People who think Einsteins wife is responsible for his work

[moo-moo]

I think it's pretty clear that because Einsteins wife was a woman she could not have contributed to any of his work. But apparently there are some idiots who think otherwise.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/science/mquest.htm

[I'm Not Grimble]

Behind every great man there's a fat cow

[ChubbyChecker]

Sisters are doin' it for themselves

[moo-moo]

Originally Posted by Flavius

hi Idler

That's right, I'm Idler

[madi]

Originally Posted by moo-moo

I think it's pretty clear that because Einsteins wife was a woman she could not have contributed to any of his work.

bet i am more intelligent than you

[Anu]

Originally Posted by madi

bet i am more intelligent than you

What's that got to do with anything?

[moo-moo]

Originally Posted by madi

bet i am more intelligent than you

not if you're a woman

[madi]

Originally Posted by moo-moo

not if you're a woman

i can't drive
i certainly can't park
the multi tasking thing is a myth
i manage to bleed for four days without dying
i scream at scary movies
am considerably less strong than my partner
i file my nails and pluck my eyebrows
spend hours talking about nothing on the phone
i wear uncomfortable shoes because they look good
thank god everyday for lycra
and i spend hours in the bathroom

but i still would bet i am more intelligent than you

[NEWSBOT3]

madi is too good for us

[G_frog]

there was a letter on newscientist.com the other day (and possibly also in the print edition) which pointed out that women have the same mean IQ* as men, but a slightly lower variance. Therefore, at the top end of very highly rarefied fields (such as higher mathematics or physics) there should be many more men than women. This is interesting in light of the increasingly prevaling view that male dominance of such subjects is a social phenomenon. Obviously i'm not trying to claim women are less intelligent than men; this claim isn't supportable from these data (arguably it is too vague even to be meaningful).

*ignoring for now the problems with IQ testing; since we're interested in mathematical ability, which ought to be easier to check

[moo-moo]

Originally Posted by madi

i can't drive
i certainly can't park
the multi tasking thing is a myth
i manage to bleed for four days without dying
i scream at scary movies
am considerably less strong than my partner
i file my nails and pluck my eyebrows
spend hours talking about nothing on the phone
i wear uncomfortable shoes because they look good
thank god everyday for lycra
and i spend hours in the bathroom

but i still would bet i am more intelligent than you

Now I'm attracted to you

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G_frog

*ignoring for now the problems with IQ testing; since we're interested in mathematical ability, which ought to be easier to check

Mathematical ability of the kind of we're talking about in terms of Einstein, etc might be harder to measure than by a simple IQ test. I don't really seen any evidence which means that if you are good at solving small, quick problems found in IQ tests you are necessarily going to be good at solving deep scientific or mathematical mysteries.

[G_frog]

Traditionally it has been education dependent components of IQ tests that have come in for the strongest critisism (eg vocabulary tests), whereas areas like spatial reasoning should be fairly independent of external factors. You're quite right that the ability (for example) to contemplate an abstract problem in detail for a long while - which einstein undoubtedly did - wouldn't show up on IQ tests.

I just wanted to show that an idea which has been gaining ground in recent years - that differences in the success of the sexes in some fields are purely sociological - may have a weaker scientific grounding than is sometimes suggested. Of course the argument cuts both ways - the higher number of male geniuses doesn't tell us anything about general sex differences.

I'll just add that the lack of women in the sciences in general obviously is sociological; experimental - and most theoretical - disciplines do not need such highly developed and unusual talents as higher mathematics.

[madi]

/ducks and covers from equal rights feminist types

it may well be true that the higher end of the intelligence scale is dominated by men
most of the women i have met are pretty dim

but there are exeptions to most rules

regarding women in scienfic positions
maybe all the smart women would rather wear prada than a lab coats

[G_frog]

Don't think that's it, slightly more than half of my fellow biology students - and slightly less than half of the physics students - are female. This applies both in my traditionally male-dominated college and across the university, but does NOT carry across into the faculties, here or elsewhere. Most mathematics students and academics are male, however.

