Skip to content
September 3, 2011 / itsnobody

The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses”

Here is my top 10 list of the most overrated geniuses. The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

#10 – Bill Gates

I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.

I’m not sure if Bill Gates belongs on this list since I don’t consider him to be a genius of any kind. Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.

Bill Gates never invented the computer, the keyboard, the mouse, the GUI desktop concept, or anything like that. Yet for some reason many people really believe that he did.

The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles BabbageAlan Turing, and John von Neumann.

The first computer to use the desktop mouse GUI was the Xerox Alto.

#9 – James D. Watson

James  D. Watson and Francis Crick are universally hailed by biologists as great geniuses for being the DNA co-discoverers.

So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115). Thirdly, according to Watson himself Crick was more clever than him.

There are contributions that require little intellect but lots of ingenuity, there are contributions that require lots of intellect but little ingenuity, and there are contributions that require both intellect and ingenuity. This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations.

If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data. It’s a contribution based off simple observations that would’ve happened by virtually any biologist, not a special kind of contribution.

#8 – Michio Kaku

People who watch TV probably think Michio Kaku is one of the greatest living physicists, but physicists don’t. There’s probably not even one physicist who would rank Michio Kaku within the top 50 or even the top 100 best living physicists.

Michio Kaku has made some contributions, but he still isn’t even close to being one of the best physicists in modern times.

Michio Kaku is more of a media figure who writes on popular science and appears on radio and TV shows a lot.

Other physicists who are regarded as the best living physicist like Edward Witten are virtually ignored in the media.

#7 – Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is. People who watch TV probably think he’s one of the best living physicists even though he isn’t.

Just like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking is a media figure. Other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Ed Witten are completely ignored in the media.

Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.

#6 – William James Sidis

When people talk about prodigies William J. Sidis is almost always mentioned. He was an extraordinarily fast learner and had an estimated IQ of 250-300.

There are many web sites dedicated to Sidis and his supposed “genius”. They will always mention how fast Sidis learned this, what he calculated, etc….but what about Sidis’s contributions?

William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions. That’s why he’s overrated. What’s so special about being a super-fast learner and contributing nothing significant? There is nothing special about it.

So what’s Sidis’s most significant contribution? A perpetual calendar?

#5 – Benjamin Franklin

When people who have no knowledge of science think about who made electrical technology possible they probably think of Benjamin Franklin.

The only problem is that Benjamin Franklin contributed very little to science and has very little to do with the advent of electrical technology.

The “key” story about Benjamin Franklin may also be a myth. He like other overrated geniuses on this list is just another media figure.

The actual scientists that were primarily responsible for making electrical technology possible were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who are both completely ignored in the media.

For Benjamin Franklin being so falsely associated with electrical technology he ranks as the 5th most overrated genius.

#4 – Thomas Edison

When people think of inventors Thomas Edison almost always come to mind. They probably think of a light bulb or a phonograph. He is a very celebrated figure in the media.

So why is Edison overrated? Edison has over 1000 patents (the 3rd most prolific inventor) but Edison bought many patents and was not the originator of many of the ideas. Edison had setup many different labs and had many others working on inventions. So the vast majority of Edison’s inventions do not independently come from Edison.

Edison was not even the first one to invent the incandescent light bulb. Edison and his team invented an improved version of the incandescent light bulb, many had existed before. Fluorescent light bulbs though are much more efficient and an overall better invention than incandescent light bulbs.

Other genius engineers like Nikola Tesla are almost ignored in the media.

Edison was not the genius inventor as portrayed by the media but instead a businessman.

Since Edison did not work independently and was mostly a businessman he ranks as the 4th most overrated genius.

#3 – Albert Einstein

So who’s the person who’s so associated with the word genius that the image or thought of him comes in mind when the word “genius” is mentioned? It’s got to be Einstein.

Einstein is overrated for many reasons. Many people seem to believe that Einstein was a great mathematician. They probably saw on TV “E=mc2” and thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics (in this case Riemannian geometry).

Another reason that Einstein is overrated is because many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels.

Einstein is also overrated for being known by many as the smartest person ever. Some people have “estimated” his IQ to be over 200 (which is most likely impossible). People like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, and others were likely much smarter than Einstein but they are not portrayed as such in the media.

Since the mathematics for General Relativity came from Riemann, a lot of Einstein’s ideas are inspired from Faraday, and for Einstein being so synonymous with the word “genius” he ranks as the 3rd most overrated genius.

#2 – Pythagoras of Samos

When non-mathematicians think of the best mathematicians Pythagoras likely comes to mind. Most non-mathematicians probably think Pythagoras was the #1 mathematician or close to #1, but mathematicians don’t.

In reality Pythagoras is not the best mathematician or even close. People like NewtonEulerGaussRiemann, and many other mathematicians who are completely ignored in the media for their mathematical brilliance were much better much mathematicians than Pythagoras by far.

Euler and Gauss (the mathematicians that are arguably the two best of all time) are virtually ignored in the media. I wonder what things would be like if Euler and Gauss were mentioned in the media as much as Pythagoras is.

The Pythagorean theorem and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem are not difficult things to discover. There exists literally hundreds of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Most of what Pythagoras and his students did are not difficult to discover or re-discover. Just compare re-discovering the Pythagorean theorem to rediscovering Euler’s identity and it’s easy to see which requires more ingenuity.

Even though it’s true that Pythagoras and his students made some contributions Pythagoras is still far from ranking within the top 10 or top 20 best mathematicians, which is why he is one of the most super-overrated figures.

Since the vast majority of Pythagoras’s contributions are easy to re-discover and since Pythagoras is synonymous with the word “mathematician” despite being far from the best mathematician he ranks as the 2nd most overrated genius.

#1 – Leonardo da Vinci

So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci.

Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.

Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was.

Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.

Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.

In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions.

I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations:
– At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all
– Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far
– Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ)
– Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ

Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140.

Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things. This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so.

This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how).

Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary.

The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs? Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail).

Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much.

Other much better engineers like HeronArchimedesAl-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media.

Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media.

Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media.

Da Vinci is perhaps one of the greatest genius idiots of all time. For Da Vinci being so super-overrated that people think his IQ was 200+, for at least half of Da Vinci’s designs not working, for his inventions being grossly overrated, and for the media and many others super-overrating him he ranks as the #1 very most overrated person of all time.

There doesn’t even exist one other genius in all of human history as overrated as Da Vinci.

From my list we can see that the media is full of lies and exaggerations. Those are all my thoughts on who’s overrated. I wonder how controversial my claims may become…


Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Apr 29 2016 3:24 pm

    This page is utter rubbish, the author should have done some research before writing this amateur paper. Furthermore I’m convinced that he/she could not have made any of these contributions

  2. Anonymous / Apr 28 2016 8:59 am

    get the f.u.c.k out of here

  3. Anonymous / Apr 26 2016 3:39 pm

    Oh. You forgot to mention that half of Leonardo’s inventions didn’t work.

  4. dave / Apr 26 2016 3:39 pm

    We all have are own perception! It is solidly understood that reasoning comes first. Meaning, the foul fingers, might take a step back and realign themselves and apply some progression to the topic. How many of you knew that Einstein can be connected to the bombing of Black Navy men and a direct connection to Rockefeller. Hay Facts are facts!

  5. dave / Apr 26 2016 3:09 pm

    interesting all one’s mentioned can be connected to curuption and the powers that be! and the one’s that did the work were restrained!

  6. Anonymous / Apr 26 2016 3:52 am

    This article is complete bullshit.

  7. Anonymous / Apr 20 2016 2:40 pm

    this is the biggest bullshit I’ve ever heard, however wrote this has an iq of about minus 5

    • Zack / Apr 29 2016 3:29 pm


  8. Anonymous / Apr 17 2016 7:12 pm

    What an ass.

  9. Foghorn The IKonoclast / Apr 16 2016 10:30 pm

    One of the overrated blogs of all time.

  10. Anonymous / Apr 16 2016 8:29 pm

    The fact that Leonardo,Stephen Hawking, Pythagoras, and Einstien are on this list makes me know that this is not true. You obviously think that you are superior and smart but reading this makes me know that you are not. I bet a million bucks that you belong to Mensa, an absolute indicator of your inflated ego. YOU are the one who is overated, and obviously a legend in your own mind.

  11. queen-of-sass / Apr 5 2016 11:57 pm

    This is utter bull. Based on the shit-storm that is this comment section, I would assume that a lot of people agree that this post is utter nonsense.

  12. Anonymous! -.- / Apr 3 2016 12:06 pm

    One of the most idiotic articles I’ve ever read, and if not, *the* most idiotic one. Poorly written and wrong in so many levels.

  13. Pieziiz Threeothreeofive / Mar 28 2016 8:25 pm

    Well. Overall Bill Gates deserves the 1st slot since the history is explicit enough to prove that his works don’t fit the titular “genius”. But in actuality he’s a clever entrepreneur rather than a genius.

  14. QuanTo / Mar 26 2016 3:57 pm

    Oh! And you completely ignored Sir Newton’s politics. When Leibnitz came out saying he has invented calculus, and suddenly Newton decides to announce that he invented calculus years ago! Really? From what I read about his personality and nature, he wasn’t a kind of genius who would keep his so profound work a secret ! Sir Isaac Newton was of course a genius but is surely really overrated. He kept only those works of his a secret that he couldn’t prove – like Alchemy and Bible Decoding!

  15. bob malone / Mar 25 2016 10:56 pm

    i am the smartest person ever to live.i can prove it.well i think i can.well im not sure now.well i forgot what i was hell with it.

  16. Anonymous / Mar 23 2016 3:04 am

    Poorly written boring to read article. Starting with everybody believes x is genius, but no y think he is. Ok ok they are just normal people, we can simply delete from wikipedia and pretend never existed. Definition of genius is not contributions to society. A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability. If someone is talking so sure about various branch of science, I would not take him serious.

  17. Lists Suck / Mar 12 2016 9:07 pm

    This is a really bad list and it misses so many points. First of all by what criteria is one over or under rated? Not defined. Just some arbitrary sliding scale or is the creator of this list a world renowned physicist? There are physicists who do research, there are physicists who publish, there are physicists who work in industry, there are physicists who teach and there are physicists who communicate. In terms of success Hawking and Kaku are great examples of science communicators who are arguably just as important as the appropriately rated or under rated physicists (again according to the arbitrary scale by which this list is set). Beyond that there are some really over generalized bits about just about everyone on this list.

  18. Truth-As-I-know / Mar 4 2016 4:10 pm

    Most overrated are einsteins and hawkins. others should be removed from this list

  19. Finn / Mar 3 2016 6:05 pm

    This made me sick to my damn stomach. Every single person you said is definitely by all means a genius. You’re just too stupid to realize that. Idiot.

  20. Qubit / Feb 25 2016 11:12 am

    I know this is a bit old, but you did ask for a reasoned refutation, so here goes.

    You state this on Einstein: “..thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics”

    So what? Einstein made a number of great contributions to science. But in your opinion these don’t count as he didn’t invent the mathematics to go with them! What a myopic opinion. Lets list Einsteins contributions to science.

    There was a problem with Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. The results of calculations seemed to depend on what reference frame you used to calculate them. But this suggested that certain frame where special, and idea that just isn’t there in the physics of classical mechanics. The idea was to introduce a special frame called the ether. But as we know, experiments to detect the ether failed. Einstein’s genius was to resolve all the problems with only 2 simple, clear, physical assumptions: 1) that all inertial frames are equivalent and 2) that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same for all observers. Using only these two assumptions he explained *all* of the experimental evidence. This is what science is about: EXPLAINING THE OBSERVED PHENOMENA. It is NOT about clever mathematics, that is what mathematics is about. The clue is in the name, for god’s sake!!!

    Oh and by the way, what did Einstein win his Nobel prize for? Nothing to do with relativity! Instead, it was for introducing the idea of photons (Planck did not use them anywhere in his work, I’ve read the original paper). Crucially, he claimed that the quantum hypotheses was a real physical phenomena and not just a fudge to fix a particular calculation. For instance, he used these ideas to explain the both the photoelectric effect and the strange properties of the heat capacity of crystalline solids.

    With these two pieces of work, he had completely over thrown the last 4oo years of scientific thinking. This is one of the most profound intellectual achievements in history. But he didn’t do any fancy mathematics, so obviously he is an idiot. Oh and I’ve not even half way through describing Einstein’s contributions to science. There is also his work on Brownian motion, which lead to experimental work that final laid to rest the question of whether atoms existed. This work is also very important in describing random process and his found applications in describing the motion of charge carriers in semiconductors and the fluctuations of global financial markets. Then there is his work on stimulated emission, which he guessed based solely from thermodynamics. This is the basis of how lasers work. There is also his work on general relativity, i.e. his theory of gravity. I could explain why this is important or what he did, but the mathematics was described by others, obviously the physics is easy. But why then didn’t Riemann or the other come up with the physical ideas. Even Hilbert, who did come up with some equations for relativity, admitted that he only managed this as Einstein had already explained all the key physical ideas to him. Did I also mention Einstein’s work on the EPR paradox. It failed to convince people that QM is wrong, but it was very important in inspiring the current field of quantum information (I know this as several of the founders of the field have actual said this).

