I'm not sure if there is a "miscellaneous" forum on ADDF (I glanced briefly and did not find one so labeled) so, sorry if this is misplaced.

This is just a general inquiry aimed at any of the more scientific minds here, and anyone interested in neuroscience, and how one could explain the rarity of "human prodigy" through science.

How can we explain minds such as these:
-Wernher von Braun, generally established as the father of rocket science, had a doctorate in astrophysics at age 18--his thesis at that time was taken by the government and classified for 3 decades
-Albert Einstein, duh.
-Isaac Newton
-Nikola Tesla

..and so on.

There is a short list of current prodigies living in the world right now, but I thought I would just use the most famous names here. Interestingly enough, I think von Braun meets the criteria of a "classic child prodigy" more than the others on the list, however I may be wrong.

But this is besides the point. I want to know if there is something other than "simple superiority" (the idea that some men are simply better than others, without any other explanation etc.) that can provide an explanation for how "extreme intelligence" comes to be.

One possible explanation, from the wikipedia article on child prodigy:

Neurological Activity of Child prodigies
Few studies have examined the neurological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience) activity of prodigies. However, Michael O'Boyle, an American psychologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist) working in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia), has recently utilized fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMRI) scanning of blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood) flow during mental operation in prodigies to display startling results. “Calculators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_calculator),” those capable of mentally performing arithmetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic), geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrical), or other complex mathematical operations normally reserved for electronic calculators, achieve six to seven times the typical blood flow to parts of the brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain) observed to be active during mathematical operations.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]</SUP>


To me, the above bolded print is indicative that there is a "unique mechanism" behind extreme intelligence, and that it may be a rare structural difference in the brain, of some kind.

On a more humorous note: Of greater interest to me is why extreme intelligence isn't studied much, because there's a lot of us out there with an IQ of 99 (or, sadly, even less) who would like a little of that magic, bro! One such example is myself, with an IQ of 99, who couldn't even deal with community college when I first attended at the age of 20 years old... which came shortly after I took my extra year in high school as a super senior. Achievements-wise, I lag very far behind the basic status quo, or the average. This seems to underline my idea that the more intelligence you have, the more likely you are to achieve things. Of course there are other aspects to the equation like work ethic (an important one) and emotional well-being but, still, a child prodigy cannot be a child prodigy without already having the ingredients for "extreme intellect."

(Of course there is a more conspiratorial view, that people like von Braun and Tesla are actually a hybrid human descended from a multi-generation mix of aliens and humans.. or, they were genetically engineered by extraterrestrials. Really, though, it begs the question... these people are so smart they might as well be extraterrestrial.)

So, what do you folks think? Other than heritability, what are the mechanics behind extreme intelligence? There must be something going on there that can be accounted for by science, or biochemistry.

Unfornately, there is no science\philosophy discussion subforum here. I even proposed such a subforum a few months ago, but without sucess.

As to your question:
Don't forget that IQ is only part of the story. A great many highly intelligent individuals have never managed to leave much of an impression on the world.

I think we should also differentiate someone's general level of intelligence from a person's ability in very specific subjects. A person who is capable of great feats in mathematics may not otherwise be extremely intelligent.

And, off course, then there's ADD itself. There may very well be a correlation between ADD and enhanced creativity. This too, is not necessarily a function of intelligence. Many great people in human history are ADD suspects. Some of those people have shown remarkable ADD like problems in their daily functioning.
I even recently read an article on the much praised Leonardo da Vinci who, it appeared, made serious miscalculations in his work. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt that he was one of the greatest people in history.

You might also want to read up on the work concerning the genetical basis of ADD and on the so-called hunter-farmer hypothesis. On both of these subjects this forum has had threads in the past.

And finally, IQ measurements may be adversely affected by the presence of ADD. It may after all lead to learning problems. Even making the IQ test itself may be made more difficult if you can't concentrate well enough.
IQ tests do not always test purely for your potential. What you have learned and the way you absorb information also plays a role.

Sarek - I'll second your request for that subforum.

As for the topic at hand, I only have a minute now, but one thing that occurs to me is that we may not actually know HOW rare or not rare prodigies or even just people of very high intelligence are.

We seem to make the assumption that exceptional people will be noticed, but I don't see any reason to believe that that is true. For instance, look at people living in desperate conditions in third-world countries, people for whom just getting enough to eat is a daily struggle. These people never have a chance to be in a situation where their talents might be recognized.

And even in our own, more modernized societies, there's no way for us to know how many have truly exceptional abilities. Not everyone makes use of the gifts they are given (as many with ADD are painfully aware).

Got to run off for now....it's an interesting question, though. I'll give it some more thought.

There is an opposing theory that most "highly accomplished" adults generally aren't exceptional apart from extreme and consistent dedication to their craft.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2026


The other way to look at precocity is of course to work backward — to look at adult geniuses and see what they were like as kids. A number of studies have taken this approach, Gladwell said, and they find a similar pattern. A study of 200 highly accomplished adults found that just 34 percent had been considered in any way precocious as children. He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci (“that famous code-maker”). “None of [them] would have made it into Hunter College,” Gladwell observed.

