Trash Talking Thread

[Voltaire]

I don't think we can really compare people - doing so you would need to approximate people, and then they're just ideas you construct in your mind, not the people, aren't they?

Say what you will of people but trend not too close to the egalitarian fallacy, whatever people may be they are not equal. One individual may be well built and suited for sports or service in the armed forces, whereas another may lack these physical traits. Likewise not everyone can be a mathematician, there do exist those who have the aptitude for it. Every individual has natural predispositions and restraints toward certain fields of work, be it intellectual or physical. Some may be capable at both, even in this case there exist careers in which they can put both their talents in use. This far from presupposes that all tasks are of equal worth, far from it, one can with good reason say that certain jobs are better than others, however necessary they may all be, some are of greater value than others. Necessity, but not equality of necessity.

[jtsisyoda]

Voltaire, I think you're confusing "identical" with "equal". No one would say humans are cookie-cutter products that all came out the same. The idea is everybody has equal rights, opportunities, respect, etc. until such time as they forfeit them through irresponsible acts.

Now get out there on the curb with the other sophists! You're all welcome back in when you can sling some mud like the civilized trash talkers I know you all want to be.

[Enigma_Nova]

No way! You're just jealous because your puny brain cannot rival our great intellectual talents!

[Voltaire]

Voltaire, I think you're confusing "identical" with "equal". No one would say humans are cookie-cutter products that all came out the same. The idea is everybody has equal rights, opportunities, respect, etc. until such time as they forfeit them through irresponsible acts.

The terminology seems far from clear, when you speak of equal surely you cannot mean Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another; you yourself dismiss this definition. What of Being the same or identical to in value? This would fall under the category of identical earlier dismissed. Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law, I would even take issue with this definition for privileges, status, and right should be proportional to merit not handed out arbitrarily to all, deserving and undeserving alike; as for equality before the law, this principle I agree with for justice should be impartial and hand out to each and every one what they deserve. Being the same for all members of a group, this contradicts the earlier statement of mine that merit should determine standing, granted one can agree here as well to the principle the law should apply equally to all. Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation, clearly in opposition to the fact that people are not of equal skill as demonstrated earlier. Impartial; just; equitable, to this I have agreed, but I am uncertain as if you mean this particular quality of equality. The term itself seems far from clear, and I have rejected all but one fundamental definition of it pertaining to people.

[jtsisyoda]

you cannot mean Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another

I am suggesting all people have the same value. Why do you think organ donation works only on a first come, first serve basis? What I dismiss is people having the same attributes, not the same rights or value.

Your idea of rights proportional to merit seems like a practical impossibility. Who could keep track of how it's measured, everyone's scores, how that should effect their rights, and enforcement when the matrix of rights and merits is violated? That would sap so many resources, and for what benefit? Probably just so you can have what you think you're entitled to based on your perceived superiority, rather than what you earn.

Are you suggesting it's ok to beat up the handicapped, ill, or elderly? They don't deserve the same right of protection because they can't perform algebra, basketball, public speaking, or whatever? In your logic, infants should be arrested on sight. I'm sure we can find something you're not proficient in, and then discriminate against you on that basis. How would that make you feel?

I think you could make the same points with more straightforward language, too. That's not a matter of being accessible to the less intelligent, either. It's generally accepted criteria for good writing, even (or especially) technical writing.

Dagnabit, stop baiting me with centuries-old debate and let some insults fly!!

[jtsisyoda]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
No way! You're just jealous because your puny brain cannot rival our great intellectual talents!

Yeah, I'm jealous that I'm not a loose cannon at the mercy of his own pride.

[jtsisyoda]

Ok, I'm going to exile myself outside on the curb until I can control my desire to debate, and stick to proper insults.

[Enigma_Nova]

Equal? What I'm saying is that it's impossible to compare people on a greater-or-lesser basis.
It's not black and white, it's not grey, it's not even a spectrum - it's a whole infinite dimensional thing.

I may be a loose cannon but you're a mental block. At least I can do -something-...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
THAT'S Why I portray myself as Arrogant, Self-Righteous, and a man who knows -less- than he lets on.
It's easier for people to understand this than to process the reams of information I'd otherwise spew,
and if these folk are not interested in what I think (which is the primary basis for me distrusting anyone) then why should I be bothered to explain myself?

