Unlike Hilary, Obama twisted the accusation into something positive

Blair was the best at this

A massive cunt, but still brilliant with this shit

Well yes he was always a great speaker

Obama I mean

@lemonsaw You're right. I wasn't inspecting a closer look at it as I was reading through the wiki, which yes, still mentions that there are scientists- specifically 3 of them who 'scored low on their IQ tests in the wiki. But here's the source(link) where it mentions the names of three scientists that are considered 'low in IQ' at the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

Quoted text from the wiki link that highlights the 'low IQ' scientists:
"The Terman longitudinal study in California eventually provided historical evidence regarding how genius is related to IQ scores.[27] Many California pupils were recommended for the study by schoolteachers. Two pupils who were tested but rejected for inclusion in the study (because their IQ scores were too low) grew up to be Nobel Prize winners in physics, William Shockley,[28][29] and Luis Walter Alvarez.[30][31] Based on the historical findings of the Terman study and on biographical examples such as Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius,[32][33] the current view of psychologists and other scholars of genius is that a minimum level of IQ (approximately 125) is necessary for genius but not sufficient, and must be combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development.[34][35][36]"

After searching up for their individual biographies, their IQ aren't below 125. So, I don't understand why the wiki considers the IQ of these 3 scientists (Shockley, Walter & Feymann) to be low. My theory is that there is some sort of average IQ for what is considered a genius? IQ alone is a whole topic I should read about in full context which leads to a whole discussion regarding it's history, science and statistics behind it. Your opinion really adds up to my understanding of IQ so I really appreciated that.

I appreciate that you're not emotionally attached to your positions.
This whole debate just revolves on your definition of a genius. If you think of a genius as someone who can perform on an IQ test, then it's simply based on IQ. If you consider someone who makes an impact in their scientific field as a genius, then it seems that IQ is not the only factor. From your source and what I've read in general, there is a minimum IQ (seems to be 125), which combined with motivation and other traits would make a genius.

However what I don't appreciate is people denying IQ. It is a good assessment of one's logical intelligence and it is one of the best predictor of life success along with EQ.

@lemonsaw I'm getting the bigger picture now you mention it. The whole idea of the definition of genius is certainly debatable until today (now that's something I'll add up to my reading). I suppose it wasn't that wise of me that some part of me denied the importance of IQ in the whole process of trying to understand what 'genius' or intelligence really means along with other factors I'll read up soon like EQ (now you mention it), etc. Much more for me to understand it seems and again thank you for sharing your opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jG6kJm-50k

looks like Im late to the party with my popcorn

😦

how do u explain hwo the big bang happened

like nothing cant just become somthing''

and what caused that

and then what caused that

idk man

My theory is that one day we will invent time travel

or some sort of wormhole to travel through

that time is bendable

we will take matter

travel back to nothing

and leave it there

where everything will be created

OR another theory Ive heard is that

if there is nothing

that means there is no logic

so something (quarks) can be created from nothing

I disagree

it can just pop into existence because there is no logic to tell it that it cant

These are theories

The Deutsch Proposition would mean that Time Travel is too risky

Okay

what does this mean

god is real

He maybe real

Okay so let me explain to you the wonders of Time Subjectivity

it's a belief system to me, you really can't prove much when it comes to religion

GG @zeck, you just advanced to level 3!

Time travelling to the past would mean changing that past right?

Basically changing it won't do anything