We think of precociousness as an early form of adult achievement, and, according to Gladwell, that concept is much of the problem. “What a gifted child is, in many ways, is a gifted learner. And what a gifted adult is, is a gifted doer. And those are quite separate domains of achievement.”

It's easy to see when someone is extraordinarily accomplished at something, but what we don't see is how much of their lives are usually consumed by their chosen activity. The examples given probably didn't have any special insight, but they damn well worked their asses off.

But I think there is another very interesting angle here. And that is, when we say "intelligence" do we mean "achievement"?

To illustrate this, I'll give an example from my own experience. My job is to work with computers, and I earned a computer networking diploma after high school. My mother taught computer programming at a technical college while I grew up, so I've been playing with computers my entire life. Whenever I do something with someone's computer for them, I usually get told I'm some kind of computer genius. Sometimes when I'm in an argumentative mood, I'll explain that it's simply practice and experience. I say I've been tinkering with computers all my life. I don't tinker with them because I'm good, I'm good because I tinker! I usually get a blank look, or some kind of confirmation that no, must be some kind of genius.

I read an article once that said that the best predictor of career success is not intelligence, but executive ability (I can't remember what the article was though). ADHD is a disorder that is characterised by diminshed executive function. That's what makes ADHD so debilitating... it takes away a big part of the mental framework that allows us to succeed. That's not to say people with ADHD can't succeed, but that we just have to work harder on those parts we can't do as well. I can definitely relate to this -- my IQ is high enough to get me into Mensa, but I can barely make dinner more complicated than frozen pizza, and finished high school with a very average ranking. I'm highly intelligent but incapable of applying it in a consistent manner.

A better poster child for what precociousness really entails, Gladwell hinted, may thus be the famous intellectual late-bloomer, Einstein. Gladwell cited a biographer’s description of the future physicist, who displayed no remarkable native intelligence as a child but whose success seems to have derived from certain habits and personality traits — curiosity, doggedness, determinedness — that are the less glamorous but perhaps more essential components of genius.

I was a gifted child. I am definitely not a gifted doer.

One last word -- reading this post, you might think I managed to just formulate my ideas and spew this post forth in some kind of giant slab in a single go. Not true! I spent something like 2.5 hours writing and rewriting the damn thing. This topic interests me and... I just got carried away in one of my hyperfocus trances.

This is quite interesting, as the subject is not well indicative of many research studies with great success. As we enter the 21st century...the brain is still being discovered, and what lies with in the masses of grey matter.

The human brain..what a remarkable gem.

Without quoting or going to a textbook, I will attempt to add a little piece to this.
The brain is an organ that is NEVER used to full capacity, yet has the capacity to rule your world. It suffers, it thinks, and it marvels.
As stimulus enter the brain you process thoughts, equations, and verbage...all this is like morse code tapping away, and signaling stimuli...how we use the stimuli, well without subjecting humans to shear torture I believe we may never know.

The brain metabolism is different for each individual. Your outside resources may or maynot play a part in those who rarely get to probe into their intellegence. There are many people who pocess genius capability, but can not utter a single word. The question to ask..were they not taught to use the whole brain? Did there surroundings deter social skills?
These all are contributing factors.
The MRI.....during these studies the individuals were not asked to think..just to relax, and while doing so, the stimulit was not turned off..because they cannot stop thinking...the bloodflow through the cortex is is remarkable and the glial cells produce at different rates.

The average person would assume, intellegence is genetic, or comes from the wound and nutrition, or maybe just the skills you try to enforce while they are young. i beg to differ.....

The brain is a constant wave of activity, and while neurostimulators are always on..we all do not posess the same amount.

Mental illness, pain, joy, satisfaction...these too are relative, and often are overlooked in the highly intellegent, so i ask you..Why do they lack in feeling? maybe it is because the brain has overcompensated for areas it was not capable of stimulating?

Karma, we are born again and again in different bodies

The human brain...only uses 10% of its capability....the MRI pt's, were using more than this...The neurostimulators were obviously affected by dopamine levels, and metabolism.

OK ENOUGH....but you have me intrigued!

Karma? hmmmmm.....is there logic behind karma?

everything in science is subject to cause and effect, Karma is cause and effect in respect to mental energy, each moment of conciousness gives rise to the next moment of conciousness without beginning or end.
conciousness does not cease when we die or miracuously appear without a previous moment of conciousness within the womb from nothing. our previous experiences in other bodies on a subtle level dictate our inclinations and abilities and explain why we are all so different and so unique
this understanding is what gives life a purpose and a direction without this knowledge we might as well do anything and have no moral boundries or values as they would all lead to nothing and our lives and acheivement would be meaningless.
personnally I beleive this phenomena to be well documented and perfectly logical, however you may not but I would invite you to consider it
with the greatest respect Alexis

I accept your challenge, yet i will have to step outside of my own logic to explore the world beyond science..
Thank-you for intriguing me, as I will follow up and try to remember, that not all life is so black and white.