I have an interesting article you may want to read. It's called "IQ and Neurosis" and purports a link between high IQ and the issues you cite there. It was written by a lady I met on a forum a while ago, who was having the same problem I was.

The basic idea is that it takes the example of a man with an IQ of 200, something ridiculously high (it corrolates to something near 1 in a billion in percentile terms). This person is unhappy. They are unhappy because of frustration. When they talk to another person, they must dumb down with what they say, because if they speak their mind, nonbody understands, so everyone presumes they are speaking rubbish. If not they have to constantly explain everything, which causes much frustration when people don't get it. Any coversation lasting more than a minute or two will cause annoyance, so people think this man is angry and upset generally, when it is just frustration. He therefore talks to few people, since no-one can understand him. This causes people to think he's a recluse.

He doesn't have to be independant as opposed to social, to end up being a recluse. If he speaks, people think he's speaking rubbish because they cannot understand. Unless there is some arbitrary measure of his intelligence that people know and respect, they will think he is either mentally ill or unintelligent. Because people won't udnerstand him, they will disagree, and because most people will not understand and disagree, we see the democracy fallacy in action, whereby his ideas are seen as wrong because most people think they're wrong.

Of course this is all relative to your social group. Someone with an IQ of 150 may be incredibly constrained like this in an ordinary comprehensive state school. However someone with an IQ of 190 may feel at home among a like minded group (say a society at university).

While you may be used to being the most intelligent person, and I don't doubt that you are something of a prodigy, but do not dismiss the (somewhat improbably, so it seems) idea that there may be others here that are also like that.

I felt very much like the article said, which is why it has remained saved on my computer for the last 3-4 years. However I am privilaged to have met people who can understand me when I am not dumbing down now.

Just a few thoughts.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Great! We're all wise thinkers for stumbling onto the fact that you can't define humans by putting them into certain archetypes or 'boxes'.
Now let's laugh at all the fundies that can't.

(I'm feeling happier already. )

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Though an individual benefits more from willpower than submission, we're not all aiming to be what we are.
Some of us aim to be part of what's around us.

Depends on the nature of benefit. Someone could be happier with no free will, as a submissive. In that case their individual benefit comes from submission, not willpower.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
You'd be hard-pressed finding a way to brainwash me.
(Though I would probably pretend to be brainwashed just to stab you in the back at a later date - so much fun. )

Possibly, possibly not. You seem to believe in being creative and individual above all else, dismissing outside influences. In a way, that is a brainwashing. Surely accepting outside influences, but not necessarily conforming to them, is the best option. So what if you would design a plane, if asked to, like a 747. It could bethe best design. Why try to be different when there is already a good design.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Experience taints, I've said it before.

No, experience gives you ideas. You can choose to ignore them, but you may find one you like, and so use it, and improve your own ideas in the process.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Know that not all learning is straight-experential.
You can experience the thoughts of others by reading...
You can experience your own thoughts by introspection...
You can watch other people make the airplane...
Or you could pitch in and make the airplane yourself.
There are many types of learning. Experience is only one part of it.

Very true, but experience is part of it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
We're all beyond comparison with everyone else.
It's apples and oranges (Well in Drogue's case, a Banana ).

But you can compare those. You can say an apple is harder than an orange. A banana is more yellow than an apple, etc. The same way you can say that someone can hit a baseball better, or someone can do sums faster.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
But humans are made up of a virtual infinity (it's finite but huge) of qualities - both definable AND undefinable. You'd be hard-pressed to define any human fully.
And without a definition, or at least some visceral understanding, how can you compare people?
The best you do is approximate.

I agree completely. However you can still discuss individual qualities. Not exactly, but accurately to some degree.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I don't think we can really compare people - doing so you would need to approximate people, and then they're just ideas you construct in your mind, not the people, aren't they?

Depends how close the approximation. It is a linear scale, not a true of false thing. You can compare people as much as your approximation is close.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
*ahem*
You're putting a SCIENTIST in the same class as Accountants, Lawyers and Arts students?

We're -so- much better than you all.
Name some famous scientists from history
Great! Now name some famous Lawyers, Economists, IT professionals, Engineers...

Why is a scientist better? And what does fame have to do with it? Surely an economist who goes into a 3rd wolrd nation, and helps it develop far quicker, aiding the lives of millions of people, has achieved much.