Earlier, i was talking about the very high end of the intelligence scale, and that only in specific areas. No one can speak with any high probability about their likely everyday experience, just reasoning from the fact that newton was a man, or vice versa.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

In fact anyone who can catch a ball, speak and read and tell the difference between snow in the shadow and coal under a bright light must have a high degree of mental accuity, spacial reasoning and mathematical skills.

That's like saying that a DVD player has similar processing power than a Pentium 3 (which is the recommended spec of a dvd player in a computer) because they both play dvds, but the pentium 3 does some more stuff so it will just have the edge. I'd suspect that the mechanisms for the things which you have described are fully subconscious; intelligence is generally regarded as the domain of the conscious.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

One should also note that in the case of any great genius one characteristic of them is usually that they work incredibly hard. It's nt that Einstein came up with his theories overnight but actually the immense body of work, similarly with Newton who worked for decades, Mozart who played piano from an incredibly early age, Shakespeare who is again renowned for sheer output and dedication.

I'd say that Mozart is a really bad example, as he was a complete lazy cad.

[G_frog]

I don't agree that the discussion is invalid. Arguing that the difference between a genius and a moron is fairly low implies some kind of absolute scale which goes beyond the normal scale of human intelligence. The only scale I can imagine you are thinking of is comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom. It's difficult to get apes or dolphins - our nearest neighbours - to sit down and do an IQ test, but as far was can be seen apes at least are far less intelligent than humans.

However, on a human scale, it is a tautology to say that the difference between a moron and a genius is large. I can't imagine any other scale being relevant in a discussion of human society. It is quite obvious that the tasks and opportunities found in human civilization are arranged along such a scale.

No one is arguing that social factors in general are relevant, only that they cannot at this time be shown to completely explain sex biases in (western) scientific establishments.

I'm not sure your argument from ability to do something holds. mental processes - certainly subconcious ones - are more closely described by algorithms than abstracts such as equations. It would be possible to 'evolve' an algorithm that could control a robotic device to allow it to carry out a task such as pattern recognition without implying any degree of intelligence. (it is actually very difficult to get an algorithm to catch a real ball, but this is a problem of getting suitably quick feedback circuits between sensors, the computer and the robot arm. The human CNS frequently 'cheats', by having specific local pathways). No one uses parabolic equations to play cricket.

I think you need to qualify your argument from social opportunity - a lot of developing nations may well be comparable socio-economically (in terms of the large number of people who only subsist, for example) to shakespeare's england. It's also worth noting that most of us hear little of, say, the great arab scholars and mathematicians of the first millenium AD.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I think we are genrally accepting tthat a Pentium and a DVD player are different machnes where as 2 human beingsa re biologically similar, I realise that puppet foxes may be a different matter altogether though. Furthermore I don't think you or anyoen knows enough about the brain to cast around concepts like concious and subconscious. Do you really now how you preoces language, or how your brain plays Streetfighter, or how you do your homework, they are the accumulation of different machines in the brain.

You missed my comparison.

Of course something which is designed for a single task alone will do it more efficiently than something which has other possible functions.

The way in which 'every' human can identify the things you suggested implies to me that those abilities are immaterial for differentiation, whether the brain chemistry is different or nay.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G_frog

However, on a human scale, it is a tautology to say that the difference between a moron and a genius is large. I can't imagine any other scale being relevant in a discussion of human society. It is quite obvious that the tasks and opportunities found in human civilization are arranged along such a scale.

I think the issue is that it might a large difference on a relatively trivial matter. The difference between the finest Chess player and myself is absolutley gigantic (in chess playing ability), yet I'm not sure why this matters. It's not like many people want* to be good at fiendishly difficult mathematical problems.

This is why I don't understand that (alleged) ranges in "innate" intelligence between humans really should matter to egalitarians.

Also, can you expand on your point "It is quite obvious that he tasks and opportunities found in human civilisation are arranged along such a scale"? I'm not sure what you mean here by human civilisation, or tasks and opportunities? Do you mean that jobs (say) are roughly divided up into intelligence, from moron to genius?

* = want being defined as caring enough to do something about it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think it's the statement that follows a 'Hey you, why are the rocks all different sizes?' kind of question.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I had a long an involved post but then my cat stood on my keyboard and got rid of it.