I think there is a hyper-focus aspect to these people that you may not see in say, your run-of-the-mill highly intelligent people. Also, there seems to be an ability to work through things in the mind, much better than your average person. Case in point, Tesla said he had the ability to see a design in all its fullness in his head before working it out on paper or to fruition. He could take it apart and put it together all in his mind. I think it is highly possible that some part of their brains is hyperactive to the point that certain abilities are above and beyond. That being said, many of these people lack in other ways as a result of their genius.

In my mind its an overdeveloped part of the brain, while other are under-developed. It brings to mind the idea that the overdeveloped side is sucking a lot more energy and thusly depleting other areas. Not saying this is what is happening, but it certainly seems feasible in my mind.

Also, there is a "knowing" quality to these people. Daniel Tammet is a rare savant from the Uk and can do wonders with mathematics in his mind. He describes having a "feeling" in his forehead when seeing prime numbers, as well as experiencing sythenesia and having Asperger's Syndrome. Going back to Tesla as well, he had some sort of strange reported phenomenon as a child with blinding lights.

The last thing that all of this may be is an actual brain disorder. I'm sure most would disagree with the use of that term, but what I am striving for here to that the brain isn't functioning as it normally does. While this brings out some amazing abilities, it also limits in others. Not saying that each of these people has a tumor or something of the like. But that perhaps their brain has developed abnormally and as a result they can achieve the intriguing results we see in each of them.

Great thread!
D

This is quite interesting, as the subject is not well indicative of many research studies with great success. As we enter the 21st century...the brain is still being discovered, and what lies with in the masses of grey matter.

The human brain..what a remarkable gem.

Without quoting or going to a textbook, I will attempt to add a little piece to this.
The brain is an organ that is NEVER used to full capacity, yet has the capacity to rule your world. It suffers, it thinks, and it marvels.
As stimulus enter the brain you process thoughts, equations, and verbage...all this is like morse code tapping away, and signaling stimuli...how we use the stimuli, well without subjecting humans to shear torture I believe we may never know.

The brain metabolism is different for each individual. Your outside resources may or maynot play a part in those who rarely get to probe into their intellegence. There are many people who pocess genius capability, but can not utter a single word. The question to ask..were they not taught to use the whole brain? Did there surroundings deter social skills?
These all are contributing factors.
The MRI.....during these studies the individuals were not asked to think..just to relax, and while doing so, the stimulit was not turned off..because they cannot stop thinking...the bloodflow through the cortex is is remarkable and the glial cells produce at different rates.

The average person would assume, intellegence is genetic, or comes from the wound and nutrition, or maybe just the skills you try to enforce while they are young. i beg to differ.....

The brain is a constant wave of activity, and while neurostimulators are always on..we all do not posess the same amount.

Mental illness, pain, joy, satisfaction...these too are relative, and often are overlooked in the highly intellegent, so i ask you..Why do they lack in feeling? maybe it is because the brain has overcompensated for areas it was not capable of stimulating?


*flies over Batman55's head*

I appreciate all the insight thus far, as I was afraid that some of you might have commented on the obvious jealousy I have for gifted people which was implied in the OP.

I think what I was trying to look at, though, was still more along the lines of "genetic royalty" and the why's and how's of that. I will explain why I believe in this concept I call "genetic royalty." Very often when you see a gifted person, you see a gifted parent. And usually when you see a prodigy, you see a highly gifted parent. There must be something going on with these people besides any of the following: karma, work ethic, parenting style. And I propose that neuroscience could possibly account for it. It could be a structural difference in the brain that allows for more blood flow to reach areas critical to "learning."

For example, you would not argue that a prodigy who could get a perfect score in an SAT at 14 years old is simply "just well parented, has good karma, and works hard." You would argue that most logically, there is something different in the neurological makeup of such a person that is causing "extreme intelligence."

Frequently in individuals who have "extremely low intelligence," there is a cause for the low intelligence. Pretty much everyone with MR has a low IQ and, not to take anything away from them, they often have difficulty achieving things at the same rate as most other "average IQ" people. Very often with MR, there is a known reason for why someone has it: some of the more typical possibilities include developmental disabilities (Down's syndrome, Fragile X, Rett's Disorder), and within these conditions, usually science can explain why the brain isn't able to learn things at an acceptable rate.

But, can science do the same thing for the opposite end of the spectrum, that is, "extremely high intelligence?" It should be able to. But I don't see any research on the topic.

And I wonder why there's no research on this. Is it perhaps that the elite see no reason to explain their secrets?

Every person is simply the final result of a neverending battle between nature and nurture.
I have the feeling that recent scientific work is changing this balance a little bit toward the nature side.
But don't forget, the human brain is an extremely complicated piece of machinery. I, myself do not believe in too much reductionism.
I don't think you can find the mechanisme behind intelligence in the functioning of a single neuron. Rather, intelligence is an emergent property of a highly complex system of neurons, the links between them and the neurotransmitters in the brain.

Every person is simply the final result of a neverending battle between nature and nurture.
I have the feeling that recent scientific work is changing this balance a little bit toward the nature side.
But don't forget, the human brain is an extremely complicated piece of machinery. I, myself do not believe in too much reductionism.
I don't think you can find the mechanisme behind intelligence in the functioning of a single neuron. Rather, intelligence is an emergent property of a highly complex system of neurons, the links between them and the neurotransmitters in the brain.