What I meant by my comment was not related to subject though. A 17 year old Uni student is a remarkable achievement. While you must therefore have intelligence beyond your years, you would still be a university student. A prodigy is not a genius. Someone who IMHO is exceptionally gifted is someone who has done things and shown things that do wonderful things. A boy who can play the piano at 2 is a prodigy, but he does not become a genius until he continues to improve, and later writes a synphony. It is not about achievement matched to age, it is about achievement straight.

And who do you mean, you all? How do you know what our specialities are? And IMHO, while scientists can do wonderful things, they are not philosophers. Einsteins philosophy has many holes in it, anmd it wouldn't get recognition if it weren't for his physics prowess. All your speciality is is what you're best at, not how good you are overall.

[Drogue]

Voltaire

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
I am suggesting all people have the same value. Why do you think organ donation works only on a first come, first serve basis?

Because of administration, and the will that most people have that nobody can choose who is more valuble.

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
Your idea of rights proportional to merit seems like a practical impossibility. Who could keep track of how it's measured, everyone's scores, how that should effect their rights, and enforcement when the matrix of rights and merits is violated? That would sap so many resources, and for what benefit? Probably just so you can have what you think you're entitled to based on your perceived superiority, rather than what you earn.

No, he didn't say he was better. Neither did he say it was of practical use. He did say that it does exist. As do I. I don't see what's so special about the value of equal that everybody happens to be it. Surely that's far to great a conincidence. Extreme cases are easy to see. An scientist that brings great discoveries and happiness to millions has generally contributed more than a dustman. That is not to say that the dustman is not valued, but without him, the world would not stop. Also, there are many people who could be dustmen, there are not who can create wonderous discoveries.

We have capitalism. That measures someone's worth, in a way. Depending on how well you can do your job, the value of your job to the people, depends on how much someone is willing to pay you. It is not about money, money is simply a symbol of what society as a whole believes it is worth.

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
Are you suggesting it's ok to beat up the handicapped, ill, or elderly? They don't deserve the same right of protection because they can't perform algebra, basketball, public speaking, or whatever? In your logic, infants should be arrested on sight. I'm sure we can find something you're not proficient in, and then discriminate against you on that basis. How would that make you feel?

You think he was suggesting that? Did he mention rights, or violence? No. However I would suggest that the elderly, who have less to live and less to gain from organs, should not be as high a priority as someone with much more to gain from that organ. Sure, they might get 5 more years of life of a substandard quality, but a young person might get 40 years of active life left. If you believe they should have equal right to that organ, then you are saying that each of those elderly person's years are more important than each of those young persons years.

The elderly have contributed, and who is to say they do not still? He did not say that algebra, basketball or whatever was a way to judge, he simply said they were not all equal. Infants have the potential, which is why they are specially nurtured. And he did not mention rights. He did not say beat them up. However if you had to choose two people to live, a famous scientist or an elderly pensioner, it seems a common sense to go for the one who will have longer to live, and who will help society the most. If you'd stop putting words into people's mouths, about rights and violence, and try to argue the point. Why are all people equal? What force keeps them being of exactly the same worth/use/utility/value as everyone else?

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
I think you could make the same points with more straightforward language, too. That's not a matter of being accessible to the less intelligent, either. It's generally accepted criteria for good writing, even (or especially) technical writing.

I agree completely. However writing must get across the correct message. His language was straightforward IMHO. Technical yes, but you don't want to be vague, as even without that you seem to have put words in his mouth. If he was to be mroe 'straightforward' it would have involved dumbing down his meaning.

Sure, because people like to think of everyone as equal, politics enforces it. But then why are people paid differently? He did not say people are treated equally, he did not say they don't deserve equal rights, he simply said people are not equal. Some are better at some tasks, and some tasks are of more use than others.

[Drogue]

Sorry about the many posts in a row. I wanted to address the long arguments individually, with the thought they deserve. I seem to have a lot to comment on today

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Equal? What I'm saying is that it's impossible to compare people on a greater-or-lesser basis.
It's not black and white, it's not grey, it's not even a spectrum - it's a whole infinite dimensional thing.

to the last part. I agree it is infinate (for all intents and purposes) in terms of number of qualities. But you can compare how much some people have helped people as a whole, to some extent. You can compare actions, as they are not approximations. You can not compare the person, but you can compare the effects of what they do/have done.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Drogue
I have an interesting article you may want to read. It's called "IQ and Neurosis" and purports a link between high IQ and the issues you cite there. It was written by a lady I met on a forum a while ago, who was having the same problem I was.