    If this isn’t a genius, then who is? Witten perhaps? But he is a physicist, so what physics has he actually explained? What he has done is introduce some new and powerful mathematical ideas (which are often then proved by others). These ideas *might* be useful for developing new physical theories, but as of yet this hasn’t happened. In fact, not only has he not made a single testable prediction, he hasn’t made any sort of prediction (the much touted prediction of quantum gravity is not really full developed yet, so can’t be claimed as a prediction). Witten is obviously a very clever person, but his legacy in physics is thus far open to debate. In contrast, there is no debate about Einstein. Neither is there much debate about Hawking. He may not be in the same league as say Dirac or Philip Anderson. But together with Kip Thorne and Bernstein, he has revolutionized theoretical cosmology. Before their work, it was seen as a moribund field, which was best ignored by talented young scientists.

    • Gabriel / Apr 20 2016 4:25 am

      You Sir, are awesome.

  21. Egbert Otter / Feb 10 2016 5:07 am

    This article could be in the top ten of most underrated articles. (hint of sarcasm…) If I would ever take the time to write such an article. In fact I am wandering why I am taking the trouble to write a response to this article. Probably because I haven’t figured out what meaning of life is so it won’t matter what I do with these few moments… But I still enjoy people like Michio Kaku contemplating on life so I guess this is my contribution for respect for the men who make contributions to life instead of the pitiful sucker who writes this article and makes no contribution to science or public discussion or whatever goal you can think off…

    • Lists Suck / Mar 12 2016 9:11 pm

      Science communication = planting the seeds of future breakthrough. Hawking, Sagan, Neil Tyson Degrasse, Michio Kaku, are all in that camp. How can they be called “over rated” … can the creator of this really bad list make any evaluation of that and the impact it has on physics in the future? No. This list is beyond pointless. Glad to see that most comments here seem to feel that way.

  22. Raskolnikov / Feb 6 2016 10:49 am

    This is the most poorly written article I have ever seen. You are an ignorant attention seeker who is mad at the world because you are in special ed classes. You are less than shit compared to these prestigious luminaries.

  23. Leonardo da Vinci / Jan 29 2016 10:32 pm

    Okay smartie, who would make your list of underrated genius?

    • Albert Einstein / Jan 29 2016 10:36 pm

      I’m guessing he’ll put himself in it.

      • Pat / Feb 5 2016 12:24 am

        He has some points but who is he and I think if your wanting to talk about genius of electricity and the person who made the most contributions to make the world better is no doubt Nikola Tesla without a doubt. They are actually rewriting history with Tesla and he is responsible for the function of the entire electrical grid and powering the Planet. He was more Human activists to make life easier for Humans to live in a Better world and he definitely did that!!/ working with Edison and put him out of the Electrical Business. Developed a better light bulb with first Fluorescent bulbs and lit up the Chicago’s World’s Fair with over a Hundred thousand light bulbs. Problem with Tesla is he is not good at business and kinda naive when dealing with people and so many of his inventions and patents were literally stolen buy Italian Radio plagererisism and he didn’t really care when he should have. If he found a good financial investor he would be worth Trillions of dollar’s!!!! His inventions we’re up there with the telephone. Which Alexander Graham Bell never had money problems again. Tesla simply wanted to give humanity everything for free and he thought he would be loved for it but instead he was seen as a mad Scientists and Edison had all the connections and influence with money because he was older and richer than Edison. I mean Tesla literally gave alterternate current free to Edison and he knew it of and Electrifying Elephants, Horses , Goats etc.. at the Chicaco World’s fair out of desperation. He could light a light bulb hundreds of miles away and Edison with DC would have had to build a ektectrical Plant every mile to light his Light bulb’s….. Sad!

  24. Darren / Jan 24 2016 12:23 am

    I’d imagine that if Faraday or Newton or Turing or any of the other people mentioned as being neglected by the media, were more touted in the media, they would have been called overrated. The truth is, no one invents or discovers things in a vacuum. It could be said that any invention or discovery would eventually come to be from someone. Nonetheless, this list seems to have less to do with whether a particular person should be considered a genius and more to do with arguing no one is.

  25. greatinforcer / Jan 21 2016 5:05 am

    Dude, how did you get trough school? Most of this stuff comes from the internet, and Leanardo invented a plane, did you invent one? Can you even paint? Did you come up with the big bang theory? Do you even understand wormholes? I personaly think you are just jealous!

    • Steve / Mar 11 2016 9:09 am

      Your words are awfully misspelled. I wouldn’t criticize anyone with that awful excuse for grammar.

      • greatinforcerAlex / Mar 11 2016 2:46 pm

        This post was typed by my 6 year old son, this is his profile, and I do believe that with the fact that english was learnt as a third launguage, he did good! Probably better than you!

  26. Anonymous / Jan 20 2016 2:50 pm

    i do not know how to read

  27. John Key / Jan 13 2016 4:21 am

    One thing is for sure; this writer in nogenius

  28. johnnyhenry / Jan 6 2016 8:15 am

    This article is rife with contradictions. Just take a look at how the concept of the IQ is used to (ineffectively) back up the author’s claims. First he challenges what the IQ of a particular person is without knowing if the IQ # he is challenging is accurate to begin with. His IQ argument is based upon pure speculation at best and mostly grounded in hearsay. Which makes his IQ argument worthless from its inception. The point is that therere is no way of verifying what the IQ’s of any of these individuals was. Even if we assume there’s any validity to his claims about individual IQ numbers we are still left with a dismissal of some of the greatest contributors to the field of science based upon spurious evidence. Even using IQ as a measure is faulty in and of itself.
    Actually calling what the author presents here “evidence” is being far too generous. That Einstein or any of the other scientists here mentioned borrowed and took from others and is thus undeserving of the accolades they’ve received doesn’t give any validity to the author’s contention that these scientists are basically “overrated”. What it does demonstrate is the author’s complete ignorance in the field of physics and of how scientific progress is made. Just as in literature any and all scientific progress is a handing down and across of information and theory from one individual to the next. In literature a writer, whether consciously or not, is creating a new literary work that is influenced and contains the markers of the “DNA” of its predecessor’s work. In science all new discovery both evidentiary and theoretical bears the characteristics of the scientific work done by science and scientists that came before. Whether or not we like it, and for better or worse. Either way, in essence, one can rightly say that original thought and new genuine original discovery has been made by just about all of the scientists the author attempts to discredit.
    The main argument of the article that these people are overrated geniuses is entirely unsupported subjectivism. If he thinks that Einstein was nothing more than a borrower then he is failing to recognize Einstein’s contributions to the field of physics, and more importantly, as I previously explained, how progress in science is made. Even the individuals who he claims Einstein owes his due to, they themselves borrowed and expanded upon earlier work made by scientists who came before.
    That aside to say Einstein was a poor mathematician is nonsense. Besides teaching himself geometry, differential and integral calculus by the age of 12 he had a near perfect score on the math component of the entrance exam to Zurich Polytechnique University at the age of 16. The reality is, Einstein’s true passion was outside of math, which is why he was able to formulate his General Relativity theory, which in fact, contains mathematics (ten coupled, nonlinear, hyperbolic-elliptical partial differential equations) that itself is so elegant and beautiful that only a genius could have been the author of their construction.
    As for the claims made about DaVinci…his contributions in anatomy, botany, engineering, and art are second to few. He precedes Copernicus in identifying the sun as the center of the universe, he precedes Galileo in ideas about using magnification to observe celestial bodies, and put forth theories about the nature of gravity well before Newton came along. In just about every case mentioned in this article claims can be made for the accomplishments of these individuals that validates their legitimacy as what can be called “genius”. The problem is that genius is just a word anyway and thus a silly way to try to devalue how accomplished and intelligent these people were. Whatever claims made in this article about how overrated these people are falls flat in the face of their real world accomplishments, especially when looked at in their position in the progress of science and technology.

    • Anonymous / Jan 6 2016 9:15 pm

      This guy said it perfectly. I second this.

    • Anonymous / Apr 20 2016 4:37 am

      Thank you

  29. Chris / Jan 4 2016 8:15 pm

    This article is overrated. No accurate points. Check your own intelligence level before criticizing others.

  30. ThatDaveguy / Jan 1 2016 6:31 pm

    How many times can the phrase “basically ignored by the media” be used in a single article?

  31. Sean / Jan 1 2016 12:15 pm

    So basically you just picked the 10 most popular people in “genius land” and claimed they were all over-rated. Give me a break. Hawking? Einstein? Over-rated? You are crazy…. and to say “literally impossible that DaVinci had an IQ over 200”, really? There is no way you could know this.

  32. Anthony,w.Patrick (@unuseable55) / Dec 27 2015 4:53 pm

    all the thoughts of all the greatest men are important to the fullfilment of mankind but the thing they are missing is what they have and never will know how to be an individual in an ever changing world thing might seem what they are but times change and people don’t,think about it ,the world is full of turmoil and no one has an answer,I have one burn the damned and spare the true.

  33. Cris Verdonik / Dec 23 2015 9:41 pm

    Ed Witten is the greatest genius of our time, and Tesla the greatest of the 20th century, bar none. Before that the obvious such as the greats of 1800s (Maxwell, Faraday) and of course the scientists before that (Newton), and even ancient genius like Democritus. Einstein’s “genius” comes from putting other’s work together and piecing the great theory together, not shabby at all. But Edison? Hawking? Gates? Come on. In the latter case, knowing which way to best rip people off is hardly genius, although smart for sure. In the former two, it’s obvious both were in the shadows of great men, but Edison used fame while Hawking used one great discovery to continue their ascent. Sometimes true genius takes time for the world to see, such as with Mozart, sometimes it is unfortunately ignored. Let’s hope that history will give credit where it’s due, there is always time. Tesla is making a huge comeback.

  34. kaalen / Dec 14 2015 6:37 pm

    Itsnobody must be given credit. He has sat down and put his thoughts on paper and has put forward his arguments as to why he wrote what he wrote. Yes he has stirred up a lot of heated reactions. It would help is itsnobody came out of his anonymity and told us who he is what his credentials are. Perhaps he is a PhD in history and has done sound research to back up his assertions. At any rate I think he is right by requesting that people come up with rational rebuttals rather than cheap shots to his persona.

  35. Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:18 pm

    Agree with number 2 .Pythagoras ..Euler and Gauss were far more influential, they are the fathers of the modern math. not to mention Laplace and Leibniz.

  36. Joseph / Dec 14 2015 10:26 am

    Although you have to remove Albert Einstein and hawking from this list.. which makes your entire post rubbish…

  37. Joseph / Dec 14 2015 10:23 am

    I agree with Ed Witten… most people don’t know about him… And of course media is for entertainment… so they only say about fancy and decorated people, but not hard working people like witten… as people don’t know him…

  38. Jan Fersani (@LaBandeMajeure) / Dec 6 2015 6:43 am you measure the geniu by only IQ?..sorry but this is just giving an idea only about ‘your IQ’..

  39. MattyG / Dec 3 2015 6:26 pm

    How can you say William James Sidis is an overrated genius although he had the highest iq of all time, yet say further on that da Vinci is an overrated genius because what he did does not show he has a high iq? I really hope your blog is satirical because a majority of what you say is incredibly stupid. You’re some sort of knowledge hipster who lacks knowledge. Read a book bud.

    • PrismPrecipitation / Dec 13 2015 2:47 am

      One of the biggest myths is this assertion that Sidis had the highest IQ ever. Read the following

      “The clip itself is from Grady Towers’ “The Outsiders”. A large percentage of popular online myths about William Sidis came from “The Outsiders”. “The Outsiders” (1987) was based on “The Prodigy” (1986) plus a lot of half-truths and inventions. “The Prodigy” was predominately a sensationalized account of hearsay and invention. As an example, “The Prodigy” claimed that Sperling gave Sidis an IQ test for a civil service job and estimated Sidis’ IQ at 250-300. Sperling himself wrote in “A Story of Genius” that Sidis’ sister, Helena, told him that a psychiatrist had given William Sidis the test and that the other psychiatrist estimated the IQ at 250-300. Records of Helena portrayed her to exaggerate on other topics, and it is possible that Helena’s comments may have been exaggerations or outright inventions. The information in “The Prodigy” was not true, and thus the information in “The Outsiders” was not true. A letter written by William Sidis stated that he had taken a civil service exam, that he passed the state clerical exam, and that he was number 254 on the list; “not so encouraging”. It may never be known if Sidis actually did take an IQ test, and it may never be known if the 250-300 number arrived from Sidis’ placement in the job pool. ”

      • Isak / Mar 19 2016 11:44 pm

        Actually, the estimate of 250-300 is based on what is called a ratio IQ. If a 3 year-old is at the same developmental stage as a 9 year-old, then his ratio iq is 300. This is not how IQ’s are typically measured nowadays, and is not better than what for instance Terence Tao has performed. To excel in this measure, one need not be extraordinarily intelligent, just extraordinarily precocious.