I believe in reductionism when I see that prodigies have amazingly intelligent parents (or at least one parent tends to be), and I believe in it when I see that gifted people have gifted parents.

I would like to forget about the nurture side for the purpose of this thread, if we can. I want to make this thread about basic neuroscience, not about psychoscience.

I want to know what is it that can go in the brain to make someone become the innovator of leaving the earth's atmosphere, as in Von Braun's extraordinary contributions to humanity. This is not a "normal" brain. There is something different in this kind of brain, and it's not just the result of good parenting or karma from past lives. So, I want to know just what that is.

If it's going to be a complex explanation, so be it, but I don't care to see any more discussions about work ethic, parenting styles, or confidence. I think science needs to look at it, and it needs to look closely.

One example of the research I would like to see: Daniel Tammet is an autistic savant and is capable of performing incredible feats. He's not the type of person I'm looking at in this thread (true savantism like Tammet's is caused by damage to an area between the hemispheres in the brain, and therefore causes impairments; prodigies or "extreme intellects" like that of Von Braun's have no classifiable impairments). But research is being done on Tammet's brain along the lines of discovering if an ordinary person is capable of "accessing inner savantism." Some research on inducing savantism in a very temporary state has been done, with interesting results. Don't quote me on all this, but the research was based on using powerful magnets on some region in the brain, effectively "turning off" some function for a short time; while turning on functions that one would not normally be able to access.

But a true prodigy or even just an "extreme adult intellect" does not have any kind of impairment like Tammet does. And I want to know, what is it that makes these people so amazing.

Does the IMP thread count me in for the study? :)

extreme adult intellect"

yOU may very well find this, in the strangest of places.. . or even the least strange, i dunno where you will find it

O'Boy!e
donronjohnVonBraunemon (it never ends) lol:):):):p

lol, i laugh every time I say those.. lmao

?????

I appreciate all the insight thus far, as I was afraid that some of you might have commented on the obvious jealousy I have for gifted people which was implied in the OP.

I think what I was trying to look at, though, was still more along the lines of "genetic royalty" and the why's and how's of that. I will explain why I believe in this concept I call "genetic royalty." Very often when you see a gifted person, you see a gifted parent. And usually when you see a prodigy, you see a highly gifted parent. There must be something going on with these people besides any of the following: karma, work ethic, parenting style. And I propose that neuroscience could possibly account for it. It could be a structural difference in the brain that allows for more blood flow to reach areas critical to "learning."

For example, you would not argue that a prodigy who could get a perfect score in an SAT at 14 years old is simply "just well parented, has good karma, and works hard." You would argue that most logically, there is something different in the neurological makeup of such a person that is causing "extreme intelligence."

Frequently in individuals who have "extremely low intelligence," there is a cause for the low intelligence. Pretty much everyone with MR has a low IQ and, not to take anything away from them, they often have difficulty achieving things at the same rate as most other "average IQ" people. Very often with MR, there is a known reason for why someone has it: some of the more typical possibilities include developmental disabilities (Down's syndrome, Fragile X, Rett's Disorder), and within these conditions, usually science can explain why the brain isn't able to learn things at an acceptable rate.

But, can science do the same thing for the opposite end of the spectrum, that is, "extremely high intelligence?" It should be able to. But I don't see any research on the topic.

And I wonder why there's no research on this. Is it perhaps that the elite see no reason to explain their secrets?

Without flying over your head...lol
There are studies, but they are not published, because they are still within the hypothosis state.
The problem is, these studies need to be tested on live human brains, and this is substandard practice even in the 21st century.
I will say this...each capable emotion of the average intellegence, is not adaptable on the highly intellectual.
Many highly gifted persons are unable of expressing emotion, so is the hypothesis....one who is intellectual, cannot express himself.
I wonder?

Although I can't dispute studies on the "genius" brain, I am still not completely convinced that something isn't off in their development. At least in people like Nicola Tesla's case, he definitely had many problems that co-existed with his genius.

I think there's lots of people that believe themselves to be very intelligent when they're not. Parents will very often think their children are 'gifted' and IQ tests combined with this can create a dramatic increase in head size.

The mechanics of the potential prodigies intelligence IMO is just a statistical thing. 5 million people are born and maybe 2 of them are potential 'super geniuses'. The next thing that effects the outcome are things like - birth place, sex, wealth, education etc. although these things might not always stop these guys.

That's my thinking on it anyway...

Without flying over your head...lol
There are studies, but they are not published, because they are still within the hypothosis state.
The problem is, these studies need to be tested on live human brains, and this is substandard practice even in the 21st century.
I will say this...each capable emotion of the average intellegence, is not adaptable on the highly intellectual.
Many highly gifted persons are unable of expressing emotion, so is the hypothesis....one who is intellectual, cannot express himself.
I wonder?

Thanks for putting it in simpler terms, this was more what I was looking for.

But I would think one would have to be so very "passionate" and lustful for success (and, at least in some cases, material wealth) to achieve the incredible?