Yeah, things get crazy like that.
My frustration is partly that - there's a reason why I fudged myself into the persona of an arrogant jerk who knows very little.
Probably because it was easier than explaining myself.
But now, I'll say what's on my mind. If I don't want to explain, I'll say: "I don't want to take the time explaining."

The basic idea is that it takes the example of a man with an IQ of 200, something ridiculously high

Dude that's 20 points higher than me. Can't be -that- hard...

This person is unhappy.

I'm only like that when I'm around 'The Enemy' (those people to which I must dumb down). When I'm around 'My Allies' I am much more relaxed.
Though, humanity being what it is, I've purposefully desensitised myself to pleasure and pain because, well... Most people would rather ignore than understand, and by virtue of action do one or the other.

They are unhappy because of frustration.

Sounds like me.
Though I -do- genuinely hate my ex-guardians, because they wanted to 'dumb me down', to transform me into a standard-IQ minon.
...I'm frustrated by the communications barrier between Brave Desolate Head and Chief Thinks-too-much, but when the Braves try to beat me with the Ignorance stick, I declare vendetta.

so people think this man is angry and upset generally, when it is just frustration.

I'm not so frustrated at the general ignorance so much as I cannot choose but to suffer it. (I.e. Operation Renaissance isn't going very well)

Because people won't udnerstand him, they will disagree, and because most people will not understand and disagree, we see the democracy fallacy in action, whereby his ideas are seen as wrong because most people think they're wrong.

Ergo he swears a vengeance to remove the block that prevents people from accepting him, while accepting his inability to work with people on the very basis of the effect above.

However someone with an IQ of 190 may feel at home among a like minded group (say a society at university).

Funny thing that because I feel less frustrated with small children than I do with teenagers...
Though when your IQs start getting into that range you'll find people squaring off due to different 'traits' being higher than others (My Logical-Spatial vesus her Emotional-Verbal).

but do not dismiss the (somewhat improbably, so it seems) idea that there may be others here that are also like that.

There isn't much I dismiss, but my considerations are usually not done publically. It's more efficient to do things in my 'thought language' than to do them in English.

However I am privilaged to have met people who can understand me when I am not dumbing down now.

Not wanting to stuff your psychology up, but...
All people adapt to their environment, so how can you be sure you're not dumbing down?

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Drogue
Depends on the nature of benefit. Someone could be happier with no free will, as a submissive. In that case their individual benefit comes from submission, not willpower.

Because they value that desire more than the desire to be totally bloody brilliant, so they pursue what they value.
It works on an individual level but Values are influenced.
And yes there's a value about how much you allow your values to be influenced.

Possibly, possibly not. You seem to believe in being creative and individual above all else, dismissing outside influences. In a way, that is a brainwashing. Surely accepting outside influences, but not necessarily conforming to them, is the best option.

Depends on your definition of 'accept'. They exist, but they may or may not be correct, or they may be correct in different ways to the ways my ideas are correct.
The hardest part is getting the information and working out just how it relates to my brain (the brainwashing, one might say, is that I will not reshape my brain on data until I determine its validity).
In the process of understanding and translation, the initial information may be 'dropped' - the problem of learning is that everything has to come through your perceptions.

So what if you would design a plane, if asked to, like a 747. It could bethe best design. Why try to be different when there is already a good design.

But what if I improved the design a little by (say) putting the two wing engines closer together, on the top of the wing, to improve lift and minimise drag?
The idea is to work out what you believe, then work with it. I may believe certain things are correct about the 747 and other things are not.

No, experience gives you ideas.

Experience gives you data. Perception of the data gives you ideas. Analysis of the ideas gives you information, which is stored and later used.
For example, say I have just entered a new building I don't know anything about, and there is a directory in front of me.
I recieve 'data' from the directory, "REVOLUTION PC CO."
I perceive the data, That this company is called 'Revolution', has something to do with 'PC's. 'CO.' signifies that it is a company.
I analyse these ideas, and believe that I am in a computer store.

You can choose to ignore them, but you may find one you like, and so use it, and improve your own ideas in the process.