  40. starinsideahumansuit / Nov 20 2015 5:47 pm

    As if you idiots put William James Sidis on your stupid little list… Have you no idea what “super-elastic collisions” are? The author is indeed a morons.

  41. Omer / Nov 18 2015 6:57 pm

    Einstein is a genius
    You are sayin that is an long distant jumper athlete is not good in sprinting then he is not a great athlete
    Da vinci is overrated because he never done anything that requaired high iq
    Why would dolphin will have a capacity of energy of elephant, thats a 100% proof

    Why men have a lot of gray matter ?
    Why women have a lot of wnite matter?
    Einstein is also smart

  42. Learncontrol / Nov 15 2015 6:51 pm

    Sidis is overrated? Because of his lack of contribution? It doesn’t make him anything less then the smartest person that this human race is aware of. We never know what Sidis would’ve done with his intelligence if his brain hadn’t exploded, and if everyone wasn’t so critical of his intelligence.
    Personally, I wish we knew more about Jesus Christ ( The real one not the pedestalized indoctrinated version) it would be really interesting to know what his level of IQ was.

    • itsnobody / Nov 16 2015 11:26 am

      My definition of “genius” is an individual who makes contributions that very few humans can.

      IQ is just a made up test…so if someone has a really high IQ but can’t contribute anything then who cares?

      On the other hand if someone comes up with contributions that anyone could make or are just lucky that doesn’t mean they are a “genius” IMO either.

      So my definition of “genius” eliminates both high IQ individuals that contribute nothing and individuals that contribute things that anyone can.

      As for Jesus Christ, if he really had superhuman cognitive abilities he should be able to do IQ-puzzles easily.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:22 pm

      Sidis IQ has never been officially tested so its all speculation..

  43. Anonymous / Nov 5 2015 5:43 am

    only a frustrated coward can publish such a ignorant text.
    Blaming people for using known knowledge to go further is – sorry – stupid. just to write the text above it needet almost ALL inventions of mankind. even if the author is too simple to understand that.

    • Anonymous / Nov 12 2015 10:09 pm

      He is, right now, in fact using other people’s knowledge and research to support his opinion. Doesn’t that go against what the idiot “Leonardo” said? Such a child.

  44. Bryce / Nov 3 2015 3:36 pm

    Im sorry but Da Vinci is not overrated because IQ tests dont test how good you are in everything they only tell you how good you are at IQ tests. Also you try making a concept of a revolutionary invention and make a prototype then get it to work first time whoever writ this was jealous AF

  45. Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:16 pm

    How about we are all wrong a genius is only a thought a opinion so we basically are all fucking out rating everybody and ourself who are we anyways.

    • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:31 pm

      Also are we just hating on this guys we jealous are some shit just to do this to blow off steam we niggas need to chill the fuck out.

  46. Radu Lucian / Oct 12 2015 9:03 am

    i dont know who you are,or how smart do you think you are,but i think you are very frustrated and you made this article with a very small database and very superficially,leonardo da vinci is not overrated because he had one of the best visual memory of all people in the world,and that’s a sign of high intelligence,and another sign of high intelligence was the fact that he was good not in just one domain,he was good in a lot of areas and domains,so if you think you are smart you are probably not:))

  47. Anonymous / Oct 8 2015 12:44 am

    Well this article was a waste of my time. The fact that Da Vinci is even on this list makes me laugh. Da Vinci was more of a jack of all trades. His paintings are regarded so highly because of how they resemble human physiology. You can’t measure genius based on iq alone. This list is total bull and everybody that has an ounce of intelligence knows that. Leaving some guys like Steve jobs off while you include bill gates leaves me wandering…

  48. itsnobody- part 2 / Oct 2 2015 4:58 am

    You were a bit too harsh with Vinci (his inventions- I agree with u; but his paintings were really masterpiece). I love Einstein (one of my fav), michio kaku (only bcoz of his beautiful popular science books), Edison (his life inspires me), but I still, to some extent, agree with you. But your definition of ‘genius’ needs to be refined.

  49. Anonymous / Oct 2 2015 4:52 am

    You were a bit too harsh with Vinci (his inventions- I agree with u; but his paintings were really masterpiece). I love Einstein (one of my fav), michio kaku (only bcoz of his beautiful popular science books), Edison, but I still, to some extent, agree with you. But your definition of genius needs to be refined.

  50. Anonymous / Oct 2 2015 4:25 am

    although I like many of those scientific you claimed to be ‘overrated’, I think I agree to what you say, at least most of them

  51. Chris / Sep 23 2015 6:49 pm

    One of the dumbest lists I’ve ever seen. You have a really narrow definition of the word genius. You also proved you don’t understand anything about art as da Vinci’s paintings are so important and ahead of their time bevause they display an extremely deep understanding of human psychology. The Mona Lisa for example displays two different emotions depending where in the painting the viewer looks. Also it doesn’t matter if his inventions worked, the fact he even had those ideas hundreds of years before other people did is remarkable on its own.

  52. RespectfullyDisagree / Sep 23 2015 1:36 pm

    What gives you a position to judge? I think, the list is good, but overrated on Einstein and Gates? When you mention atheists in a negative connotation, this immediately disqualifies you as a thinker.

  53. Sampan Chakraborty / Sep 20 2015 6:56 am

    Cult of personality of a scientist is often being created by media and common people love to swim in that cult without understanding it.I discussed it in detail at Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle.I also made a graph IQ on x-axis & intelligence on Y-axis and made a graphical comparison between it.

    But I don’t think Hawking,Einstein or Da Vinci are over rated.

  54. jack clousseau / Sep 18 2015 3:11 pm

    special mention – Neil deGrasse VonLoudmouth Tyson.

    • Anonymous / Sep 20 2015 6:51 pm

      Tyson’s invented nothing. He’s just a student of the game. Two words: Affirmative Action.

      • PrismPrecipitation / Dec 13 2015 2:48 am

        How racist to assume he got where he did just because he is black.

  55. Anonymous / Sep 16 2015 12:01 pm

    Genius = What you do AFTER SCHOOL, not IN SCHOOL.

    A genius has visions.

  56. Joseph Kool / Sep 14 2015 10:57 am

    Steve Jobs should probably be on this list. People seem to think he invented just about everything.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Jan 7 2016 7:09 am

      The other Steve called ‘ Wos’ is the inventor of the modern personal computer we use today
      Jobs was a marketing genius.

  57. Anonymous / Sep 12 2015 7:27 am

    Judging from your poor grammatical skills, I would say that you are in no position to write an article on this topic.

    • Anonymous / Oct 19 2015 12:18 pm


  58. Anonymous / Sep 8 2015 12:18 pm

    Please don’t use the word “GENIUS” freely. There are lots of people who have very high IQ and GPA and go to prestigious school such as MIT and Harvard and so on, but that doesn’t automatically qualify them as geniuses.

    Geniuses are people who come up (or modify existing ones) with some things their own (VISIONS). Being a genius means you have invented something (Having that theories or equations under your name). Einstein was just a tag average in school and was not very good in math (His equations were created with the help of a couple of mathematicians). Bill Gate and Steve Jobs were college dropouts (Bill Gate could write computer programming codes while Steve Jobs could not). Edison was average in school. Faraday didn’t know much about math because of his humble upbringing (Maxwell, a mathematician, helped him to come up with those equations). Again, the point is that a genius is the one who invents something. Excelling in academic don’t automatically qualify you as a genius (You are a good student in that field, though, and that by no means is easy).

    • Joseph Kool / Sep 14 2015 11:11 am

      A lot of people are educated fools and then you have highly educated fools.

    • IdiotKiller / Sep 17 2015 8:09 pm

      You’re the true moron here. Because you have an arbitrary definition of genius and swing it around like your tiny little pecker as if it’s THE definition.

      You obviously have an inferiority complex about people who have high IQ’s and people who go to prestigious schools.

      Not sure why. Probably because you have a low IQ and couldn’t get into those schools.

      But since you’re not capable of being rational.

      Why don’t you fuck off:)

      • Anonymous / Sep 20 2015 7:07 pm

        Wow, going by your logic I am also a genius since I have high IQ and G.P.A. There are tons of people who’ve attended prestigious schools, and you think they are all geniuses? For a second thought, I am ok with yours since it’s a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion.

        Faraday didn’t get the chance to go to higher education due to his humble upbringing. Einstein was average in school. Edison was also an average student. Hawking was not that brilliant in school as he barely did enough to get by. You got the picture? Using movie directors as an analogy, a great movie director must depend on what films he has directed. No beating around the bush. No myths. It’s show and tell.

  59. CoolMoeDee / Sep 4 2015 10:56 pm

    I would be willing to bet that the individuals for whom you say deserve more recognition would place these “overrated” geniuses in their top 10. What then?

  60. Anonymous / Sep 4 2015 6:51 pm

    I personally think Hawking to be overrated. He’s come up with two main things: (1) A black hole won’t last forever and will lose its energy through radiation; and (2) Information will be lost in a black hole, which have been proven wrong by many scientists.

    So tell me, in terms of scientific contributions, what does Hawking do that are so mind boggling?

    • anon / Sep 13 2015 10:06 pm

      Do you have any idea of Physics? If you really did, you would not have posted such a lame comment.

      • Anonymous / Sep 16 2015 11:59 am

        You either have to come up with something tangible or shut your stupid mouth. Those above-mentioned two theories are of Hawking. His second theory has been proven wrong (He admitted it) by other scientists.

        No mythology here. If you want to discuss physics with me, you’d better come up with something tangible. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

  61. Anonymous / Sep 4 2015 6:46 pm

    So, a $ 64,000 question is: What makes a person a genius?

    It’s what you invent or contribute. I could careless about IQ of 200 or above. If a high-IQ guy who sits all day memorizing things and spitting them back out (right a frigging parrot), then he is not a genius since he does not invent anything.

    Bill Gate is a genius because he knew all along that software would control the computer world. There comes Microsoft Windows or Operating Systems.

    A genius has a vision that other normal people don’t. You don’t need a PhD to be considered a genius.

  62. LL / Sep 1 2015 6:06 pm

    Also it should be mentioned that early manuscripts and letters suggest that Einstein used material and research of his first wife Mileva and subsequently claimed them as his own without ever giving her any credit.

  63. Anonymous / Sep 1 2015 6:59 am

    I would call you an idiot. But then I’d be wrong.. Let me just call you an overreated asshole, who does not have any idea about real physical contributions of Einstein, Hawking and even Da Vinci.. Next time think before you post.

    • LL / Sep 1 2015 5:58 pm

      Any idiot can name call. Why don’t you provide some evidence to refute the author’s statements instead?

  64. roblm / Aug 27 2015 6:32 am

    Instead of making a negative list and making yourself seem a little foolish; you should have made a list of underrated geniuses. You talk about Tesla, Newton, Gauss. I would rather hear about their achievements and why you admire them. But you sound like a whiney bitch moaning that your team didn’t get thru the playoffs and the teams that did are undeserving.

  65. Anonymous2 / Aug 7 2015 12:58 pm

    Leonardo da Vinci was observer, he acquired most of his knowledge through observing details, and it seems that is what we lack today. You also seem to forget you learn from mistakes, and his inventions were not highly tested, and the ones that were, actually worked. He also wrote from right to left, and if he did it because he was left-handed, then at least he had the brain to solve that problem. The Mona Lisa is said to be created from a equation that Vinci modified, and you can’t say that he did not get very far in math, because the Vitruvian Man was a prime example of his complex mathematical ability and observation. He also taught himself Italian, which was an impressive ability. His IQ can be calculated from all of his works over his lifetime and he was a great polymath, because of his works and knowledge in different subject areas.
    Now, Albert Einstein had trouble with math and language arts, so to be able to get the formula E=mc2 he had to have great abilities in math, and science, furthermore, he modified some of Newton’s theories when it came to quantum physics, which was impressive, and therefore it just shows you that Newton did not formulate his theories in every types of physic, which he should have in order to be better than Einstein. Needless to say, Einstein was also the one who helped the allies won WWII, when he contacted President Roosevelt that an atomic bomb was possible, was it possible? Well, Japan sure found that it was.
    Also if you want to criticize intelligent people, who had none of the technologies today,then you should go through life and not use any technologies and see if you can discover something mind blowing. IQ, is part of intelligence, but people really should aim for intellect, which your ‘overrated geniuses’, actually had, unlike you.

