Contributions vs IQ and Child Prodigy
Recently, now that atheists or racists (it’s the same thing) are taking over, contributions are becoming de-valued in their significance and atheists like the one who made this video are even discouraging people from valuing contributions highly. IQ is being valued as worth even more than contributions.
The people who care about IQ the most and value IQ as being worth the most are atheists or racists (it’s the same thing). No other group of people besides atheists or racists value IQ so highly. Nothing is more pleasing to atheists than to hierarchically rank groups based on IQ. All that matters to atheists is IQ and IQ alone. Atheists are terrible people, the worst you will ever find.
So what does IQ measure? IQ measures how well you can answer IQ-style questions using your mind alone (the use of paper, pencil, and other resources is not allowed on IQ tests). That’s all that it actually measures. The higher your IQ score, the better you are at answering IQ-style test questions using your mind alone. The majority of people with IQs of 130 or higher would be able to correctly answer most IQ-style questions if they were given limitless time and allowed to use pencil and paper. Because of this IQ is not really that relevant after it goes above 130. IQ becomes completely irrelevant after it goes above 150 and really really irrelevant when it goes above 170.
What do contributions measure? Contributions measure how much you changed the world, advanced a certain field, and how much you progressed mankind. Contributions involve things beyond and outside of IQ test puzzles, different from mere academic achievements. Contributions are also usually connected to originality and creativity.
No contributions = No human progress
In the past when IQ tests did not exist or were not popular no one really cared about child prodigies or IQ scores.
When someone would say “he’s a genius” in the past they would refer to their contributions that displayed their genius.
In modern times when people say “he’s a genius” they refer to child prodigy and high IQ alone.
If someone contributes absolutely nothing or nothing significant but is a child prodigy or has a very high IQ they will be called a great genius in modern society. On the other hand if someone makes profound great contributions that forever change the entire world, but was not a child prodigy and does not have a super-high IQ they are not viewed as much of a “genius” as non-contributing child prodigies.
When people look up a list of the smartest people of all time today they will usually find estimated IQs of the people from the past or actual tested IQs of people in modern times, and the list will talk rarely about contributions. But why? What’s so special about being able to answer IQ-style questions well and not contribute anything significant?
We can see this trend of valuing IQ and child prodigy as being worth more than contributions in modern times. Just look at someone like Christopher Langan who has contributed virtually nothing but is celebrated in the media for having one of the highest IQs 195-210. Then look at Grigori Perelman, who proved the Poincaré conjecture, but is virtually ignored by the media. Obviously Grigori Perleman has contributed much more than Christopher Langan, yet the media celebrates Langan and completely ignores Perleman. If it is found out that Perelman’s IQ is less than 180 he will not be viewed as that much of a genius anymore. Right now his IQ is unknown and untested.
If Einstein hadn’t contributed anything to physics, but was a child prodigy, with an IQ of 200+, and got all A’s, which physicist would really care? He would just be another fast learner. I wouldn’t care at all. Look at someone like William Sidis, this guy was probably one of the fastest learners in history, and is estimated to have an IQ of 250-300, but he contributed absolutely nothing significant, nothing at all. Then look at someone like Henri Poincare who flunked an IQ test but greatly advanced and changed physics and mathematics forever. Poincare is usually ranked within the top 10 best mathematicians of all time.
When mathematicians, physicists, engineers, biologists, etc…look back at the history of their fields all that actually matters is contributions, not IQ tests scores, GPA, wealth, child prodigy, or anything like that.
We can see that contributions are worth infinitely more than IQ alone, and far greater in significance.
It should be that IQ has very little worth in society rather than contributions. But in modern times now that atheists are taking over contributions are being completely devalued and losing all their significance.
Being able to answer IQ-style puzzles using your mind alone and not contributing anything is not a sign of genius, but rather a sign of someone who ‘s good at answering IQ puzzles using only their mind or a sign of someone who’s a very fast learner. For this reason IQ should not stand for “Intelligence Quota” but instead “Learning Speed Quota”. If someone can learn very fast, has a super high IQ, but can’t contribute, they’ll never be viewed as a genius my mind, just simply a fast learner.
It seems that in modern times no one really values contributions as highly as they use to.
What a shame it is that now in modern times if someone makes revolutionary contributions they will be ignored but someone who has an extraordinarily high IQ who contributes nothing will be celebrated as a great genius.
Let us not forget that contributions and contributions alone that forever change this world, forever change the course of human history, forever change people’s lives, and will forever be remembered until the end of recorded civilization.