I'll just say that you're ignoring the fact that the sample space is the two cars, that we're not trying to say that mathematical ability is all, that the argument there is like being amazed by human's bipedal state when so many animals go around on 4 legs.

In addition, why did you bring the mental arithmatic into it at all? Some mathematicians are superb at it, others can't do it at all; I don't see how it's at all relevent.

[madi]

there is a whopping great difference between someone clever and someone intelligent

i do not like people that are not clever
i find them uninteresting
it does leave me with few people i do like
because as you go up from about IQ (for want of a more accepted universal scale) 140 there arent very many of them around

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I was merely trying to illustarte that it is nigh on impossible to judge by means of a simple number calculation such as IQ someone's intelligence, and even if one could, that would measure such a minute differential betwen one human and another as to be practically worthless, therefore ultimately we have to wonder what the poitn of saying that one person is cleverer than another is because it is a pointless value judgment.

Considering I've spent long hours on this very forum criticising the people who believe the IQ test's ability to measure intelligence, and even the assumption that intelligence has a quantified value, why are you trying to argue this with me?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by madi

there is a whopping great difference between someone clever and someone intelligent

What's the difference between 'mentally quick' and 'mentally acute' then?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well I wasn't criticising you per se, however we were dissagreeing over my point that even if one had a perfect measure of intelligence it would measure very little deviation in terms of inate ability.

This has been replied to earlier in the thread. Read Giles's reply earlier.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Well, it's not me, it won't be madi, it's not you and it's not dante.

Who else has written a serious reply?

Oh, and by your argument we wouldn't have taken GR on board, replacing the newtonian concept of gravity, because of the differences involved compared to the scales of the measurement.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and one final thing before I go to work:

In self referential systems, chaos theory means that even the slightest difference in initial conditions over time is of import.

I'm idler

not some faggot professor named moo-moo

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the issue is that it might a large difference on a relatively trivial matter. The difference between the finest Chess player and myself is absolutley gigantic (in chess playing ability), yet I'm not sure why this matters. It's not like many people want* to be good at fiendishly difficult mathematical problems.

This is why I don't understand that (alleged) ranges in "innate" intelligence between humans really should matter to egalitarians.

Also, can you expand on your point "It is quite obvious that he tasks and opportunities found in human civilisation are arranged along such a scale"? I'm not sure what you mean here by human civilisation, or tasks and opportunities? Do you mean that jobs (say) are roughly divided up into intelligence, from moron to genius?

* = want being defined as caring enough to do something about it.

I don't think it is a matter of trivial importance - if we accept the idea of genius, it seems to follow that the progress of the sciences at least would probably be slowed substantially by a relatively small decrease in variation in the intelligence of human beings, as no one would be able to marry insight, comprehension and rigour in the manner required for the largest breakthroughs. (this rather implies, if it were ever in doubt, that there is a creative component to scientific genius).

It might be argued, with some justification, that if einstein hadn't come up with relativity someone else would have. (luck also came into it - the mathematical treatment of 4-dimensional spacetime was developed by one of einstein's teachers, hermann minkowski.) But there have been cases - famously, mendelian genetics - where insights have been unique to individuals for a long period.

I mean to say that our society clearly makes room for varying scales of intelligence - for example, we wouldn't need so many trivial calculating machines if everyone was able to do arithmetic as rapidly and reliably as some can. the degree of selection practised by institutions is clearly on a scale of the intelligence people actually have - if there were enough einsteins to occupy all the physics posts, many contemporary researchers wouldn't have them (thats no slight to them ofc). and so on.

Intelligence clearly forms such a large - and growing - part of our ability to handle our environment that, while it (obviously) lacks any intrinsic moral worth, it is hard to imagine a society which does not give - perhaps not intentionally - some advantage to the clever (all other things being equal).

taking the cars example, without a frame of reference one can't say anything about how important various attributes are. For example, from the point of view of how efficiently (in terms of time) they enable journeys to be carried out, there isn't a big difference. But in a race where the winner takes all, the difference is hugely important. So there is little innate difference in ability to get around, but a huge difference in practice. and practice is the subject of the discussion.