  66. DOCJK / Aug 4 2015 11:40 pm

    Interesting article. What exactly is a “genius” anyway? It’s only within the last 100 years that IQ tests have arisen. Do these tests truly measure “intelligence”? Or do they measure information that already relies on a brain trained along certain educational modes and thus culturally induced? How would one measure the “intelligence” of a Cro-Magnon individual who inhabited a world 30,000 ya? The term “genius” carries many cultural and social connotations. Baggage if you will. One must be cautious in its use. The chief thing I found irritating about the article is that the author kept mentioning so-and-so was, or was not, mentioned by the media, suggesting that to be recognized as a “genius” by the media creates our current cultural connotation. Maybe it does. But anyone who has pursued an investigation of a particular person’s contribution to knowledge doesn’t give a whit what the media say.

  67. homelesshenry / Aug 2 2015 10:33 am

    Ops list is not all that wrong.

    Its the top 10 overrated geniuses, meaning they had to be rated very highly in the first place.

    What are your counter claims?

    For the people talking about Einstein you are both correct and incorrect. Einstein is regarded highly by majority of top physicists but if you look at his contributions fame — he is in a sense overrated.

    Considering his name is synonymous with genius — literally a synonym of the word — were his contributions so much more profound than anyone ever before him to hold such a title?

    Thats what op means.

  68. Anonymous / Jul 29 2015 6:38 pm

    You’re an idiot, and IQ has nothing to do with measuring intelligence.

  69. Anonymous / Jul 29 2015 10:57 am

    In the kindest words possible, you are an idiot of the highest form. Some of the people you mentioned have expanded the vastness of human knowledge. You’re vicious review is perhaps a reflection of your own intelligence.. Or lack of.

  70. SusieV / Jul 25 2015 3:28 pm

    Have to agree. Leonardo’s art was sub par, the DNA helix has roots in ancient Egypt. Einstein’s social commentary particularly his observation of race relations makes him a genius to me, stephen hawkins is an anomaly and celebrated due to his physical limitations (that doesn’t stop him from fancying prostitutes though), Edison stole his idea from another man whom he is rumored to have murdered, the other Greek philosopher and intellects acquired (read: stole) their intellect from the ancient Egyptians. The author listed supportive data so this list is not a subjective opinion. People need to be open to challenging the drivel that is spewed.

  71. Anonymous / Jul 22 2015 1:47 pm

    This list was going pretty ok, but since u listed some people like einstein, da vinci, hawking u lost all ur credibility, and ur arguments: IQ, what the fuck, IQ cant really tell anything about a person being a genius or not.

  72. michel / Jul 16 2015 2:22 pm

    you are jst foolish… see your agessive language. you are comparing scientist with their brain.. scientist are judged by their stop talking this rubbish. and albert einstein views are original. he just used math of riemann. it is an art to turn mathematical idea into physical reality. every invetion aur theory is a key to other theory.. u jst fuck off

  73. Simon Thomas Keel / Jul 15 2015 8:01 pm

    Poorly written, based on the authors own conjecture. There are many reasons why Albert Einstein is believed to be a genius. Also the author doesn’t understand art or the mind of da Vinci. He is making the assumption an artist can’t be a genius. da Vinci was in fact a genius. He was the greatest polymath of all time.

  74. Uddipta / Jul 15 2015 4:23 pm

    Ur saying Einstein,hawking and da vinci is overrated.C’mon Einstein give d relativity theory which. Change our view to universe and as u say e=mc^2 is not only Einstein’s theory what. About photoelectric effect..
    And hawking he cant even move his body still he cracking d puzzles of universe.
    And about da vinci may be his helcopter didn’t. Work but at his time it was far more advance.And what about his artwork isn’t dt genious…

  75. screamingclown / Jul 5 2015 4:40 am

    Stephen Hawking come on can we even say he is alive at this point? Besides a wheelchair like Professor X I think science will eventually give the man a Darth Vadar make over.

    The most brilliant brain storm of Hawkings I have ever heard was on aliens, according Hawkings aliens will visit us in a thousand years. No explanations, no theories as to why, they will just appear out of thin air because it’s a thousand years. Maybe they will have giant boners and bleed acid from their eye sockets idunno I’m not a physicist but at this point anything goes.

    Despite Michiokaku hate, I would like to add the man has contributed more to science than most people realize. Most of NATO intel had no clue as to how to help Japan’s nuclear crisis, Kaku actually addressed the problem that no one had considered. By impounding the site with sand bags in order to contain the blast. I think people who are biased towards him are mostly internet trolls that can’t except the fact humans actually make mistakes and aren’t perfect. That or its just pure bigotry.

    Bill Gates is a genius, your definition of genius may vary. You were wrong to believe people think that Gates invented the computer. No one thinks that only a bunch of Nazi Apples socialites sucking on the grape fruit for an Apple world. In fact it wasn’t Apple that created the fucking gui that was Xerox and Apple stole it and tried to sue them. Gates created DOS and later created Windows, this didn’t appeal to Apple because Microsoft were selling to the PC market. Gates is a genius because he revolutionized in creating a working operating system, where Apple had to beg, plead and steal ideas. The only thing Apple revolutionized on were font characters that’s about it.

    As for the rest of your ramblings Franklin and Einstein had a few hundred years difference so the Clarke and Faraday theory wouldn’t work there. Nice nip in the butt try though, its almost as worse as patenting ideas you are practically remaking history.

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 1:05 pm

      Here’s what I have to say to your comment: LOL

  76. dave spart / Jul 3 2015 1:35 pm

    Obama the president of the US is certainly a genius.He bagged himself the nobel peace prize while waging wars against third world countries.
    His wife Michelle has some very close relatives living in the Rwandan Highlands…she even looks like ’em.Einstein gets a high rating in the media because he is Jewish.Jews control the Wests media 100%…it is therefore natural they promote the plagiarist to the max..
    Jews have a talent for self publicity which is why you avoid having them on any research team….they will hijack the outcome for their own benefit.At least the racist state of Israel is being shunned in academia!!

  77. Sane Person / Jul 1 2015 12:04 am

    When judging Kaku and Hawking you claim that neither would be listed among the greatest physicists by physicists. Then when you come to Einstein, that criterion is suddenly no longer important. Why? Almost every accomplished physicist would place Einstein among the top 5, probably top 3, physicists in history. While mathematical ability is obviously important in physics, it is obviously not all there is to being a great physicist. You like Witten and Weinberg, but I’ll bet both of them would put Einstein in their top 3.

  78. Anonymous / Jun 27 2015 7:49 pm

    youre an idiot xD

  79. Feiselski / Jun 23 2015 3:28 pm

    It could have given more sense if u changed the topic to “Dumba$$ called “Geniuses” for no reason also could have been better if u add Charles Darwin and Osho for being exaggerated as a pioneers for their shitty work!

  80. lucas / Jun 13 2015 3:04 pm

    This list is completely retarded although I can agree that some of the are indeed overrated,their work and achievements proves their genius,in the case of William sidis you don’t need to make contributions to mathematical or/physical science in order to be a genius,if it was IQ test would be based on one’s work not on logical and rational tests.
    This is a ridiculous list.

  81. Donivan / Jun 10 2015 7:40 am

    Funny how you keep bringing IQ into the equation, when any intelligent person who knows anything about intelligence will tell you that IQ is not an accurate measurement of intelligence as intelligence is a lot more complicated than that.

  82. Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:21 am


  83. and / Jun 4 2015 8:37 pm

    The author selectively picks out certain points to support his arguments, while completely ignoring others. What a pathetic attempt.

    • Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:25 am


      • Anonymous / Nov 23 2015 8:21 pm

        Tesla was a genius
        Heron was a genius
        Archamedes also. .but the main man was Hermes Tristmagismus !!…
        Einstein was a plagiaristan idiot simpleton who couldn’t even do his own tie or tie his he absolutely hated white peoplesome people reckon he was the one who gave Russia the bombnow now there’s no need for foul language like that especially when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about

  84. Thrillster / Jun 3 2015 4:45 am

    BRILLIANT! I’ve never read/seen a worse piece of keyboard warrioring. Congratulations.

    I am innately curious about intelligence after having had a tough start in life. My observations show that it comes in many forms and that IQ fails as a measure of a humans overall ability to solve.

    I have worked with many so called ‘Intelligent’ people during my life. Whilst they may excel in what ever sphere they predominate it more often than not produces a lack else where in their persona. more often than not in empathy/intrapersonal skills.

    • Anonymous / Nov 23 2015 8:24 pm

      Well said

  85. Anonymous / May 30 2015 2:49 am

    I would love to know how Charles Darwin was left off of this list. Or many of the great composers or philosophers. Seems like any of these people that are considered great geniuses with no proof in their field would rank higher as over rated.

  86. Matt / May 29 2015 7:36 pm

    Not only do I strongly disagree with your shit post but I think you are a fucking idiot. Misinformation should be a crime!

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 10:08 am

      The atheist-controlled media has no issue with misinformation promoting atheistic idealogy, like the “Dark Ages” myth and other lies thoroughly debunked by historians as I explained in my other post –

      I’ve asked atheists to name me just ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history where “After gaining food, water, and shelter they just spontaneously felt like studying astronomy and philosophy for no reason”…and they can’t name any.

      According to atheists what would realistically have happened without religion is that “After gaining food, water, and shelter people would just feel like studying astronomy and philosophy and then the scientific revolution would occur”…ROFL…so which civilization came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them? There is none in all of human history.

      In reality everything that led up to the scientific revolution (studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve definitely been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      They can’t handle the truth that religion directly caused the scientific revolution.

      I explained a world without religion (specifically Christianity) in my other article –

      Here’s a real “World Without Christianity”, Life Expectancy in the year 1961 (a few decades ago):

      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Christian Western country): 71
      – United States (religious country): 70
      – United Kingdom (religious country): 70
      – China (an atheist country): 43

      Source: World Bank

      LOL…don’t atheists use China as a great example?

      I can be 100% certain that atheism and non-religion blocks human progress, holds back science, and threatens mankind as the historical evidence clearly shows us.

      Only 15%-25% of people in China were literate in the year 1949…lol.

      Famine was prevalent throughout all of Chinese history until very very very recently (like the 1990s)…lol.

      Only through the force of government or with having something like a religion can countries become developed because humans are just animals and behave like other animals without a religion (or something just like a religion) telling them to act otherwise!

      If India or China had been Christianized like the Caribbean countries like Barbados I wonder how far they would’ve been in modern times.

      Barbados is still more developed than both India and China, still struggling to become developed.

      Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival…you don’t need to be literate for basic survival.

      We’re all born illiterate, that’s what atheists want for society.

      Whenever I talk to atheists they never provide any evidence to support their delusions, just a bunch of crap from cartoon shows and atheist blog sites.

      Why don’t atheists just go home and live the same way as chimpanzees and other animals?

      Eventually atheists are going to try to exterminate science or science will naturally go into disuse if the atheist population goes up high enough.

      People have to realize the threat atheism and non-religion poses to society, that atheists are trying to take over.

      • Anonymous / Aug 6 2015 2:47 pm

        Some people seem to make comments that are trifling at best. Please don’t talk about things that you know nothing about. India and China have made quite a lot of contributions to the world. If you just try to find things for instance , you will feel sorry for your own ignorant remark- Sanskrit is a scientific language – there were brilliant mathematicians in India . Solutions of quadratic equations were carved into their monuments years before the europeans solved it- Just search for the Ajanta and Alora caves- the Ashokan iron pillar that has no rust even today- civilizations rise and fall and rise again- don’t be biased pal , whether christian or not people who are curious about their immediate surroundings do end up doing something.

  87. aakabkan / May 16 2015 8:47 am

    I think in general pure philosophers are among the most overrated persons. If they were that ingenious, they could contribute with something more useful than just philosophical thoughts.

    I also find Galileo a bit overrated. He didn’t invent the telescope, he wasn’t even the first to use it to look at the sky (although he was better at interpreting what he saw than others at his time). He did neither invent the scientific method with experiments, that had been used over centuries in the muslim world, with Alhazen as the most notable example, and even some Greeks like Strato and Archimedes used it. Although he made a significant contribution to science with his experiments, none of his experiments were very advanced and he didn’t develope any new mathematics. I’d still call him a genius, but I can think of at least 20 scientists and inventors I’d rate higher

    Here are my suggestions of what I consider to be the greatest geniuses of all time:
    2.Isaac Newton
    3.Albert Einstein
    4.Nikola Tesla
    5.Leonardo da Vinci
    6.Carl Friedrich Gauss
    7.Bernhard Riemann
    8.Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
    9.Henri Poincaré
    10.Leonhard Euler
    11.Zhang Heng
    12.James Clerk Maxwell
    13.Hero of Alexandria
    15.Évariste Galois
    16.Shinichi Mochizuki
    17.Bhāskara II
    18.Johannes Kepler
    20.Edward Witten

    • Anonymous / Jun 9 2015 5:28 am


    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 10:05 am

      Well why don’t you post your own list on your own blog site? Anyone can make a blog site.

