter of time from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we even know who Shakespeare was? I thought there were even some theories that is was a group of writers releasing under one name. I honestly am completely clueless here except that I somehow have the impression that there is uncertainty. (I think I also remeber some theory that Fracis Bacon or the other (non Kevin) Bacon was him.) If we cannot say that it was definitely one person, hard to label him the smartest ever, though if it was I think he is certainly in the running.

I am surpriesed the question of defining intelligence hasn't gotten more play in this thread. (I have only read to the post I am responding to, so I'm sure the next five posts are just that, but I am too lazy to check before finishing this post.) What constitutes intelligence is not trivial.

Another name in the ring: Zhuge Liang.

Also, Confucious left some pretty insightful works. As did Hegel and several other philosophers.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Evariste Galois

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about mentioning him. A great tragedy that he died at 20.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mano:

He died young in a duel, but it had to do with politics. He also knew he had no chance to win the duel, but he made some notes about his mathematical theories the night before his death.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard a story that as he was dieing of peritonitis in the gutter with a firend crying over him he said something like:

"Please don't weep, it takes all the courage I can muster to die at 20."

Wow.

[fnord_too]

Great post!

[Timer]

Jesus

[kitaristi0]

I won't even go into the whole "there are different kinds of intelligence etc." debate because it's been discussed here already. These are just some names that came to mind.

Lennon and McCartney
Plato
Einstein
Garry Kasparov
All the existentialists in the world /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[NutzyClutz]

Ask Maryilyn

[AthenianStranger]

5 pages, and no one mentions Aristotle.
Pythagoras.
Lucretius.
Whatever. I'm the smartest man ever.

[SomethingClever]

Douglas Adams

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you go any further. Right now, estimate how many people you know existed. That is, think of the number of people whose name you know, and, say, where/when they lived (or around about).

Now, think of how many people have ever existed.

Now, think of how small the first number / second number is. Pretty small, huh?

The fact that that number is SOOO small, means you have to overcome a lot. And, simply put, its impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said at the end of my last post, this was a probablistic argument. The people I know existed are people who are either extraordinary in some way or have had an immediate impact on my life. For a given person:

P(they are a candidate for being the smartest person ever)

is small. However:

P(they are a candidate for being the smartest person ever | I have heard of them)

is much larger. This is an obvious application of Bayes Theorem.

[ QUOTE ]
Basketball statement should have looked more like:

This person is 7 feet tall, has a great jump shot, and lived in an area of the world where basketball was played and was introduced into basketball and encouraged to play basketball when he was young.

I mean... think about it: how many people who have ever lived even know what basketball IS. 5 billion has to be too large, but erring on your side is fine. Now, take that same number of the total all time human population. And figure out A/B again.

Do you really think its likely that the most genetically capable basketball player to EVER lived actually:

- Was alive since the introduction of basketball
- Was introduced to it
- Took up and interest in it, and continued to play it???

[/ QUOTE ]

My analogy is obviously flawed for a couple of reasons. Mostly that basketball has only been around for 100 years or so and also the fact that modern workout routines can greatly enhance a players potential. Still, I think there is a great chance that we've heard of the best basketball player who's ever lived. I would say that the desire to play basketball has a lot to do with one's inherent ability to play the game. If you're not interested, then your potential is already low. I was also think of players like Dikembe Mutumbo and Manute Bol when I wrote this. Both of them came from small tribes in Africa where there was no basketball and made it to the NBA. NBA scouts area amazing like that. Furthermore, people are taller now than they ever were in the past, which further increases the probability that the best player has lived recently, which consequently increases the chances that we've heard of them. Though this is somewhat irrelivant to the topic at hand.


[ QUOTE ]
Im not really sure what this is trying to say.

But... the most intelligent people that we have examples for, are certainly not necessarily the result of the mating of who people of incredible intellect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know this? I'm guessing most of the people mentioned had parents who were far above average intelligence.