I suspect this was copy pasted

[queball]

Originally Posted by G_frog

Don't think that's it, slightly more than half of my fellow biology students - and slightly less than half of the physics students - are female. This applies both in my traditionally male-dominated college and across the university, but does NOT carry across into the faculties, here or elsewhere. Most mathematics students and academics are male, however.

It's something like 3:1 in my year. Computer science is the worst with something like 6:1.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

It's something like 3:1 in my year. Computer science is the worst with something like 6:1.

We dont have girls here :(

who is queball

and why do you fancy him fagdrog

[Nodrog]

queball is pretty cool but I missed you

yes, I have missed you aswell

I work for the oslo university
and I dont even have an education \o/.

(I'm getting the adsl interweb's in my housing aswell so we can chatter about the great old days when everyone were the bestest of chums)

[Nodrog]

I have internets in my room now but before that I havent had a computer for 4 (four) weeks.

woah

edit: I just downloaded something at 2 megabytes a second

I havent been on the internet regulary for a year and a half tho.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

It is completely ludicrous too suggest that society awards the clever in any particular way over other random highly paid, influential people. You are right that we live in a society whcih gives a mild advantage to the non-stupid but whatabout footballers, or movie stars or gamblers, or politicians or investment bankers, or the children of the wealthy. These peopl are all paid well, none are particualrly clever. Your statement is part of the mythology of our so called meritocracy and not born out by any evidence.

If you want to lecture me in history of science i suggest you contact these people and see if they can fit you in. If you want to actually respond to my post you might need to read and understand it first.

i am not claiming there is a perfect positive correlation between measures of intelligence and/or academic ability, and earning power (which in any case is not the only reward of intelligence), and I would be wrong if i did so. But you appear to be claiming the precise opposite, that there is NO correlation, and that is also a fallacy. Starting pay levels, for example, are strongly correlated with the level of qualification attained, which is in turn strongly (though by no means perfectly) correlated with intelligence. It would take an awful lot of moronic highly paid footballers to make a significant dent in such trends. Our society is neither fully meritocratic, nor fully random.

[JonnyBGood]

My course is two thirds women





Most of them are braindead too.










Ah can live get much better?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Ah can live get much better?

Yes, if you know how to spell it.










































SPELLING NAZI STRIKES AGAIN!!!!!!!!

[JonnyBGood]

If God meant me to use the letter f he wouldn't have put v in such an easy to type position.

[G_frog]

no no no no i think you've misunderstood me.

the science history point was in relation to your claims about the relationship of genius to the progress of scientific knowledge, which is not as clear cut as you seem to believe. (it is also absurd to imply that the history of science and sociology have no bearing on one another, but i'll leave that aside for now). I just didn't want to get into that, it's very complicated.

Back to brains and money. i'm not denying all those factors obtain. Are you denying any correlation, or claiming that the causal relationship is different from what I have suggested (eg the middle classes tend to earn more and be more intelligent, but its just coincidence), or are you disputing the measures of intellectual ability/defintiion of intelligence I have proposed/implied?

From this phrase

No one is saying that society is random but there are factors such as ... your particular special abilities,

it appears you actually agree with me.

[G_frog]

Those skills which make someone a good engineer are, by and large, traditionally recognised as components of - or indicative of - high intelligence. Problem solving, spatial and mathematical skills, clarity of thought and the ability to consider a complex issue as whole are examples here.

...

I think I ought to step back and bit and make clearer what I mean to say about geniuses and scientific progress. It is possible that people such as einstein, maxwell and so on may have just been fairly good mathematicians in opportune circumstances. However, the prediction that light always travels at c - a central plank of spec. rel. - was known from maxwell's equations long before einstein came along, and it was hardly a period lacking in opportunities for talented mathematicians or theorists. so why did einstein come up with it?

The idea that scientific progress is a wholly inevitable product of the intellectual environment of the day is perhaps more clearly refuted by Mendel and his peas. Though the mechanism of natural selection posed the problem of dilution of hereditary factors - and everyone from darwin and wallace down knew this - mendel's solution of particulate genetics was not arrived at all until his work was discovered, after an interval of decades. This was despite the fact mendel followed the course of contemporary natural history just as everyone else did.