      This is just my personal opinion, the only one on my list I would agree maybe could be removed is Einstein.

    • CoolMoeDee / Sep 4 2015 11:03 pm

      All of these guys are mathematicians. Some of them belong, some don’t. I agree with Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Da Vinci, Leibniz and Euler. Especially Da Vinci and Leibniz.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Jan 7 2016 7:07 am

      Leibniz is ahead of anyone , for many the greatest universal genius ever lived. Euler must be ahead of Newton .For gods sake, he was blind when he almost invented the most of mathematics we have today.

  88. floyd / May 15 2015 4:07 am

    what makes one a genius? send your comments or points to i will be very grateful

  89. Roy / May 13 2015 7:25 am

    Joke? Hmmm wait not quite the word to describe this best! Seeing as you’ve managed to top all these great minds you slander, Why not tell me what word would best describe this contradictive comedy strip you call a page.. To quote you “The Xerox Alto is one of the first personal computers” not the first a cording to your links secondly “William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions” your arguement is theres no contributions as in contributions are what determine genuis then yes? Well with that sayd you realize the reason why 9/10 of those “idiots” are in the history books and there so called counterparts arent is because they dint contribute to anything great or beyond there time..Sir who ever you’re i suggest you brush up on your common knowledge.. Before trying to slander 8 of the greatest minds in history..

  90. Anonymous / May 11 2015 3:11 pm

    You have no idea what the heck you are talking about! Leonardo invented so many things that we use today and how do you know he isn’t a genius? Were you his best friend as a kid or are you a kid because this article STINKS!

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 9:31 am

      lol…what did he invent? Failed flying machines and a bunch of pictures?

      Everything about Da Vinci is grossly exaggerated.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:25 pm

        True just stating facts they got off of somebody if they do get an answer

  91. Petros Orloff / May 10 2015 7:15 pm

    Replace the word probably with ‘i am guessing’ and you got the correct meaning of the article.
    PS) There are video’s of Susskind and others saying explicitly that when they have a new theory they go to Hawking…what does that action show? Probably?

    • Petros Orloff / May 10 2015 7:17 pm

      *videos…sorry typo, keys are right next to each other

  92. PC / Apr 23 2015 7:59 am

    Yes of course, many celebrated geniuses stole/borrowed from others to advance their reputations..the practice is still in vogue today. Should your motivation be to belittle great thinkers of the past in the interest of your religion…well then you had better consider the fact that most of the planets people now see the origins of Christianity as a fable or mind/population control experiment…devised by those wanting control over others. Your leaders and thinkers are at least as baseless in fact as the ones mentioned in your list.

    • itsnobody / May 7 2015 9:29 pm

      What are you fools (atheists) talking about?

      I’m still waiting to hear one example of a pre-science civilization in all of human history that came up with an advanced astronomical model WITHOUT a religion causing them to.

      The historical evidence shows us that humans need food, water, and shelter for survival not an advanced astronomical model (physics).

      Atheism and science are incompatible, I don’t know why any atheist would participate in science since they view it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

      Why don’t they just go home instead of turning science into a laughable popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters more than empirical observations and valid reasoning?

      After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable models, technology started growing slower, and science is turning into pseudoscience.

      They consider empirically untestable mathematical models like the String theory as “science” LOL, what a joke.

      Atheists can’t do anything right.

      They have no NEED to know the truth like how I do.

      The historical evidence clearly shows us that atheism and non-religion have always been the biggest blocks to human progress, the greatest enemy of reason, thinking, science, logic, and the greatest threat to mankind.

      People have to realize the real serious threat that atheism and non-religion poses to society.

      People have to realize what atheists are trying to do to society.. .what’s going to happen eventually if people become atheistic/agnostic/non-religious enough is that people will naturally become illiterate since we are all born illiterate, science will either naturally go into disuse or atheists will try to exterminate science viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time…the same as a religion, and humans will revert to the state of an animal!

      Atheists are always trying to force and impose their way and their fictional beliefs onto the world!

      I bet the majority of atheists who read this were unaware that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and believed the Dark Ages myth lie put out in the atheist-controlled media…it shows you how uneducated and gullible atheists are and how well-controlled the media is by atheists.

      The historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution…this is normal history not even controversial or debatable…you can contact any historian from any University and ask them about it…it’s a real shame that the media is so well-controlled by atheists/anti-science fans always trying to force their way and their beliefs onto society.

      If the media hadn’t been so well-controlled by atheists and anti-religious people we would predict that the media would tell people the actual historical consensus and what the historical evidence shows, not a bunch of crap from atheist books and blog sites thoroughly debunked by historians.

      The Church strongly encouraged reason and pursuing truth and was the biggest sponsor of astronomy, this is just basic NORMAL history.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution would’ve most certainly been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to most atheists.

      If I’m wrong then why don’t the fools cite valid historical sources or name just ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to?

      The fools (atheists) believe that people would intensely study astronomy and philosophy for no reason after gaining food, water, and shelter even though it never happened even ONE time in all of human history, LOL!

      If that’s true how come in modern times still many scientists have difficulties finding jobs because there’s no NEED for them? Farmers on the other hand have no difficulty gaining money because food is something that humans NEED that’s always in demand.

      Many people in science fields have difficulties finding any type of job because there’s no NEED for them.

      Since the media is so well-controlled by atheists and anti-religious people of course the media won’t say anything negative about China, a primitive atheist society, perhaps the very most primitive civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      Life Expectancy in the year 1960 (a few decades ago):
      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43

      Source: World Bank

      During the so-called “Dark Ages” (The Middle Ages) Europe already had a higher life expectancy than China did until the late 1950s, LOL!

      Medieval Europe had a very high life expectancy (around 35-42) higher than the Roman Empire, China, and many other civilizations.

      The Middle Ages (the so-called Dark Ages) might have been the very brightest time-period in all of pre-Modern history!

      Many civilizations had higher life expectancies than China, including some Native American and African tribes, the Greeks, Egyptians, and even the Roman Empire.

      Lies in the media about China:
      – The saying “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” didn’t come from China and cannot be found in any Chinese text it came from a 19th century British book
      – Pizza didn’t come from China, it came from Greece, it’s merely a myth that it came from Marco Polo after he visited China
      – Chinese had a significantly lower life expectancy than most other civilizations did, even lower than the Roman Empire’s life expectancy of 28

      When you look at Chinese history you can see that they never really achieved anything in terms of life expectancy, a very primitive civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      The elite in China (who had food and water and died of natural causes) didn’t live long at all:
      Gaozu – natural death age 68 or 69, after overthrow
      Taizong – natural death age 50
      Gaozong – natural death age 55
      Ruizong – natural death age 54, after overthrow
      Xuanzong – natural death aged 76 after overthrow
      Suzong – natural death aged 51
      Daizong – natural death aged 52
      Dezong – natural death aged 62
      Shunzong – natural death aged 44 or 45 after overthrow
      Muzong – natural death aged 28 or 29
      Wenzong – natural death aged 30
      Wuzong – natural death aged 31
      Xuanzong – natural death aged 49
      Yizong – natural death aged 39

      Now that’s what you call a primitive civilization, always far behind almost every other civilization in terms of life expectancy.

      Many Native American and African tribes had higher life expectancies than China…they had better methods, medical practices, and diets for survival and life expectancy than the Chinese did.

      Modern science has proven that Chinese medical practices are just junk and don’t work at all.

      I haven’t heard anything negative about China in the atheist-controlled media, atheists are nothing more than savages, animals, untrustables, untouchables…always trying to force and impose their way and their beliefs onto the world.

      In modern times the Christianized Caribbean countries like Barbados have higher life expectancies than China does….James Sisnett from Barbados is the 13th oldest verified male, died at age 113, but there’s never been any males or females from China on the top 50 oldest verified people list even though China has an extremely high population above 1300 million and Barbados has an extremely extremely low population of less than 300,000.

      In a population size as extremely high as China’s (more than 1357 million) just by chance there could be someone smart, long-lived, talented, etc…since it’s just 1 out of 1357 million.

      Why don’t atheists just go home and live the same way as chimpanzees and gorillas do?

      Atheists are always there trying to force and impose their ways and their fictional delusional beliefs onto the entire world.

      I just don’t understand why any atheist would even participate in science since they view it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as religion!

      Just look at what the atheists have done after they took over science, they turned it into a laughable popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters more than empirical observations and valid reasoning

      We could have used science to turn the world into a utopia but as long as atheists are prevalent there’s always going to be that big block on human progress….atheist scientists are focusing on stupid things like the String Theory, an empirically untestable mathematical model that matches the definition of pseudoscience but since authority and incredulity matters more than valid reasoning the fools consider it as science .

      I warned my atheist friends about the possibility of a food crisis in the 2030s-2040s but they just ignored me since they view science as just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time. But I’m preparing for it by generating and growing my own food, since I have a need to know science and the truth unlike atheists.

      It’s predicted that by the year 2030 we’ll need produce 50%-70% more food!

      If the world population goes up to 10 billion a food crisis guaranteed!

      Basically every atheist hates reasoning, science and logic viewing nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time….why be inquisitive or use reasoning for? You just need food, water, and shelter for survival.

      That’s the attitude and mentality that atheists have.

      It’s that same mentality and attitude atheists have, to just live backwards or spread lies thoroughly debunked by historians.

      I just don’t know how you can believe in science and be an atheist unless you’re just really biased towards atheism.

      It’s pretty funny to talk to atheists the majority are completely unaware of basic history and still cite junk from cartoon shows and atheist blog sites about the “Dark Ages” LOL!

      People have to realize that if the atheistic/agnostic/non-religious population goes up high enough that science will either naturally go into disuse or be exterminated and people will revert to the state of animal, just like gorillas and chimpanzees!

      I view atheists as subhuman beings and hope that they die, always there threatening human progress and holding us back, and spreading lies.

      As long as atheists and anti-religious people are running things there’s always going to be that big block on human progress.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:23 pm

        How about you shut the fuck up all this religion shit is pissing me off you guys either worship multiple entities or just one and you religious people are always fighting wars believe in my God or die even if you don’t do that oh you don’t believe in God go to hell or you are going to hell when you die fucking humans I swear every human being always fighting for dominance why can’t we all be in unison like robots United working all together or even ants are better than us.

      • Truie / Oct 21 2015 10:28 pm

        I must agree with you for one thing science was based on religion but to prove it was wrong in every way it can so far.

  93. Anonymous / Apr 23 2015 1:07 am

    Fuck you, davinci was the fastest learner of all time, he was a true genius, and who do you think you are judging some of the smartest man alive? You’re probroably a 600 pound nerd on a computer your mom bought

  94. joshua walker / Apr 20 2015 3:25 am

    Most retarded article I have ever read. You are only correct about one of the, Stephen Hawking. Edward Witten is regarded as the greatest living physicist in the physics community. Albert Einstein is universally recognized as the greatest scientist in history both by the public and the scientific community. You say he borrowed many ideas from Faraday. This shows me that you do not know science at all. He borrowed nothing from Faraday.

    • Donivan / Jun 10 2015 7:58 am

      What the hell are you blabbering on about? I can’t tell if your a troll or just ignorant. Believe what ever you want to believe if that makes you happy, but not everybody can do that so easily. Plenty of people prefer their beliefs to be tested and proven before they can allow themselves to believe them and that’s just something that’s hardwired into their brain.

  95. Smith / Apr 18 2015 8:32 am

    William James Sidis:

    Read the chapter in the book below that discusses the life of Sidis and tell me about how you would have been able to cope with what he was exposed to. My take is that he realized there was a dark side to humanity and he rejected all of humanity in the end. Who knows what he could have accomplished if not exposed to psychotic parents that tied him to a chair?

    Book: Raw Deal: Horrible and Ironic Stories of Forgotten Americans

  96. smegma4lyfebro / Apr 16 2015 9:12 pm

    Where to begin? First, IQ is not the be-all, end-all measurement of intelligence. Second, how the hell would you even begin to assess the IQ of people who have been dead for a century or more? Third, failure of inventions does not automatically lower someone’s IQ. You should realize that you are examining historical figures through the eyes of a moderately educated 21st century person. I say moderately because apparently you doesn’t understand the first thing about context or objective writing. I realize that this list is mostly opinion, but it’s chock-full of bias and faulty/inadequate comparisons. Your writing leaves a lot to be desired. You harp on tired phrases and point out that the media ignores all of the ‘true’ geniuses. Yeah fucking right.
    So in summary, IQ does not equal intelligence, lack of “contribution” does not diminish intelligence, labeling so-called geniuses “overrated” is a moronic endeavor that any thinking person would find distasteful and your writing sucks. Have a great day.