If you were somehow to quantify the intelligence of two people that had a child, and then took all people with the same score and made a graph, you would get a bell curve centered around that point. Obviously, the higher the intelligence the more this curve is getting shifted over. So for whoever was the smartest person who ever lived, it is much more likely (using bayes theorem again) that this person had very intelligent parents. Someone is more likely to have two very intelligent parents if their parents had the opportunity to meet a lot of people. This is more likely if a)the parents lived in a largely populated area; and b) lived relatively recently. If these things are true for the parents, then they will likely be true for the child as well, which increases the chances that we will have heard about this person at some point.


[ QUOTE ]
Also... fwiw, keep in mind that a vast majority of all people lived before college was widespread. Its not like it was that easy to discover supreme intelligence 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't really matter. Like I said in the basketball analogy, desire is tied in strongly with inherent ability. If somebody doesn't really want to do something, then they never really had as much potential as you thought because no matter what they were exposed to, they would never excel. Whoever is truly at the top has to be both inspired and intelligent. So even if there were no colleges, this person would have to still be inspired enough to find a way to make things happen for themselves. This probably makes more sense in my head than when I write it out.

Anyway, my point wasn't to prove anything, it was just to say that it's quite likely that we've heard of whoever is the smartest person who ever lived.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure it's dan slansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
5 pages, and no one mentions Aristotle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Set your posts per page higher!

Seriously though, the first person I thought of was Aristotle but I don't exactly consider myself a history buff

[Mason Malmuth]

Thomas Jefferson

Ben Franklin

MM

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I second Ben Franklin

[Suntzu00000]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said in the basketball analogy, desire is tied in strongly with inherent ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I was an all-american waterpolo player but never practiced because I did not enjoy it. I played college waterpolo and dominated, but only did it to pass the time. On the other hand, I was an average basketball player but spent almost every waking moment of my youth trying to improve. My waterpolo coaches literaly had to drag me out of basketball games during the playoffs so I wouldn't miss the games.

My theory:

Most people who are frightningly gifted at something find "that something" boring and without challenge. It is very likely IMO that the smartest person alive is probably a very passionate but very mediocre participant in some form of competitive environment that does not utilize his acumen.

[tthree]

Vince McMahon..until he decided to sue the World Wildife FEDERATION for copyright infringements!!
LOL!!

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said at the end of my last post, this was a probablistic argument. The people I know existed are people who are either extraordinary in some way or have had an immediate impact on my life. For a given person:

P(they are a candidate for being the smartest person ever)

is small. However:

P(they are a candidate for being the smartest person ever | I have heard of them)

is much larger. This is an obvious application of Bayes Theorem

[/ QUOTE ]


Im sorry, but you are very very wrong here.

I dont disagree that it would be 'much larger', but you also seem to feel that it would be 'likely'

You cant ignore the fact that a very significant percentage of the human population lived before Gutenberg. I mean, we have very little info regarding the life of Shakespeare, and he lived only a few hundre years ago. Push it back further, and a VERY large % of the population lived when it was vitrually IMPOSSIBLE for us to have heard about his/her existence.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that the desire to play basketball has a lot to do with one's inherent ability to play the game. If you're not interested, then your potential is already low.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no way that you can accurately conclude this.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you know this? I'm guessing most of the people mentioned had parents who were far above average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant: the people who are considered, arent necessarily the result of the mating of two people with incredible intellect.

FWIW, twin studies (among other methods) show that intelligence is like 50/50-60/40, genes/environment.

[ QUOTE ]

Someone is more likely to have two very intelligent parents if their parents had the opportunity to meet a lot of people. This is more likely if a)the parents lived in a largely populated area; and b) lived relatively recently. If these things are true for the parents, then they will likely be true for the child as well, which increases the chances that we will have heard about this person at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you retype that. Because I cant make sense of it.

