|
|
#51
06-21-2005, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
Douglas Adams
|
|
#52
06-21-2005, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
[ 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.
|
|
#54
06-21-2005, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
[ 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
|
|
#55
06-21-2005, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Two Other Names
Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin MM
|
|
#56
06-22-2005, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
I second Ben Franklin
|
|
#57
06-22-2005, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
[ 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.
|
|
#59
06-22-2005, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
[ 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.
|
|
#60
06-22-2005, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Smartest man who ever lived?
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