  97. So's your face / Apr 7 2015 3:02 am

    Haha brilliant!
    I KNEW there was something bizarre going on here. The article is really badly written and I did detect a bit of a “rant” smell from it.

    Some good points in the article but some serious bitterness too.

    The author is “anti-atheist”?

    • itsnobody / May 7 2015 8:54 pm

      Another fool (atheist) replying to me.

      A real World Without Christianity, Life Expectancy in the year 1960:
      – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43


      Why don’t atheists go home and just live the same way as chimpanzees do?

      Why can’t you fools (atheists) handle the historical evidence and consensus that RELIGION directly caused the scientific revolution for?

      The stuff on cartoon shows and the well-controlled atheist-controlled media has been thoroughly debunked by historians…the Church strongly encouraged reason.

      This is just normal history, it’s not controversial or debatable.

      You can contact any historian from any University if you don’t believe me, there was no “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the media.

      The reason why people were studying astronomy in Europe isn’t because as atheists believe “after gaining food, water, and shelter people just spontaneously felt like studying astronomy for no reason” it’s because “after gaining food, water, and shelter the Church NEEDED calendars and clocks so there was a NEED to study astronomy”.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      Atheism is incompatible with reason since atheists view thinking and reasoning as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as a religion…you need food, water, and shelter for survival not a bunch of thinking and reasoning.

      Why don’t atheists just go home instead of ruining science for?

      Any fool (atheist) can prove me wrong by naming just one civilization in all of pre-science history that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to.

  98. Anonymous / Mar 31 2015 1:32 am

    It’s funny when sheeple are told their dead heroes are also mundane.

  99. Anonymous / Mar 24 2015 10:39 am

    This looks like a religious website that attempts to degrade non-religious, great minds. It is simply full of bullsh*t!

    • itsnobody / Mar 30 2015 11:08 pm

      Foolish (atheistic).

      I’ve already proven that science wouldn’t exist without religion, as the historical consensus and evidence tells us, it’s just because of the atheist-controlled media that people think differently.

      I just don’t get how anyone can argue with the historical evidence…obviously since there’s no civilization in all of human history that decided to intensely study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion telling them to there wouldn’t be a scientific revolution without religion.

      What we observe from the historical evidence is human beings acting just like other animals without religion…just focusing on food, water, shelter, and survival, not focusing on astronomy (where Newtonian physics comes from) or philosophy (where the scientific method comes from).

      As I explained in my other articles:
      – Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy
      – Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that came from intensely studying astronomy
      – The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that came from intensely studying philosophy
      – In all of pre-science human history not one civilization decided to intensely study philosophy or astronomy without a religion causing them to
      – So we can be around 100% certain that there would be no scientific revolution without religion

      The biggest block to human progress has always been the atheists. If it was up to them they would exterminate science viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, the same as a religion, and we’d just be living the same as gorillas and chimpanzees, just focusing on food, water, shelter, and basic survival.

      Atheists hate reasoning, science, or logic…they just view it as philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

      If civilizations spontaneously decide to intensely study astronomy and philosophy for no reason as many atheists believe how come that never happened in all of human history?

      Any atheist could prove me wrong by pointing out examples in history where a civilization “after gaining food, water, and shelter spontaneously just felt like intensely studying astronomy and philosophy for no reason”…lol they can’t, they are just mad that they are wrong and historians have debunked their nonsense.

      Where’s the example? I’m still waiting, lol.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve most certainly just been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

      What a big block atheism and non-religion has been on human progress, just imagine how far science and technology would’ve been if atheists hadn’t taken over in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      I explained in more detail in my other posts:

      One thing can be 100% certain to the highest degree, that atheists block human progress, hold back science, threaten technology, and pose the greatest threat to mankind as all of the historical and scientific evidence shows us.

      Estonia (the most atheistic country in the entire world) has 0 Nobel prizes in science.
      Switzerland and Austria (the most religious Western European countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita.

      If it was up to atheists we’d just be living backwards with trees and grass, no technology, no science, just the same as other animals.

      A World Without Religion, Life Expectancy data from the year 1960 (just a few decades ago):
      – Switzerland (the most religious Western country): 71
      – China (an atheist country): 43


      Why can’t atheists just go home and stop doing science? They can focus on living the same way that gorillas and chimpanzees do.

      • anyone reasonable / Apr 8 2015 3:25 pm

        You’re pretty ridiculous

      • anyone reasonable / Apr 8 2015 3:27 pm

        And if this was a joke you took it too far

      • Kato Kaelin / Apr 12 2015 12:47 am

        Wow you typed alot there. Not sure what it’s about but I DO know it is alot of words. Good thing there’s so much valid information on the internet I don’t even have to see what you said! Have a good day everybody!

      • Ace / Jun 8 2015 9:32 pm

        Your name says it all. “Nobody” could be this ignorant and biased without using a crazy religious background to try to justify their argument. My God, get a life (pun intended).

  100. Anonymous / Mar 23 2015 12:19 am

    This is bullshit

  101. Anonymous / Mar 20 2015 12:55 am

    Who would make a fucking list like this. Cringe worthy.

  102. anurag ramachandran / Mar 13 2015 7:55 am

    My IQ is 198 and supposed to be around 200.

    • Nuke / Mar 14 2015 4:58 am

      Your statement contains redundancy. I would have thought that a genius like you would have noticed that, and corrected it before posting.

      • Anonymous / Mar 19 2015 2:12 pm

        He/she is a genius really picky with precision. For him/her 198 may not be “around enough” of 200. Current people like us cannot understand this😉

  103. Anonymous / Mar 5 2015 5:06 pm

    since u seem to have so much to judge about genius, how about you get your IQ taken so that we may judge whether your opinion is worth a pin.And what have you yourself invented that you have become judge to these.come on men

    • Anonymous / Mar 5 2015 5:28 pm

      You do not need to be a genius to judge if someone else is one, or not. It is like being able to tell that someone, Shakespeare for example, is a great writer even though you could not write better than Shakespeare yourself, and that G B Shaw is a lesser writer than Shakespeare even though you could not even write as well as Shaw.

      • Anonymous / Apr 18 2015 11:38 pm

        Although some points are true (and some plain stupid), your idea of what a genius should be, the consideration that mathematical genius is the only type of genius and the importance you give to IQ messures is childish at best.

  104. Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:56 am

    You constantly claim that certain people were not praised or recognized by society. I agree, expecially regarding Nikola Tesla. However, you then go on to shame people such as Stephen Hawking for having been praised and recognized. Are you saying it is better to be ignored than to be celebrated for tremendous accomplishments? I’m sure if Nikola Tesla had received recognition, you would have put him on this list as well, simply for the fact that his genius was recognized. Also, you somehow think you know better than those who decide the Nobel prizes…

  105. mattias / Feb 23 2015 12:03 pm

    if anyone has been able to get past their feeling sorry his disability while reading his work, people would know how stupid hawkins really is. here is one of his quotes “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,”

    it is filled with fallacies. I don;t know why anyone takes him seriously, except for the fact that he is strongly anti christian and has a disability. if any other made such a statement they would be ridiculed for the flaws. but because its hawkins its somehow genius right?

    • Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:23 am

      First of all, that quote is out of context which means Hawking does indeed go into further explanation of what he means by this. Also, the science and mathematics behind this statement are not easily understood by someone without a PHD in Physics, so when publishing something that it to be read by the general public, he did have to “Dumb it down”. Finally, you are simply upset by the fact that Hawking disproves the need for a god. He was an atheist. If we are to shame every person who comes about giving reasonable scientific atheistic explenations, then we are pretty much calling any person without religion “Overrated”. Most of science constantly contradicts what is said in the bible, but that doesn’t make it dumb, especially when there is brilliance behind the statement such as that which Hawking provides.

    • Dani / Mar 1 2015 9:25 am

      Also, learn to spell his name, before you act like you actually know anything about his science.

      • Steve Mankins / Mar 17 2015 8:09 pm

        Dani, Stephen Hawkings is a smart man, but he also tries to marry brilliant math to bad philosophy. His book The Grand Design was largely scoffed at, in a polite manner, by the physicist community at large. His philosophical view on metaphysics and nature seems as religious as those who would try to start their own faith. Make no mistake, The Grand Design is a book that can only be taken as a jest, or as a work of philosophy.

  106. Paul Bovino / Feb 11 2015 1:59 am

    Da Vinci’s concepts and subsequent designs never reached the actualization stage because the technology didn’t yet exist to build them. I could go into this writer’s other seriously flawed concepts, but people like this, who use what brain power they have – or have left, against themselves, and with no apparent purpose other than to irritate, aren’t worth the time.

  107. Anonymous / Feb 9 2015 2:17 am

    the clowned that wrote this needs be dragged into the streets exiled from society. What a hater – writes a crappy article and hates on davince and other great minds. Calling gates overrated as he sits and writes from his windows pc. For you sake keep your identity hidden. Don’t show people the idiotic face that wrote this.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:14 am

      Da Vinci, not davince

    • Nuke / Feb 20 2015 7:41 am

      If you know much about Gates you would realise that he is/was a businessman, a shady one at that, not an inventor, let alone a genius. Try this :

      Here is what Steve Jobs said about him : “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology”. Gates bought DOS from Seattle Computer Products, stole the basics of Windows NT/XP from DEC, copied the Windows interface from Apple, exploited his monopoly illegally, and got rich by forcing everyone who bought a PC to pay him something.

      BTW, I am typing this on a PC which has evolved from the original design invented by IBM, using Firefox on Linux – Gates is not involved.

      • Brandon Li / Feb 26 2015 11:51 am

        Reading all of this was worth it just to find your comment. Loved the Bill “The Cat” Gates myths page as it is nice to see it all in one place and I saved it:-)
        On the other hand I’m pretty sure that “The Gator” isn’t going to friend you on Farcebook anytime soon ;-)))

  108. Anonymous / Feb 7 2015 11:15 pm

    This is nonsense, total and utter nonsense. Give credit to the other people listed if you think is right, but don’t denigrate the reputation of truly amazing men. Your contribution to humanity is diminished severely by this idiotic peace, mind you. Donkey of the year award, that’s what you deserve.

  109. Anonymous / Feb 3 2015 7:30 pm

    Mozart’s IQ and Einstein’s IQ are estimated to be about the same. And Leonardo, did not have any concept of how to fly, he simply just made some of the main bodies and ideas.:)
    Such as a helicopter. (Obviously didn’t work, see Wright Brothers)

    However some of these other people I agree with. But to be a genius, you don’t need to contribute to the community.

    Don’t know why I am here. All its showing is how many brain cells I must be losing every day.

  110. Anonymous / Jan 31 2015 10:40 am

    Einstein was not a mathematician??? Please review his contributions again. His Browninan movement contribution (which allowed to prove the atomist hypothesis) was purely about mathematics. Review also his work in Einstein’s manifolds (just to mention one). A mathematician is someone who contributed to expand the knowledge in mathematics (as far as I know). What happened then? Why does he have that amount of MAJOR contributions, was he always lucky and stealing the other’s ideas? Was he lucky with the General Relativity, with the Browninan movement and with the photoelectric effect (which gave him the Nobel Prize)????????. Just considering that he can be lucky that many times sounds actually really stupid. Besides, I didn’t know that in order to make an original contribution you have to start from zero and you cannot use previous work. Please, be a bit more rigorous before judging someone like Einstein.

    You should rather consider Aristotile in this list. All what he did was WRONG (his gravity theory was bullshit and his work in physics absolutely crap). His only contribution was his work in logics, which wasn’t really impressive. What is the merit of being wrong in everything?

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:10 am

      You have a wrong idea on Einstein and Maths: the maths used at his theories of relativity are not really complex and he got the Nobel Prize for Physics (there is no Nobel Prize for Maths). He knew them all-right and his geniailty consists in having both the reason and the creativity to come up with his theories.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:12 am

      PS: He was Aristotle, not Aristotile

      • Anonymous / Feb 10 2015 9:40 am

        Hi Martha, thanks for your comments, but I am a theoretical mathematician and a physicist too, and I am pretty sure that I know what Einstein did and what Riemann geometry is (the mathematics of general relativity, for those who doesn’t know). Maybe Riemann geometry seems easy to you, because you even don’t know what it is about. But I can guarantee you that just a few pople in the world can understand it (and Einstein admitted that it took 10 years to him). Besides, I wasn’t talking about the mathematics of General Relativity before (it wasn’t Einstein’s contribution) but about the Brownian movement (it was Einstein’s contribution),

  111. Clark / Jan 21 2015 12:17 pm

    These things needed to be said.
    Our heros are not perfect,
    We can’t all be Newton.