Are you saying:

- Intelligent people are more likely to marry other intelligent people, if they are living in a bigger area
- Thus, these bigger areas are more likely to produce the smartest person ever
- Thus, since bigger areas are more likely to have 'known' people, we are more likely to have heard of this smartest person


Also... fwiw, we are almost certainly correlating the 'smartest person' with scientific advancement, which is a bias, because of the layered nature of science. Someone who was 'in place' to make a discovery. I mean, you cant have Steven Jay Gould without Darwin.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Genetically capable has nothing to do with it. Intelligence is expressed in language, whether it be words, mathematical symbols, music, etc. Therefore, without a written language or complicated spoken language, I see it as very unlikely that many people would arise who we would call 'geniuses' outside of those who have existed in societies with writing, because quite simply they would not have the ability to express genius-level thoughts in strictly functional languages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that the debate for THIS portion of the thread, is revolving around genetic capability and not expressed intelligence.

[Triumph36]

'Genetic ability' is a meaningless phrase. We don't know genes that well to claim anything like this, nor are genes so determinant as to express intelligence or potential intelligence perfectly.

As for the most intelligent person being unrecognized somewhere, that is highly doubtful. Human intelligence and the pursuit of knowledge is not like athletics, where the goals are defined; knowledge is limitless, and a lot of these 'smartest men' had it wrong on many subjects.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
'Genetic ability' is a meaningless phrase. We don't know genes that well to claim anything like this, nor are genes so determinant as to express intelligence or potential intelligence perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic capability is most certainly a relavant term here.

I dont know much about this field, but, IIRC, grey matter volume is (among other phenotypic expressions) correlated with intelligence.

MANY, MANY people who are born, are born without the genetic capability of ever being the smartest person alive.

[CashFlo]

Solomon the King and Jesus Christ.

...of course, the latter was also God.

[David Sklansky]

"No, it's Sklansky's father. Remember, when Sklansky did his "smartest people ever" list, he specifically said "I am excluding my father from this list", which was a clear sign that Einstein et al were no match for him."

To become a fellow in the Society of Actuaries, you must pass ten tests. The first test is undergraduate college math through triple Integration. But while the subject matter is moderately simple the questions are hard. There are, or were, seventy of them on the three hour test and you needed to get about 38 right to pass.

In fact the questions were so hard that there was five prizes for the best five scores every year. One first prize and four other ones. Invariably this attracted the best undergraduate students in the country and the prizes (not eligible for graduate students) were always won by Harvard or MIT guys (who never went on to become actuaries). Keep in mind that the math knowledge did not involve graduate studies so the undergraduate geniuses who won the prize would have also beat almost all math Phds who were more knowledgeble but less brillaint.

Now the fact that every year there was only one first prize given out proves that at most only one person got a perfect score. More likely no one did. Not even the ivy league superstars who were taking the test only to win a significant cash prize.

When I was a junior in high school I easily passed the test. So what. At least five percent of Cal Tech students could have done the same. But to help prepare for the test. I took a copy of the previous year's test and asked my father to go over it with me. He was Forty years old and had stopped teaching math more than ten years before that. He was not aware of its difficulty and the prizes associated with it.

He proceeded to read the questions and with no preparation, tell out loud how he would answer them. An hour and a half later, he had answered them all. No mistakes. He burrowed through the test as easily as I would the math SAT. Sometimes he thought ten seconds before answering. Never longer. Ten years after his last math test. And this test was on all subjects from calculus through trigonometry and included many tricky word problems that would give run of the mill scientists fits. Plus the hour and a half it took him was including his verbal explanations to me.