I don't mean to delve off into left field, but I wonder how many "geniuses" there are that cannot express that intelligence in a coherent way?

I can't help but think about this proposition..

The real genius', IMO, are those who have their genes functioning optimally, or correctly..

OK??OK?? hmmm wait a sec
http://www.twis.org/audio/2008/06/24/225/
*around the 50 min mark..
<--apparently they found some sort of gene altering substance--ajig, which quite instantly reversed retardation of behavior in mice.. so it is apparently effective in treating retardation and autistic behaviours.. at least in mice.

Thanks for putting it in simpler terms, this was more what I was looking for.

But I would think one would have to be so very "passionate" and lustful for success (and, at least in some cases, material wealth) to achieve the incredible?

SO, to be lustful, and passionate for success, could result in a theory...I really believe those with superior intellect strive for nothing as it just is a way of life for them. The process of learning and knowing is their passion.

We really could debat this until the end of time, but in this century, we will never know...or will we....see!
Thanks for making me think.
X

The more I think about this subject the more I look around myself to see if there are really that many people around who are better than average in every facet of their intellectual functioning.
Whenever someone is superior in a certain field, there are always offsets in another field.
The true homo universalis or even homo superior is not much in evidence in our world.

I can't help but think about this proposition..

The real genius', IMO, are those who have their genes functioning optimally, or correctly..

OK??OK?? hmmm wait a sec
http://www.twis.org/audio/2008/06/24/225/
*around the 50 min mark..
<--apparently they found some sort of gene altering substance--ajig, which quite instantly reversed retardation of behavior in mice.. so it is apparently effective in treating retardation and autistic behaviours.. at least in mice.

There's a strong likelihood that people such as Einstein, Newton, and Tesla were on the autistic spectrum. And true, posthumous DX cannot really be done. But some clinicians believe there's enough evidence. They would be ultra-high functioning, mind you, but autistic nonetheless. From what I read, Einstein didn't talk much until he was 9 years old. To me, that looks like HFA.

If these folks mentioned above aren't "real geniuses," I don't know who is.

So I don't really know how your proposition holds up. There's a hell of a lot of neurodiverse people about who have shown this "otherworldly intelligence" I'm talking about.

How would you test your proposition? I haven't listened to the audio clip you provided, but I fail to see how reversal of retardation or autism proves that a prodigious intelligence is really the result of optimal gene functioning. I could be missing something here, though, so please forgive my trouble with reading comprehension.

The more I think about this subject the more I look around myself to see if there are really that many people around who are better than average in every facet of their intellectual functioning.
Whenever someone is superior in a certain field, there are always offsets in another field.
The true homo universalis or even homo superior is not much in evidence in our world.

True, but it is those who show superiority in an intellectually-demanding enterprise at a young age that I am looking at, and these people are very rare. For example, how many 13 year olds do you know who have graduated college with a Master's. These people are very rare. And it is this kind of mind that I'm looking at and asking, "how?" The secrets of this kind of mind should be examined.

Maybe, like savantism, this kind of extraordinary functioning could be temporarily induced. And given ONLY to people who already have learning disabilities, and royally suck at achievement in any field, like me. :p

I want what's in their water...

HMMMMM water or breast milk?
As I stated before this is a debate we could argue until the end of our time...but I will say this.
Because there are two few genius's in our world this will continue to be the struggle of our understanding.
One thing to consider, if we were to try and test a subject group...in poor social groups, how would an adult who struggles to put food on the table realize a child with superior intellect exists when they struggle with their own. How many children are pushed through the school system who may be autisic or suffer any other difficulty, that are never discovered to be so intellegent? If these gifts are not probed than are we missing a huge subject group? I wonder?
It is enough to make me think.
Actually....what a great thesis.
Just a thougt!

I hate to be a nuisance, but I still don't understand. Your posting style is abstract in the extreme. I can never find anything concrete in your posts...

It is not a knock on your posts. It is probably the sign of a good writer. It suggests you might be good at storytelling or writing fiction/poetry if you put your mind to it, in fact.

But my mind can't understand writing like this.

Should I apologize?

I am sorry, that I am for the lack of a better word, expressive, and emotional in my writing. HMMMM wonder if its ADD!

As far as concrete...well this was not an actual debate of Medical journals, or textbooks, so I put my personal thought into it, as I could spend weeks finding material, I have other interests.

I would appreciate you not publically ridiculing me as I would never show that much disrespect. I believe in allowing the freedom of thought, and would never say such negative things. I reread the entire thread, and I am so lost in what you are talking about, but of course it is my writing.

Please know I take a lot of offense to your negative words, and will refrain from posting again.

I am surprised you would act in such a way.....or not message me personally.

Please know this....respect is a two way street, and I don't like being confronted publically on a Monday morning.

Thank-you...for being so "kind".

Was this concrete enough?

This may be of interest:
Wikipedia Albert Einstein's brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain)

So, what do you folks think? Other than heritability, what are the mechanics behind extreme intelligence? There must be something going on there that can be accounted for by science, or biochemistry.