The processing of data manipulates it a bit (The human brain does this), which is what I'm worried about.
Evee see typnes ind thing you kmow what thay mean?
In perceiving that sentence, you saw:
"Ever see typoes and think you know what they mean?"
But what if there is some information dropped by the letters I changed?
Take all the incorrect letters in that sentence.
Put them into a sequence.
They spell the word "Enigma".
Now, you wouldn't have perceived that if I hadn't told you...
So perhaps the act of Perceiving can drop data?
Experience begets perception, which unfortunately corrupts the experience.
It's quite a vicious (but nonetheless effective) cycle.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Dude that's 20 points higher than me. Can't be -that- hard...scale)

Enigma: It's a logaritmic scale (or some other expanding scale), IIRC. 20 points higher is an awful lot in percentile. 180 is about 99.997% percentile IIRC. I'm still amazed in all the IQ threads on OTF that I still haven't published mine. Though I promised not to until JW did with his (I don't know who's got the highest on Poly, but im 99% sure it's one of the two of us, and I really don't want to know). Consider the difference between a person with 100 and a person with 120. The former is average. The latter is the average for a graduate from a top uiversity. On most tests, while 49% get higher than 100, only about 10%, IIRC, get higher than 120. With that (almost) 5:1 ratio matched, it means there are 5 people with 180+ IQs for every 200+ person. It's quite a difference. I know two people that get close to that mark (one has a 202, one has a 196) and both are quite exceptional people. I don't contend that IQ measures intelligence, but it does seem to measure thought processes in a pretty accurate way, IMHO.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Though, humanity being what it is, I've purposefully desensitised myself to pleasure and pain because, well... Most people would rather ignore than understand, and by virtue of action do one or the other.

I'm the other way. After reading Sartre, it made me realise how wonderful life is. Sure it's gratuitous, it has no purpose and no meaning, but it's fun

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I'm not so frustrated at the general ignorance so much as I cannot choose but to suffer it. (I.e. Operation Renaissance isn't going very well)

That is what frustrates the person in the article. That he cannot change it, because of who he is.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Ergo he swears a vengeance to remove the block that prevents people from accepting him, while accepting his inability to work with people on the very basis of the effect above.

Then it is futile. If it is impossible to remove the barrier while achieveing what he wants (acceptance) then it is futile. Why not accept what you know, and live a normal life. People will see that you complete tasks easier, and so it does not matter what your reasoning is, or that you can't explain your thoughts to them, because you can apply them and gain from it.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
There isn't much I dismiss, but my considerations are usually not done publically. It's more efficient to do things in my 'thought language' than to do them in English.

Completely. However your statements of your own gifted status seem to imply that you believe you have to dumb down. While, to almost anyone you would, there will be people here you would not need to. I already know of 3 people on Poly who have 180+ IQs.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Not wanting to stuff your psychology up, but...
All people adapt to their environment, so how can you be sure you're not dumbing down?

Because I feel inadiquate at times, although mostly because I feel like myself, I feel like I'm talking as I would to someone who I knew was at the very least my equal, and because she understand me. Even when I feel like my thoughts are too much to trace, and I can't see where I get ideas from, she can understand them. And because I felt this from the moment I met her. I haven't adapted this to her, I always refuse to dumb down the first time I meet someone intelligent, incase it is not needed.

Part of it's just being on the same wavelength, part of it's because she is the most intelligent person I've ever met, that I almost feel the need to try to highten what I say. And partly because she won't tell me her IQ, although she got a full scholarship to her school on the bases of that test.

Another part is that I've meditated for years, and I know when I'm alone, I think to myself. I know I don't dumb down to myself, I never have, it is my haven, so to speak. I talk to her as I talk to myself, at the top of my ability.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Drogue
But you can compare those. You can say an apple is harder than an orange. A banana is more yellow than an apple, etc.

True.
Though, in deciding what to sell to your customers, do they want yellow items? hard items? What?
You can make lots of judgements like above, but there are some complex multi-faceted issues.
Like why Copper is used as a conductor in railway lines. Why not cheaper Iron or more conductive Gold?
That's a relatively simple issue.
Now take it up a bit and ask who whould be the CyCon turnplayer. Consider experience, ability to learn, reliability, willingness to follow orders...
And now - how do you lead a country?
Police State, Democracy, Fundamentalism?
One has more EFFIC than the others, one has more SUPPORT.
But which one is... 'best'?
Then, it is hard to tell, and is based on both situation and values.

Why is a scientist better?

'cuz you just got trolled.
I was 'taking the piss' as it were...

It is not about achievement matched to age, it is about achievement straight.

Right. Well, let's start with the ACDG then, shall we?