His performance pretty much proved that he was smarter, mathematically, than any undergraduate math student of the previous twenty years. And while I believe it is reasonably likely that Gauss, Euler, and maybe even Feynman could have done as well, I'd lay a big price, if there was some way to prove it, that Einstein couldn't.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

He proceeded to read the questions and with no preparation, tell out loud how he would answer them. An hour and a half later, he had answered them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't view these as being the same thing for the purposes of evaluating performance on a timed test.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure it's David Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's Sklansky's father. Remember, when Sklansky did his "smartest people ever" list, he specifically said "I am excluding my father from this list", which was a clear sign that Einstein et al were no match for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, this knocks him out of the running

[Triumph36]

That's all irrelevant. Genetics has nothing to do with it. If intelligence were strictly a material matter, we'd be sitting here comparing DNA and brains and neurons. We're not doing that, and I don't think it is possible to do that yet. I'd be fairly convinced that science has found out an ordinal scale with which to judge intelligence by viewing neuron activity or activity in certain parts of the brain vs. other parts, but I doubt they've come up with any common measure. It is therefore unquantifiable in the way we'd want it to be.

Therefore, while your question raises a good point, it is invalid because it is completely unanswerable, and I hardly think a good set of criteria with which to judge.

Furthermore I think the explanations provided in this thread make it incredibly likely that the 'smartest man' lived since the invention of written language.

[CallMeIshmael]

I was actually going to post another reply before you posted yours, because I have yet to give a great defintion of what we're looking at.

Here goes...

If EVERY person who ever lived, were reared in the EXACT same situation, then whomever was the 'smartest' person from these (somehow) independent experiments, would be the smartest person to ever live, genetically speaking.

Do you see what I mean, now?

Dont get me wrong, I agree that intelligence is a combination of both genetics and environment, but, what this subthread is discussing, is the question:

Is it likely that whomever would be the smartest under those conditions is known to us today?


Again, the answer is a pretty clear 'no', IMO.



BUT, fwiw, I do agree with you 100% that the smartest REALIZED intelligence, was 99.999999% certain to have lived since recorded time.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
And while I believe it is reasonably likely that Gauss, Euler, and maybe even Feynman could have done as well, I'd lay a big price, if there was some way to prove it, that Einstein couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is likely longer than that, but whether or not Einstein could have done as well doesn't really change his status as one of the smartest human beings ever.

Also, if I could choose between being a genius at mathematics, and being a genius at theoretical physics (or experimental physics), it's not close. (While I wouldn't claim to be a genius at either, especially since I haven't done any real work at either in a long time, I certainly could have gotten a bachelors degree/started graduate school in mathematics, and I chose physics withotu hesitation)

[jgodin]

First time poster in this topic. Be nice.

goof, I don't think choosing whether to study mathematics or physics has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has more to do with personality than anything (I, too, probably could have do work in physics, but chose mathematics instead. I like their dental plan).

Another question posed to this forum. Do you believe that the mathematicians discussed in this forum

1) discover
or
2) create

the mathematics they've graced us with? If they do indeed discover (which to me is much less intelligent than creating, and I'm a math guy, so I can say that), could you really put mathematics ahead of folks like Michaelangelo or even the sliced-bread guy/girl? (props to my genius hotties out there)

Talk amongst yourselves.

[goofball]

I didn't say "smarter people choose physics" and certainly didn't mean to and don't think so.

It remains true that I chose physics because for me, in science there is physics, and everything else is second tier. I also don't really lump math in the 'sciences' category. For me math is a tool with which we do science. This is probably an unpopular opinion among mathematicians, but so be it.

[Utah]

"His performance pretty much proved that he was smarter, mathematically, than any undergraduate math student of the previous twenty years."

At best, it proved he might have been the best at solving those types of problems on a timed test. Even then, his performance could have been strongly influenced by factors not relating to intelligence (for example - maybe at some point he had seen similar problems in his career or maybe many decades of math helped him overcome the problems even if it wasnt a question of having knowledge - e.g., one will do better on IQ tests if one constantly takes them even though the tests do not require specific knowledge).