Neurochemistry is extremely complex, and my understanding is not very good (likely as a result of my neurochemistry). I would suspect the processes that underly or relate to LTP (long-term potentiation) may be accelerated. This would help explain the extraordinary understanding of the famous individuals you mentioned in their fields of interest.

This may be of interest:
Wikipedia Albert Einstein's brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain)



Neurochemistry is extremely complex, and my understanding is not very good (likely as a result of my neurochemistry). I would suspect the processes that underly or relate to LTP (long-term potentiation) may be accelerated. This would help explain the extraordinary understanding of the famous individuals you mentioned in their fields of interest.

It is a fascinating article, and of course I know nothing about neurochemistry (in fact I'm about as far from being an academic as humanly possible!), but the article is leaning toward some of my ideas on the subject.

To anyone who might know more about this--if you have read the article--does it seem like Einstein may have had a form of savantism, given the likelihood that he had Asperger's?

I think at several junctures in this thread, I have put forth the idea that you can separate prodigy from savantism. Usually the difference between the two conditions is very obvious due to the extraordinary "islets of ability" found in savantism, which is offset by cognitive disability in other areas (savants may have trouble telling left from right, for example.) Prodigies don't usually have any delays or impairments and the intellect is more of a "global genius" rather than broken into uneven parts.

But could it be that a rare few "high functioning savants" have existed, where it would be much harder to detect impairment? I wonder if Einstein was one such person...

""Study finding more glial cells in Einstein's brain""

To me, Einstein, was so good, cuzz' --
"success is 90 percent perspiration and 10 percent inspiration"

soo.. coming from the mouth of the man himself.. he gave a lot of effort and spent a great deal of his life on these mathematical-esque conceptualizations. He was actually "solving" the problems w/the science of his day..like gravity..BTW...



How would you test your proposition? I haven't listened to the audio clip you provided, but I fail to see how reversal of retardation or autism proves that a prodigious intelligence is really the result of optimal gene functioning. I could be missing something here, though, so please forgive my trouble with reading comprehension.Ok,OK, but YOUR person is not diminished by your genes functioning optimally.. so therefore you would be a genius w/or w/o your behavioral condition.. you'll just be a healthier genius, and even more likely to be an acceptable genius..

Einstein is probably the most widely-accepted genius right now..

Glial cells, commonly called neuroglia or simply glia (Greek for "glue"), are non-neuronal cells that provide support and nutrition, maintain homeostasis, form myelin, and participate in signal transmission in the nervous system.
already both discovered that rats with enriched environments developed more glial cells for each neuron. Rats in impoverished environments had fewer glial cells relative for each neuron. [AND ANYWAY, he seems like one of the most healthy, emotionally/physically geniuses I HAVE EVER SEEN.. he has a certain vitality about him, IMO

This is a little offtopic but very interesting anyway. maybe you can become a genius if you train hard enough?




http://www.sciencenewsden.com/images/brain2.jpgPeople who meditate grow bigger brains[/URL] than those who don't. Researchers at Harvard, Yale, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found the first evidence that meditation can alter the physical structure of our brains. Brain scans they conducted reveal that experienced meditators boasted increased thickness in parts of the brain that deal with attention and processing sensory input.
In one area of gray matter, the thickening turns out to be more pronounced in older than in younger people. That's intriguing because those sections of the human cortex, or thinking cap, normally get thinner as we age.



"Our data suggest that meditation practice can promote cortical plasticity in adults in areas important for cognitive and emotional processing and well-being," says Sara Lazar, leader of the study and a [URL="http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2006/meditationincreasebrainsize.shtml#"]psychologist (http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2006/meditationincreasebrainsize.shtml#) at Harvard Medical School. "These findings are consistent with other studies that demonstrated increased thickness of music areas in the brains of musicians, and visual and motor areas in the brains of jugglers. In other words, the structure of an adult brain can change in response to repeated practice."
The researchers compared brain scans of 20 experienced meditators with those of 15 nonmeditators. Four of the former taught meditation or yoga (http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2006/meditationincreasebrainsize.shtml#), but they were not monks living in seclusion. The rest worked in careers such as law, health care (http://www.sciencenewsden.com/2006/meditationincreasebrainsize.shtml#), and journalism. All the participants were white. During scanning, the meditators meditated; the others just relaxed and thought about whatever they wanted.

I do really believe you are on the right track, there, Oz.. . . .

I am still siding with Nature first, Nurture second. It's oversimplified perhaps, but I don't deny the merits of emotional well-being, practice, work ethic, etc. It's just that I believe there is an innate superiority of neurological functioning in most people we would call "super-genius."

Whether that superiority be structural in nature, a greater number of glial cells, and/or have to do with neurotransmitters... that's not something I have the ability to determine. But I believe that it's there, and some science supports it--even the Wikipedia article on Einstein's brain shows evidence for this.

And that's the bottom line, for me.

I am still siding with Nature first, Nurture second. It's oversimplified perhaps, but I don't deny the merits of emotional well-being, practice, work ethic, etc. It's just that I believe there is an innate superiority of neurological functioning in most people we would call "super-genius."