And who do you mean, you all?

I mean TROLLED.
Still pursuing the age-old interfaculty joke present on my campus.
Every faculty thinks it PWND!11 every other faculty.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Drogue
Sorry about the many posts in a row. I wanted to address the long arguments individually, with the thought they deserve. I seem to have a lot to comment on today

It's okay. Postcount a go-go.
(+1)

[Micha]

There are so many famous economists, you have no point there.

[Drogue]

DP

[Drogue]

He wasn't making a point, he was trolling with that I like biting trolls, it's fun

As for famous economists, sure there are, but not in the same league of fame as Einstein. I could probably name 10 or so famous economists, maybe a few more who weren't so famous, but then I'm an economist, so I should be able to. I doubt most of the population can name one.

[Main_Brain]

Economics dont exist as long as say Philosophy

But go ahead Drogue and Name 10 but only Economists not Philosophers

[Maniac]

Way too many posts to respond to, so I'll keep it to "I agree with Drogue".

Btw, IQ is more or less a Gauss curve with as mean 100 and standard deviation 15. "More or less" I say as there are more people on the two tails than there would be on a perfect Gauss curve.
It would be dangerous to use IQ as the only measure for intelligence though, as the score is also heavily effected by experience with the kind of exercises an IQ test uses. So someone who is studying mathematics and is busy with it all days would probably score higher than someone who is studying law, even if the inherent intelligence of the law student on the matter tested would be somewhat higher. Also due to the increasing education level of people the average test score keeps increasing and IQ tests need to be made more difficult every few years to bring the average score back to around 100.

I doubt most of the population can name one.

Let's see...
Adam Smith (required knowledge for any civver )
Keynes
Friedrich
Rawles
Brambley
All I can think of right now though, unless you starts counting people such as Greenspan.

[DeathByTheSword]

....damn

[Drogue]

I can try:

John Maynard Keynes
Milton Friedman
Paul Omerod
Paul Krugman
Joseph Stiglitz
Alan Greenspan
Sir Eddie George
Mervyn King
Adam Smith
David Ricardo
Friedrick von Hayek (sp?)

There's 11 for you (all I could think of off the top of my head).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
It would be dangerous to use IQ as the only measure for intelligence though, as the score is also heavily effected by experience with the kind of exercises an IQ test uses. So someone who is studying mathematics and is busy with it all days would probably score higher than someone who is studying law, even if the inherent intelligence of the law student on the matter tested would be somewhat higher. Also due to the increasing education level of people the average test score keeps increasing and IQ tests need to be made more difficult every few years to bring the average score back to around 100.

I was using IQ as a general measure there, as a symbol for intelligence. However I don't accept mathematicians score higher. Most famous mathematicians do not necessarily have high IQs, no more or less than any other profession. The main problem is what intelligence is. IQ tests measure reasoning, spacial awareness, logic, numerical ability and verbal ability. IMHO it is a good measure.

With regards to the 100, every year the main tests are standardized, and the BBC opperates a "test the nation" each year to check the average. Everytime the aim is to get between 101 and 104 as the average (people who take IQ tests are a self selecting group, and the average has been shown to be between 1 and 4 higher than most non-takers).

Originally posted by Maniac
All I can think of right now though, unless you starts counting people such as Greenspan.

Why not? Greenspan is a trained economist, doing exactly what any economist at university does. The difference being he makes the decisions as well as giving the advice.

Stiglitz people may say is a politician not an economist, but he won the Nobel prize for Economics and has written books on the subject, so IMHO he is an economist.

And I wouldn't put me in there I'm really not a famous economist. The only decent research I've done on it I found after that Krugman had already recommended

[Main_Brain]

Adam Smith although Father of Economy studied Philosophy and Mathematics IIRC

Ludwig Erhart! :=)

[Drogue]

And I think Maniac's a little more than an average member of the population, when it comes to current affairs and economic knowledge

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Adam Smith although Father of Economy studied Philosophy and Mathematics IIRC

Yes, because you couldn't study economics at Oxford at all until the end of the 19th Century. What he studied at uni does not mean he did that for the rest of his life. If a professional musician studied maths at uni would he be a musician or a mathematician?

Personally, I'd consider some people like Ayn Rand and Karl Marx as economists, but they are very political/philosophical economists, so I did not count them. There's a reason Philosophy, Politics and Economics is a popular degree course though

[Main_Brain]

so true