You also make the faulty assumption that the test is the gauge of overall mathematical brilliance where it is likely only a test of one area of mathematical brilliance. It is like having a contest where the top musicians are given an incredibly complex piece of music to play and then declaring the musician who played the piece instantaniously and flawlessly as the most talented musician who ever lived. However, it might be the case that the person who wrote the piece is far more brilliant, even if that writer could never pass such a test as which his composition was used for. Or, it is possible that someone who wrote a simple but perfect 15 note melody such as Ode to Joy is far more talented than those who can compose with complexity or those who can execute the music flawlessly.

I think technicians in a discipline (ones who can solve problems or execute functions quickly) overvalue their intelligence and/or their expertise. It is the "creationists" that deserve and get the glory. Brilliant technicians are a dime a dozen. Creationists are incredibly rare.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shakespeare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im glad somebody mentioned this.

I got into like an hour long debate with jason_t (who is a bright guy, and a PhD student in math). I think his choice of study tends to close his mind towards 'other' types of intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're just wrong.

[Durer]

it does not contribute to much to the more important question of definition of intelligance in this thread but I´d like to throw out the name William James Sidis - Sidis homepage (http://www.sidis.net/)

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
it might be the case that the person who wrote the piece is far more brilliant, even if that writer could never pass such a test as which his composition was used for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're getting at here is a distinction between the human and the divine, between mere skill and inspiration... the Muses. And that is something that I think most people here would laugh at, what with their fancy math and science and secular humanism and logical positivism...

Intelligence... just what is that?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I think technicians in a discipline (ones who can solve problems or execute functions quickly) overvalue their intelligence and/or their expertise. It is the "creationists" that deserve and get the glory. Brilliant technicians are a dime a dozen. Creationists are incredibly rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an excellent point, and underappreciated by the general public. It's basically the distinction that Kuhn makes between "normal science" and "scientific revolutions."

[CallMeImbecile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shakespeare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im glad somebody mentioned this.

I got into like an hour long debate with jason_t (who is a bright guy, and a PhD student in math). I think his choice of study tends to close his mind towards 'other' types of intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is an imbecile.

[J.A.Sucker]

You forgot the Sucker, but are very right with your two names, especially Franklin.

[J.A.Sucker]

Your post reminded me of something Tommy Angelo pointed out to me.

How can you tell which actuary is the extrovert?






He's staring at YOUR shoes when he tries to talk to you!

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
His performance pretty much proved that he was smarter, mathematically, than any undergraduate math student of the previous twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellectual style does not equal intellectual substance. How fast did your father do his times tables? Was he also good at tongue twisters?

[IronUnkind]

Sklansky does not have a very nuanced understanding of what constitutes "intelligence." It seems very important for him to cling to his narrow definition of "actual smartness" because it underpins his own claims to greatness (and his father's).

[ceskylev]

I agree about Shakespeare, but as a linguist, rather than an artist. I think his contributions to the English language have held up much better than his plays.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with your larger point about the place of artists in this discussion. It's a different kind of brilliance, but it's still brilliance.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
I say Leibniz.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd pick leibniz over newton, but smartest of all time?

I'd probably choose Einstein.

I'd also consider Plato, Schroedinger or Heidegger and some others that people have already named

[Jeff W]

Heidegger? Come on...

Newton is #1.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Newton is #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

why? Explain to me how newton goes before leibniz.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
why? Explain to me how newton goes before leibniz.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made more discoveries in more fields than Liebniz. Optics, Thermodynamics, Astronomy, the classical laws of force and motion including Gravity and Conservation of Momentum, Calculus and the Binomial theorem.

Liebniz is very influential as well: First mechanical calculator IIRC and integral calculus. However, I believe Liebniz' brilliance is overshadowed by the breadth of Newton's contributions and the very short time period over which Newton generated all of his ideas.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Liebniz is very influential as well: First mechanical calculator IIRC and integral calculus. However, I believe Liebniz' brilliance is overshadowed by the breadth of Newton's contributions and the very short time period over which Newton generated all of his ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to realize that you're talking to a likely philosopher, which is the real reason for picking Leibniz before Newton.