Whether that superiority be structural in nature, a greater number of glial cells, and/or have to do with neurotransmitters... that's not something I have the ability to determine. But I believe that it's there, and some science supports it--even the Wikipedia article on Einstein's brain shows evidence for this.

And that's the bottom line, for me.

There are no bottom lines in Science. If you want to ask this question scientifically, then you have to be open to all possible answers. Especially if they aren't the answers you expect or want. Otherwise, you're simply practicing a form of intellectual self-pacification.

I am still siding with Nature first, Nurture second. It's oversimplified perhaps, but I don't deny the merits of emotional well-being, practice, work ethic, etc. It's just that I believe there is an innate superiority of neurological functioning in most people we would call "super-genius."

Whether that superiority be structural in nature, a greater number of glial cells, and/or have to do with neurotransmitters... that's not something I have the ability to determine. But I believe that it's there, and some science supports it--even the Wikipedia article on Einstein's brain shows evidence for this.

Why is New York City arguably the most productive city in the world?

Modeling the behaviors and origins of highly complex and chaotic systems is a task for gods. Two seemingly identically structured complex systems exposed to seemingly identical environments and events can still reach different, and sometimes radically different, end results. After a point, we have to accept that as the number of relationships in a system increases, our ability to predict and influence that entire system in subtle ways decreases.

Here's something that I know for sure. Genius has its own traps. Just as you are obsessed with intelligence, and self-assured that you can never exceed the abilities of your IQ, so too are geniuses trapped by similar anxieties. They fall into intellectual desperation for many reasons, such as fear of failure and a fear of not reaching their potential.

Any study of the nature of genius must be tempered with the context of how that genius is used. Intellect is useless without the drive to use it. Drive without intellect is still extremely capable.

The complex system that is NYC has over 10 million components, each of which themselves are unfathomably complex. The relationships between those components and their environment are effectively infinite in number. Some are more influential than others. And while they all matter to a certain degree, the absence of one or even quite of a few of them will not significantly alter the system as a whole, unless it does. A mayor, for example, is a highly influential component of the system. One city might collapse for the loss of its Mayor. Another will not.

My point here is that there is not a single change we can make to destroy a city, and there won't be a single unified theory of genius. We can shuffle a few genes around, and some complex systems will still find genius. We might find physical structures that increase the potential for genius, but there is no guarantee that the first few years of life won't completely nullify that potential. Even the very best complex systems with the very best environments can and do collapse.

There are no bottom lines in Science. If you want to ask this question scientifically, then you have to be open to all possible answers. Especially if they aren't the answers you expect or want. Otherwise, you're simply practicing a form of intellectual self-pacification.

It's just my opinion. Nowhere did I suggest that it's an absolute truth, at all.

For example, other people in this thread have said that emotional well-being and work ethic are the more important factors in terms of "super-genius." That's their opinion. I beg to differ, as I think it has more to do with nature, than nurture (or environment.) But I don't deny that the two factors are interwoven with each other.

I'm not a scholar or an intellectual, but it's just what makes the most sense to me. I don't think anyone is truly free of any opinions, stances, or beliefs.

It's just my opinion. Nowhere did I suggest that it's an absolute truth, at all.

For example, other people in this thread have said that emotional well-being and work ethic are the more important factors in terms of "super-genius." That's their opinion. I beg to differ, as I think it has more to do with nature, than nurture (or environment.) But I don't deny that the two factors are interwoven with each other.

I'm not a scholar or an intellectual, but it's just what makes the most sense to me. I don't think anyone is truly free of any opinions, stances, or beliefs.

In some regard, you are correct. Genius can't exist without the necessary nature. The hardest work ethic, best education, and most favorable environment still can't make a man significantly more intelligent than he is. The swing side is that Genius can and does atrophy from disuse. Without effort and a favorable environment, Genius never reaches its potential. There is no Genius without drive and the opportunity to exercise it. Men can survive and thrive without Genius. They do by its very definition. All men are uplifted by the willingness to work hard. All men are devastated by an unwillingness of the same.

In short, genius is overrated. It might enable a person to study more complex topics and ask deeper questions, but the same rules of success apply. Those who work the hardest succeed the most.

Everything, as it appears, is BY CHANCE.. dependent on the nature of the environment and the nature of those inhabiting that nature..

someone's intention, is never clear cut, or all that definable..

Without effort and a favorable environment, Genius never reaches its potential.
egad! ur a genius:D

what is desirable...it is defined by nature, which WE define??? are we so seperate from the rest of reality, that we can't trust ourselves, to KNOW nature..??

Our existence is a great of example of- that nature, CAN know itself

Everything, as it appears, is BY CHANCE.. dependent on the nature of the environment and the nature of those inhabiting that nature..

someone's intention, is never clear cut, or all that definable..


egad! ur a genius:D

what is desirable...it is defined by nature, which WE define??? are we so seperate from the rest of reality, that we can't trust ourselves, to KNOW nature..??

Our existence is a great of example of- that nature, CAN know itself


I must admit that some of the posts I have seen from qinkin thus far (as well as the one above) are confusing to me, as I can't "pinpoint" what he is trying to say. I'm sure he's a good contributor here, but there is something about his posting style that makes it nearly impossible for me to understand. Perhaps he could put things in easier, black-and-white terms for me, upon request?