  112. John Rhea / Jan 19 2015 4:47 am

    This most earnest author sounds like many scientists one encounters: confident in his education, near-obsessive about IQ, and contemptious of the celebrity-level cults of personality that ignorant laymen have created for certain scientists. To be sure, his ire, justified or not, appears to be fueled mostly by a given figure’s perceived celebrity. Kudos for making a thoughtful list and not being afraid of PC backlash (Hawking comes to mind). Demerits for being jealous. Yes, you’re smart and educated. Yes, you understand better than many true scientific greatness. Perhaps you might marvel more that scientists are now more appreciated than at any point in human history. We laymen are at least starting to get it.

    P.S. Ben Franklin was a omnivorously-interested renaissance man. Not a scientist. And he never claimed otherwise.

    Best regards

    • Justice Starcatcher / Jan 26 2015 12:04 pm

      Try re-reading. It was clear to me he was the opposite of IQ obsessed. Indeed, I noticed a true disdain by the author for IQ as a metric. But, THE MEDIA is IQ obsessed forcing him to use that metric for his rebuttals.

      P.S. This wasn’t a rebuttal on the accomplishments of Ben Franklin. Just the exaggeration of his status as a scientific genius. As a GREAT MAN, his accomplishments speak for themselves. Statesman, Inventor, Founding Father, Business man, Publisher etc.

    • Nuke / Feb 26 2015 8:48 am

      John Rhea wrote :- “Perhaps you might marvel more that scientists are now more appreciated than at any point in human history”

      I am afraid that is not true. Science was in high regard back in Victorian times, with the industrial revolution and then the flow of inventions and discovery of scientific facts like photography, radio and evolution. Then there was another period of appreciating science from about 1940-1965 when the contribution to the war effort was recognised, and other technical advances followed (and were welcomed) in medicine, electronics and nuclear physics.

      However from the 60’s there was a reaction shown first in the “Flower Power” movement (wherein it was thought that problems could be solved by tossing flowers around) and people started associating science and technology with war, in particular nuclear war. Today, although people use technology like mobile phones, they actually hate the details – that is why Apple’s iThings (which have set a general style) are made in a way thay you cannot dismantle or repair them or see how they are made (it’s a selling point – people do not even want to be able to change a battery) and the engineers who design them (I mean design the internals, not the exterior) are regarded as the lowest dregs of society, the manufacture being banished to the other side of the World. People want wind generators rather than nuclear power stations basically because they think the latter involve too much science. Similarly, it accounts for the rise in popularity of creationism as opposed to the theory evolution.

      Try telling a girl at a party that you design electronics; once she might have admired you as a “boffin” but these days she will turn away to find a PR executive instead.

      • Iceberg / Feb 26 2015 1:05 pm

        The problem is many scientists have been caught lying, especially about climate chage and other things where amounts of money are involved. They also over-sell evolution as fact, which is untrue again. Fact is today if they are offered enough cash, they’ll write a paper proving almost anything, ‘massaging’ data, fixing surveys, using false models etc. as they know only the popular papers get the big funding. Why should anyone increase their respect for scientists when this is the case?

  113. Anonymous / Jan 16 2015 6:30 pm

    Seriously? Einstein???????

  114. gh3 / Jan 16 2015 1:56 pm

    who ever did this is just a hater mehn….

  115. Gels / Jan 2 2015 4:13 pm

    Anyone who believes in black holes is an idiot.

  116. pby / Dec 19 2014 4:19 pm

    Dear Author haters

    The author bashes no genius whether overrated or underrated in the blog, but bashes the ‘overraters’ and ‘underraters'(generally you and me) hence bashing him seems entirely unecessary.

    Yours truly

    A passerby

  117. Howard Lee / Dec 17 2014 5:06 pm

    One could say the same thing about any other famous person in history. Darwin,Aristotle,Nietzche etc. Their talent was probably vastly overrated like the paintings of Van Gogh or the music of Elivs Presley.
    As for determining IQ of someone like Da Vinci that is more a matter of debate as I seriously
    doubt there were any standard IQ tests back then.
    So determining his IQ is more theoretical than factual.

    Also IQ tests in my opinion are not an indicator of intelligence or shouldn’t be.
    They don’t really measure all aspects of intelligence.
    I doubt it measures basic common sense for one thing, which should be an indicator of
    how smart someone really is.
    Being a genius in a certain field basically means you’re exceptional in that one area but
    not necessarily smart in everything else.
    So the term genius may be an overrated misused and exaggerated term to begin with.

  118. Ane Eubanks / Dec 10 2014 8:40 pm

    OMG! What about Nikolas Tesla! He was the person that contributed more to the world of mankind.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:17 am

      The author mentioned him as one of the forgotten geniuses. That’s why Tesla can’t be on a list of Overrated Geniuses

  119. Anonymous / Dec 10 2014 8:23 pm

    You quoting Da Vinci was actually highly hypocritical.

    • Reynaldo Martinez / Jan 29 2015 3:55 am

      Stating that Da Vinci is overrated does not diminishes an intelligent argument. Da Vinci made an intelligent argument and I believe he was right, doesn’t mean he wasn’t overrated. Credit given where it’s due.

  120. Kevin Carl Diaz Jardiolin / Dec 9 2014 10:28 am

    I would like to suggest to you that you should research more about their biography.. as far as i know bill gates, stopped his college because he find it boring since he already knew much of the things they are learning in school… bill gates is a bookworm.. he did not invent the computer, but he did invent the microsoft OS or MS DOS along with paul allen… I don’t think these scientists are overrated, you’ve just got to learn more about them.

    • Anonymous / Feb 2 2015 6:08 pm


    • Nuke / Feb 20 2015 8:01 am

      Jardiolin wrote : “you should research more about their biography … gates … did invent the microsoft OS or MS DOS”

      Is that a joke ? Gates himself does not even claim that. You are the one who needs to do some research and I suggest you start by reading Gates’ book, “The Road Ahead”, Chapter 3. DOS (first called QDOS and then 86-DOS) was written by Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for a personal computer kit they sold. Microsoft bought 86-DOS from SCP and also hired Patterson to port it to the IBM PC, where it was renamed as PC-DOS (or MS-DOS if sold separately).

      More here :-

  121. J / Dec 9 2014 5:09 am

    And another thing these people have contributed a lot more to society and broken more scientific ground then you but you still find the time to write a blog about how much they suck in the immortal words of Stephanie tanner “how rude”

  122. J / Dec 8 2014 9:41 pm

    Also Michael faraday the person u reference more than once as a true behind the scenes genius barely knew algebra so I don’t think his iq would be considered that high. Even though he was ground breaking

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:20 am

      Farady had no formal education, but he DID understan algebra. The fact that he did all what he did without being at school, just points out his very-high IQ

      • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:21 am

        Faraday and understand

  123. J / Dec 8 2014 9:25 pm

    Iq tests are not a measure of intellect just a measure of how well you take an iq test

    • Anonymous / Dec 30 2014 9:58 am

      true true

      • Anonymous / Dec 30 2014 10:00 am

        i agree, your test score shows nothing but how well u take a test
        you got it dude ?-michelle tanner

  124. / Dec 8 2014 6:27 am

    Simply desire to say your article is as astounding.

    The clearness in your post is just nice and i could assume
    you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep
    updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

  125. etyd / Dec 8 2014 1:49 am

    I have an IQ of 140,and you said that Leonardo had IQ between 130 to 140,
    It is NOT possible that i am smarter than him,Leonardo’s IQ is around 240.
    He Invented the Machine gun,Glider,Tank, and more,He also was an artist,Doctor,philosopher and many more,How dare you to say these things about him?

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:23 am

      Honey, maybe you DON’T have an IQ of 140… consider retaking the test😉

  126. Tallman Miller / Dec 4 2014 11:54 pm

    There are a lot of open questions about your rating system, which makes your ratings somewhat suspect. I certainly agree with your including Watson, Ben Franklin and Edison in this list, some of the others are questionable. Edison was clearly not a genius, and Watson had a tested IQ of about 120, I would have included Galileo on the list. He had one stroke of inspiration, but couldn’t be bothered to offer any valid proof, aside from the fact he had seen the planets through a microscope. Kepler, who had just proved the orbit or Mars, had sufficient proof to perhaps impress ever Cardinal Bellarmine, but Galileo wouldn’t use them because he was too vain. It might also clarify your thinking if you would include a list of geniuses who are underrated.

  127. Anonymous / Nov 27 2014 11:35 pm

    I think that you need to get your facts straight because most people in this list have an IQ higher that 160 which is the IQ of a genius. One doesn’t need to learn fast to have a high IQ the way a person is measured in intelligence depends of their capacity to find various solutions to a problem. This list proves how ignorant people are to not see how making any fine art takes great brains because you have to think outside the box, Leonardo davinci didn’t paint the monalisa over a night if u think coming up with such masterpiece makes him a genius then you clearly do not appreciate art. I dare you to go ahead and paint a masterpiece so you can relize how hard it is to cone up with an idea to paint. Also if you don’t think Einstein is a genius come up with your own theory, also it takes lots of brains to figure out how to program a system to function properly. I suggest if you think they are so overrated that you come up with the inventions, theories and the art they made.

    • Anon. / Nov 28 2014 8:26 pm

      Learn proper grammar, then you’ll be able to be measured with less stupidity, and your responses will be taken seriously, how about you go watch some T.V. and practicing typing like an adult and not a teenager, most of these people ARE over-rated you’re just to sheepish to understand, Einstein said himself he “worked up the foundations laid upon for him to improve”, most of his work was already thought up just ill completed he WAS brilliant is improving, not so much creating, he tried to invent a refrigerator, that was beaten out by more efficient ones, and also being a really good artist does not make you a genius, it makes you skilled and creative, NOT A GENIUS. Michio Kaku is a complete idiot, Stephen Hawking IS over-rated, and I agree with maybe about 75% of this article. Stop trying to defend smart people, when you yourself are dumb.

      • J / Dec 9 2014 5:13 am

        Your a hateful little bitch who can’t think strait

      • Anonymous / Mar 12 2015 4:15 pm

        “Learn proper grammar…”

        You could start yourself by not using run-on sentences, or commas as periods.

  128. Anonymous / Nov 27 2014 12:44 pm

    Ive put my shoes on the wrong feet😦

  129. Duncan Meech / Nov 26 2014 12:08 pm

    if only the rest of us non-geniuses could have a year like Einstein’s annus mirabilis we probably wouldn’t even need anymore geniuses.

  130. Hailey Reisner / Nov 11 2014 11:18 pm

    What’s worse is that when Kaku talks about the discovery of DNA in Physics of the Future he talks about both Watson and Crick but does not so much as mention Rosalind Franklin.

  131. James / Nov 11 2014 5:11 pm

    Steve Jobs no.1 on the list followed by Nik Tesla and Bill Nye.

  132. tony naples / Nov 9 2014 8:07 am

    You fail on many counts.

  133. Jose de Agora / Oct 19 2014 5:26 pm

    I was trying to find credible sources to validate my theories that many people deemed “genius” are simply overrated (great) scientists. However, I’ve stumbled upon your web site, and I truly know you, on the other hand, are not the smartest guy around. You seriously rely on something as IQ to “guarantee” whether someone could be a genius or not? Seriously? Yes, I agree on many of your points regarding overrated scientists like Einstein (he was brilliant, but not the epitome of “genius” when compared to many others). However, da Vinci… you just killed it right there. Your arguments fail to weigh da Vinci’s genius in HIS own time (before Newton, before Gauss, before Euler) and the fact that he was a bastard (no legal recognition from his father). which meant he couldn’t aspire to formal education at the time, and yet, he single-handedly discovered and elaborated numberless facts/theories in multiple fields. Your criticism is highly anachronistic in Leonardo’s case.

    • Anon. / Nov 28 2014 8:29 pm

      There’s the proper argument. Good job.

    • Martha Garcia / Feb 10 2015 1:28 am

      He did not base his list on IQ; he was just making an argument against those who claim Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+, Why does people read but don’t quite understand what is written?

  134. This Blogger is an Ass / Oct 19 2014 4:55 pm

    The blogger is surely an underrated Arse.

    • So's your face / Apr 7 2015 3:09 am

      Are you an angry American teenager who was brought up a christian but who has family issues?

      Coz that’s the vibe you’re giving off…

  135. Anonymous / Oct 17 2014 8:10 am

    Leonardo da Vinci <= 160. There is only one overrated person here and it's the blogger.

  136. acids and bases / Oct 17 2014 12:20 am

    Hey there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with SEO?
    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
    If you know of any please share. Thanks!

  137. Anonymous / Oct 14 2014 10:44 am

    I just can;t understand one thing, how come you say that Leonardo Da Cinci was nothing more then an failure and yet still write about him so much, and before you say that I had to read everything you wrote I will answer: yes I red everything you wrote about everyone from the list

  138. Stefan K / Oct 9 2014 5:00 pm

    Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein are overrated? You are truly an idiot.

  139. Anonymous / Oct 6 2014 9:50 am

    Your arguments aren’t convincing because you don’t show any kind of evidence. Franklin a media person, for who!? Hahaha. Also, you bash geniuses in the past without consideration that their ideas were beyond that of their time. It’s like saying Da Vinci wasn’t smart because he didn’t know how to fix a computer, when we all know you should only make arguments based on the time they lived in.

