Stephen Hawking

Post by **xer0s** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:43 pm

DEAD

j/k, he's fine. And he's got some new competition...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wking.html

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:02 pm

Baby Mensa != Grownup Mensa

But yea, she'll never be asking, "would you like fries with that?"

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:32 pm

Don't do that to me...my heart sunk...

Post by **Eraser** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:36 pm

Same IQ isn't the same as knowing just as much as.

Post by **xer0s** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:43 pm

Correct.

Post by **scared?** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:43 pm

he RIP'd today...good nite sweet cripple...

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:47 pm

Eraser wrote:Same IQ isn't the same as knowing just as much as.

IQ has basically been described as a test of "knowing stuff from your time period".
For example, Sir Isaac Newton would have had a high IQ during his time, but he'd score pretty low these days if he was tested with the knowledge he had during his days on Earth.

IQ tests are bunk, TBH, and really shouldn't be used as a test of "intelligence"....especially on-line IQ tests.

Post by **xer0s** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:06 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
IQ has basically been described as a test of "knowing stuff from your time period".
For example, Sir Isaac Newton would have had a high IQ during his time, but he'd score pretty low these days if he was tested with the knowledge he had during his days on Earth.

True, but if Newton was alive today, he still may have been one of the top scientists. With other scientists and technology to feed off of, he could have very well been a Stephen Hawking. We'll never know for sure of course...

Post by **DRuM** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:07 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
IQ tests are bunk, TBH, and really shouldn't be used as a test of "intelligence"....

Bit casually dismissive isn't it?

So it's just coincidence that einstein and hawkings, both geniuses, happen to have 160 IQ?

Did you read the article about the girl, with 159 IQ, how she was able to do things at a ridiculously young age that other 'normal' children don't or can't?

Post by **xer0s** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:10 pm

Don Carlos wrote:Don't do that to me...my heart sunk...

Sorry Donny. You know I'd never do anything to hurt you...

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:21 pm

DRuM wrote:
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
IQ tests are bunk, TBH, and really shouldn't be used as a test of "intelligence"....
Bit casually dismissive isn't it?

So it's just coincidence that einstein and hawkings, both geniuses, happen to have 160 IQ?

Did you read the article about the girl, with 159 IQ, how she was able to do things at a ridiculously young age that other 'normal' children don't or can't?

Yes...I read the whole thing.

First off, it isn't "casually dismissive" since I've been well aware of the problems with the test for more than 20 years. I've since long ago made up my mind. Nothing casual there.

Second, according to online tests, I score anywhere between 160 and 180. I'm smart, but I don't consider myself in the same league as Einstein or Hawkings. That was the reason I put the caveat there about online tests being unreliable.

Thirdly...while I believe the girl is exceptionally smart for her age (particularly due to the many talents beyond her age) I don't know the extent of her learning limitations. An autistic savant can see patterns and do things with them in ways that makes them seem "smart"...but they're not.

All I'm saying is "bookmark the article and read it again in 10 years to see if she really is that intelligent."

*waits for moronic "so you're writing off a 4 year old" posts*

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:25 pm

xer0s wrote:
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
IQ has basically been described as a test of "knowing stuff from your time period".
For example, Sir Isaac Newton would have had a high IQ during his time, but he'd score pretty low these days if he was tested with the knowledge he had during his days on Earth.

True, but if Newton was alive today, he still may have been one of the top scientists. With other scientists and technology to feed off of, he could have very well been a Stephen Hawking. We'll never know for sure of course...

No doubt. I'm simply saying if he took a modern IQ test with only the knowledge he had from his time he'd most likely score low or only average (100 IQ). Give him a few weeks to "catch up" and I'm sure he'd score high.

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:40 pm

and the award for 'most misnamed thread' goes to...

Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:19 pm

Look what the future has in store for the little genius!

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:22 pm

A wonky eye?

Post by **Mat Linnett** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:44 pm

Don't go knocking the Vord, national institution she is

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:47 pm

I would

Post by **plained** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:52 pm

my kids read from very early on ey

my little lady shes been reading for so long, started the basic reading at about 1.5 and at four now she reads very very well , she fluently reads my sons grade 1-2 books before she was four.

my son is an awesome reader too , they have done writing for a long time and math and counting too, its old for them.

its shitty tho my kids lack the showoff gene lol

Post by **Doombrain** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:58 pm

Mat Linnett wrote:Don't go knocking the Vord, national institution she is

Prefer the replacement.

Post by **DRuM** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:39 pm

Doombrain wrote:
Prefer the replacement.

Yep she's way hotter than Vorderman.

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:21 pm

Doombrain wrote:
Mat Linnett wrote:Don't go knocking the Vord, national institution she is
Prefer the replacement.

Very true

Post by **Doombrain** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:44 pm

high fives

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:09 pm

_o/*\o_

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:39 pm

Don Carlos wrote:_o/*\o_

Dick touch?

Post by **Tsakali** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:25 pm

high five big guy!

_o/\O_

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking

Re: Stephen Hawking