I'm just trying to see all angles and all sides, and if I can't, I have a tendency (must be the intellectual disability shining through) to ask a lot of questions.. The fact that I ask a lot of questions or exhibit frustration at some posts is not meant to be antagonizing, but simply reflective of being what they call "slow."

An IQ score of 99 when I was 15 years old... I think that could well be indicative of intellectual disability...? All I know is, I didn't ask for such a pathetic score... in a more ideal world my IQ would be at least 120.

An IQ score of 99 when I was 15 years old... I think that could well be indicative of intellectual disability...? All I know is, I didn't ask for such a pathetic score... in a more ideal world my IQ would be at least 120.

An IQ of 99 is average for a white male and if it's average then it's probably not indicative of a disability. ADD/ADHD people are considerably more inconsistent on cognitive tests than NTers are (A few ADD/ADHD people have actually claimed variences in their IQ scores of 40 points or more). New research shows that the brains of ADD/ADHD people mature alot slower than brains of NTers. In terms of development alot can happen in 10yrs (Im assuming you're in your mid twenties). Maybe you should just take another test.

An IQ of 99 is average for a white male and if it's average then it's probably not indicative of a disability. ADD/ADHD people are considerably more inconsistent on cognitive tests than NTers are (A few ADD/ADHD people have actually claimed variences in their IQ scores of 40 points or more). New research shows that the brains of ADD/ADHD people mature alot slower than brains of NTers. In terms of development alot can happen in 10yrs (Im assuming you're in your mid twenties). Maybe you should just take another test.

Or, alternatively, stop dwelling on IQ. It is a fractional measurement of a single aspect of who we can become. You get what you get. The true measure of a man is not what he is given, but how he uses it.

Or, alternatively, stop dwelling on IQ. It is a fractional measurement of a single aspect of who we can become. You get what you get. The true measure of a man is not what he is given, but how he uses it.

This is by far, one of the best statements I have read to date. Your logic is quite intuitive, and I truly hope you live by this standard.
X

Or, alternatively, stop dwelling on IQ. It is a fractional measurement of a single aspect of who we can become. You get what you get. The true measure of a man is not what he is given, but how he uses it.

It's hard for me to stop dwelling on it when I realize the poorly thought-out things I say, in other threads with scientific minds (not this thread), are leading me to receive condescending responses by smarter people. It's hard for me to stop thinking of myself as dumb when much of what I add to a "scientific" discussion is brushed aside or worse, deconstructed in a cold and clinical manner the likes of which I've never seen before.

It's hard for me to stop dwelling on it when I realize the poorly thought-out things I say, in other threads with scientific minds (not this thread), are leading me to receive condescending responses by smarter people. It's hard for me to stop thinking of myself as dumb when much of what I add to a "scientific" discussion is brushed aside or worse, deconstructed in a cold and clinical manner the likes of which I've never seen before.

I am an intelligent man by almost all measures. A few years ago I went to a hockey game with my brother and father. Shortly after we sat down a goal was scored and I began to cheer. Unfortunately, the goal was scored by the visiting team. I am not a stupid person for making such a simple mistake. I simply have little mind for sports.

A man once went to a doctor and said, "Doctor, it hurts when I poke my eye". The doctor replied, "Stop poking your eye and you won't hurt anymore". Why would you dwell on that which hurts you? I don't spend my time trying to talk sports with fans. I'm only asking for humiliation. I discuss when I can understand. I listen when I can't. To interrupt the conversation when I have nothing useful to offer would be simply rude and harmful.

The world can't turn for you and I alone. Eventually, you will have to accept that the reason you feel bad about "cold and clinical" deconstruction is not because everyone else forces you to feel bad, but because you feel bad about it yourself. You are the only person who can change that feeling. Stop putting yourself in positions where the water is over your head. I promise that when you do, the drowning feeling will go away.

Or, alternatively, stop dwelling on IQ. It is a fractional measurement of a single aspect of who we can become. You get what you get. The true measure of a man is not what he is given, but how he uses it.
Exactly

The world can't turn for you and I alone. Eventually, you will have to accept that the reason you feel bad about "cold and clinical" deconstruction is not because everyone else forces you to feel bad, but because you feel bad about it yourself. You are the only person who can change that feeling. Stop putting yourself in positions where the water is over your head. I promise that when you do, the drowning feeling will go away.

I understand your point perfectly, but this was a topic I was very interested in, and I know some things about it. The problem is I know little about the statistical/scientific side about it, because in my brain, "hard facts" do not stick. In my head, incoming data gets thrown about randomly, and to retrieve the proper information--especially when a discussion is being dominated by scientific minds--it's a real crapshoot.

I felt that my contribution to the thread was acceptable. For me to avoid even those topics I'm interested in, I'd eventually just not even contribute anything, at all, and an inactive mind is not very healthy to have.

hey bats..:)

I KNOW you don' want to be condescended to in a personal way..

When you step into somebody else's mind, you better get out as fast as possible!.. :D

No mind.. see things as they are.. that's the most intelligent way