This leads me to conclude that not every event or discovery in the history of science would have occured as rapidly without people of unusual ability - usually of the kind we call intelligence or genius - and perhaps good fortune. it follows that, if variance in human abilites was less, there would be fewer such people and so science would progress less rapidly, even if in the same fashion.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Firstly I don't beleive in intelligence, I believe that some people are better at things than others but that these are just developments in the machinery of the brain.

Secondly the inate deviations in the brain are very slight and what really makes the difference is development through life and education.

Because the deviations are so slight and because education has such a great affect trying to measure these differences is not a particualrly scientific exercise and in particualr trying to sum up ability in one number is just absurd.

In the further part of the discussion, I believe that soemone who says that society rewards the smart is actually a different way of saying that the people at the top of society are often the smartest and I just don't accept that. Having met those at the top of society and those at the bottom and spoken to them at length I judge there to be a difference in education and usually a middleclass superiority but no actual higher funtions, in fact many of the millionaires/statesmen I have met seem to have a slim grasp on reality and logic.

I would ascribe intelligence to the machinery of the brain even I did think it was a single real entity, which I don't. IQ specifically is a weighted average of a selection of semi-arbitrary quantifications of abilities, chosen and measured in accordance with custom. Academic assessments are much the same, but often with less pretense at being scientific. However, if there is some causal relationship between those factors and general mental ability, we would expect some correlation between IQ and other assessments of intellect, and real-world gains. The argument becomes circular if you claim that intelligence is a middle-class concept designed to enshrine their (our) smugness, but I do not think that is the case.

I'm not sure you can confidently state that the innate differences in the brain are very slight. For example, there is a gene on the Y chromosome which turns on or off a whole suite of genes involved in brain development; which suggests that in this respect at least there are some major sex differences. But in general the field is too new to make such definitive statements.

I am not denying that education is important, that would be absurd.

I never intended my comment to be taken to mean that those at the top and bottom of society (if i may borrow your phrase) were axiomatically less intelligent. Firstly I was just observing a correlation, but more important I did not have such a set of indicators in mind particularly. I was thinking of simpler things - like the fact that the smartest kid in the class doesn't usually find learning arithmetic as much of a chore as the stupidest, but they will both be made to do it.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

2. What you seem to be outlining here is that someone invented something without social support.

That's not my point at all - he DID have social support comparable to his contemporaries, they were looking for the same thing, but he got to it and they did not. Ergo, it cannot be a general law that any given scientific discovery will always occur (with a reliability of better than 40 years) when the conditions are favourable.

[MrL_JaKiri]

What strikes me here is the lack of belief in a system that was, if not eternally accurately, at least sketched out in Kuhn's works on the philosophy of science.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

1. That's not the point I was making, I did not say that engineers weren't intelligent, I said that it is possible to imagine that one could be a talented engineer and not be rewarded in society for it, in fact I think there are many famous cases of this. Thus your special abilities refer to the fact that you may be rewarded for being a good skateboarder. Clearly 100 years ago you would have even seen a skateboard.

Counter-examples, hypothetical or otherwise, do not affect my point because I am not proposing a single general law governing all success and happiness in terms of intelligence alone. I am saying why and how we should expect it to be a factor, and observing that it does appear to be on the basis of the imperfect data available.

Put it another way, I am saying that if we controlled for everything else, we should expect a more intelligent person to manage better in a randomly picked situation from our own society than his less intelligent counterpart.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

Put it another way, I am saying that if we controlled for everything else, we should expect a more intelligent person to manage better in a randomly picked situation from our own society than his less intelligent counterpart.

Surely that's a truism.

And when are you setting off?

[G_frog]

Well, its a truism given that our society/environment meets certain criteria. If, for example, people always tended only to employ only those noticeably less intelligent than they were, for reasons of ego, it might not apply. Since i don't think thats the case, I believe what I said.

8:22 i think

bets on how long it takes jonny to get here and tell us to learn to use PM?

[MrL_JaKiri]

He's asleep, so quite a while.

And in that circumstance, wouldn't the most intelligent thing to be to hide intelligence? After all, intelligence forms a much more effective working gestalt.