  140. Anonymous / Sep 29 2014 8:31 pm

    Such a bullshit list. Sorry, but Leonardo da Vinci was a true pioneer in many fields and ultimately was the very definition of a genius. It’s non debatable or any opinion, it’s fact period……………………

  141. Swarup Mondal / Sep 27 2014 1:15 pm

    I searched “Geniuses of Leonardo Da Vinci” and came across your list. I didn’t even see who is there from 2 to 10. All I want to say that you are an arrogant retard who can’t even be the gazillionth percentage of what Da Vinci was. People like you will never be able to understand his intellect. And I really hope that there are no other people like you on this earth, who does not have anything else to do except generalizing with the highest possible information your brain could hold.

  142. Alexander / Sep 26 2014 11:59 pm

    Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious?
    “– At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all”
    this is a mere conjecture. please understand that your opinion does not do well to persuade anyone that Da Vinci wasn’t what one might consider a genius.
    Same with basically all your other arguments, I think your just butthurt that you never grew up to contribute anything useful to society besides your weightless opinions.

  143. ketone Ultra review / Sep 13 2014 12:17 am

    Can I simply say what a relief to discover a person that really understands what they are
    talking about on the net. You certainly know how to bring a problem to
    light and make it important. More and more people have to read this and understand this side of your story.
    It’s surprising you’re not more popular since
    you surely possess the gift.

  144. / Sep 10 2014 8:48 am

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post.

    Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

  145. Anon / Sep 7 2014 7:01 am

    Agree especially about Da Vinci. I would also have include both Tesla and Darwin as overrated. The former, more of an inventor than true Engineer or Scientist. Did he ever get any university degrees? Darwin, a shy man was much more at home prodding along in his laboratory; he was the perfect personalityof a lab-rat to cope with the painstaking tedium of demonstrating theories on evolution…much of which was commonplace philosophy in his day and before and not originated by him.

    • Anonymous / Oct 18 2014 8:09 pm

      Darwin never claimed to have originated the idea of evolution. Many had hinted at the process, including his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin. What Darwin did was discover, and document, a mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection, i. e, how and why evolution occurs. And he didn’t develop the theory in the “laboratory”. It came from five years of observation in the field. And he had no philosophical axe to grind. He started out a devout Christian and creationist. He fought the idea of natural selection for years before he finally had to accept his own conclusions.

    • Tallman Miller / Dec 5 2014 12:11 am

      So not having a university degree would disqualify a person from having a high IQ? You didn’t think that one through. Darwins genius was not only the discovery of the concept of natural selection, but the ability to articulate it and write it down clearly and completely. It is not only concise for so vast a theory, but is remarkable for the fact that he was able to think it through in such a way that, to this day more than 150 years later, no important parts of it have been completely refuted. We have discovered some parts that are incorrect in detail, but not in the theory itself. Natural selection stands as one of the greatest contributions of all ltime to the biological sciences.

    • J / Dec 9 2014 5:30 am

      I hate people who read books and think there smart they always remind me of the bar scene in good will hunting with the jerk who just plagiarizes the people he read but doesn’t have his own original thoughts

      Quit regurgitating

    • Kevin Carl Diaz Jardiolin / Dec 9 2014 10:32 am

      True idiots are those who are book dependent …

  146. Australian art / Sep 6 2014 3:07 pm

    I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours lately, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing
    article like yours. It’s pretty worth sufficient for me.
    Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content as
    you did, the web shall be much more useful than ever before.

  147. SpiderSilva / Aug 30 2014 4:25 pm

    I like how you criticize people for using appeal to authority arguments when they try to prove how great Da Vinci was, even though you essentially did the same thing when you tried to tear down Kaku and Hawking.

    “Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.”

    You never actually explain what makes them overrated, I’m guessing this is because you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.

    Also, you don’t have to make world-changing contributions to science to be a genius. Anyone can be a genius, but not everyone chooses to devote it to science. That’s not a crime.

  148. JD / Aug 28 2014 12:06 pm

    Wow. Its obvious you are angry. You are correct about the media. You are certainly correct about Edison, he was a liar, thief, and a fraud. But you should have made a list of the most underrated, spread that awareness of those that were screwed over like Tesla. Contributions don’t make a genius, powerful thinking does. And buddy you’re not thinking to clearly. Some of these men are more brilliant than you could ever imagine yourself being. Inventing is trial and error, you cannot county the times someone failed, that is literally how greatness is developed..learning from mistakes and not being afraid to make them. Do you have high blood pressure? You seem worked up, angry and bitter. I hope you don’t write for a living because calling your writing mediocre would be a complement. You must not be, or you’d have put your name on your rediculous opinions.

  149. Shaun Rosenberg / Aug 23 2014 9:44 am

    Trial and error is a big part of inventing. You could have an IQ of 200 and many of the things you invent would still fail. It just means you are branching out to new territories and discovering things that haven’t been discovered yet. Most of the men on this list were geniuses of their time.

  150. Hi, I want to subscribe for this web site to take newest updates, thus where can i do
    it please help.

  151. Anonymous / Aug 15 2014 1:44 am

    Personally, I believe the author is absolutely correct in his rankings, most of these men did little more than screw around with little toys and thoughts until they worked, after maybe the 10th try. Where as individuals of a von Neumann or Archimedes caliber would have (and were) inherently been consistently more successful.

  152. Ahmed Malek / Aug 14 2014 8:31 pm

    I usually like to to debate with people with statistics and facts… But with this article, I cannot debate… I can only state facts because apparently u are so ignorant that u wrote that Leonardo Da Vinci created a drawing of a helicopter. But actually, he created the design of the ornithopter, on which modern days helicopters’ concept are based on. If u look at the design, u will find that it doesn’t resemble a helicopter at all, but actually the mechanical concept of the ornithopter was taken to create what is know now as helicopters

  153. Anonymous / Aug 12 2014 4:06 am

    You’re absolutely ignorant… Seems like you did a few minutes of research on everybody and found a few flaws.. What really aggravated me was your outlook on Leonardo di ser Piero Da Vinci.. Nobody can possibly measure that mans IQ. IQ doesn’t measure creativeness, imagine or somebody grit and drive. He is possibly one of the most under rated genius of all time. Congratulations on letting everybody know some of kid inventions failed through a trial and error process…. Find something else to blog about please. I don’t even have the time to explain all the amazing things he has accomplished… Just FYI he technically invented the first programmable computer and in 2012 nasa sent his robot into space.

    • jjttppjll / Aug 12 2014 1:00 pm

      butt hurt much! DaDolty was moron!

  154. jojo / Aug 7 2014 7:55 pm

    See several people on this list who were suspected aspies and/or suspected to have add or other conditions that explain the “reasons” for their shortcomings. All data must be included inorder to accurately determine whether your claims have any merit

  155. Miguel / Aug 6 2014 8:17 am

    IQ is only part of intelligence. Creativity, fast thinking skills, understanding and many more factor contribute to someones intelligence. If you think that IQ is intelligence, then you are mistaken. I’ll make it simple, if you can do something which contributes to society more than any of them, then I will believe you. Otherwise, this is mostly bullshit. Although, they don’t have high IQ, at least they made it famous rather than let the knowledge rot with those unknown scientist. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Einstein, Edison and those other famous scientist exist now, they would invent better thing because of the modern technology. Da Vinci might not be a genius, but he has the willingness to devote your life to studying and trying to contribute unlike you ungrateful people who complains about what they do but contribute nothing. People in that time did not even have a proper school to go to or any technology. Still Da Vinci actually got those ideas. If I threw you back in that time, I think you wouldn’t even be able to read.

    • Tallman Miller / Dec 5 2014 12:17 am

      You do have something to say, but clearly you have not done your research. Edison was no scientist. At best you could say he was an inventor, although most of his inventions were the work of others. He was certainly a great entrepreneur so maybe that might qualify him. He was also a great litigator, always in court for using other people’s genius to make money.

  156. Bob Gloyd / Jul 30 2014 11:05 pm

    Great overall and insightful list. Thank you:-) So, who would you consider to be our leading contemporary ish thought leaders?

  157. fzBap / Jul 29 2014 6:29 am

    movie stream sockshare Watch The Fault in Our Stars Online for free movie review christian

  158. Anonymous / Jul 27 2014 8:17 pm

    Whoever wrote this is just another idiot who thinks IQ=everything. Its near impossible to measure the scope of ones true intelligence. The fact is nobody knows who this author is (or cares really) and all these men have contributed and shown genius in some form.

  159. Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:10 pm

    Everyone on this list is smarter than you, stop trying to narrow it down to you being the smartest person on earth.

    • Anonymous / Aug 1 2014 5:51 pm

      ^genius. The list make’s Weinberg and Witten seem like sore losers or something. I’m sure they’re just as humble as those on the list.

  160. Anonymous / Jul 25 2014 8:18 am

    You don’t have to have an high IQ to think.. You don’t get born with an high IQ, people with high IQ is people who think instead of learn.. Some of the guys you had on the list is overrated. But people like da vinci and einstein are thinkers. They did things they wasn’t afraid to think and come up with crazy ideas. I think you are being really stupid who tries to explain wich guys who should be reminded as awesome people or not.

  161. a fisherman / Jul 24 2014 4:24 pm

    This guy considers himself worthy of determining who is or isn’t a genius? It follows from that notion that he also considers himself capable of understanding everything about all of their works. Only the greatest of geniuses could achieve that level of understanding. That would imply that the author is one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived-probably the most underrated.

    However, his poor grammar and unsubstantiated premises undermine any logical progression and disprove his ability to formulate a cogent thesis. He clearly does not possess enough intellect to make such a list.

  162. Anonymous / Jul 21 2014 1:08 pm

    This is the most retarded list ever

  163. Anonymous / Jul 20 2014 7:37 am

    The least the author could do is substantiate these arrogant claims to these renowned figures. Saying things like

    everyone thinks he is a good physicist even though he isnt, without explaining why just makes the writer look stupid

  164. jmercer / Jul 20 2014 7:17 am

    I have to agree with you, especially about DaVinci being overrated.
    He was just a reasonably intelligent artist and inventor, but nothing more
    He didn’t create anything really extraordinary, and that includes the MonaLisa.

  165. Leeroy / Jul 15 2014 4:27 pm

    Good lord, the man is mostly right, I take minor exception to his interpretation of Einstein, but even there he has a point that I considered myself whilst still in secondary school, why were both Gauss and riemann not credited with anything. I still don’t understand this. That being said Einsteins innovation was in imagination. Also the interpretation of Pythagoras seems a bit harsh. The rest can stand as I see it. I see genius in people everyday that they do not give any credence too. It is simply the absence of fear that lets the mind soar, nothing more. The fearless few who have ventured deeper within themselves are geniuses. Nothing exists but that in thine own mind, nothing at all. Nothing has ever existed in that fashion, nothing ever will. Consciousness is the root, the branch and the soil.

  166. football / Jul 13 2014 11:52 am

    Get focused and devoted and locate a spot where you can play daily, whether with peers
    or other footballers. Gene Wojciechowski’s ode to college football is a great read.
    So besides the fact that both sports are being played
    with 11 players on the field, the similarity ends here.

  167. Weltz / Jul 10 2014 12:35 pm

    Not to mention that in arts he was grossely surpassed by Michelangelo, who actually worked hard to bring life to giants and saints

  168. Anonymous / Jul 9 2014 6:54 am

    Da Vinci was a genius. To understand his true intellect, which I doubt your feeble mind could perceive, you first have to understand the setting of his life. He was born in the 1400s in Europe. There were no major scientific minds in the entire continent at that time. Most intellectuals were in the Middle East. The Europeans were simple minded. Secondly, all of his inventions failed because of the lack of technology and resources. Roughly 150 if his inventions have been replicated and proven to work in the past 10 years. That huge bridge in Istanbul that everyone said wouldn’t work when he suggested it? Guess what, it’s being built in the next year. So suck it

  169. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 10:11 pm

    Now, let me tell you why this list is bs

  170. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 7:55 pm

    Author is the most underrated moron

  171. Anonymous / Jul 5 2014 1:31 pm

    Wow, what an idiotic list. Are you somewhat retarded?

  172. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 9:18 pm

    When you said that many of Da Vinci’s inventions failed, I was confused. A fundamental part of science are expirements. Thousands of expirements fail; when you fail you also may succeed a little. It may seem like an oxymoron, but when that invention fails, in Da Vinci’s case, he knew that that airplane or aircraft or whatever won’t work so he wouldn’t use that design again. As most people know failing in an expirement or invention is expected and normal.

  173. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 3:04 pm

    Stupidest shit I have ever read

  174. Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 11:25 am

    This is how I know you are stupid. Einstein does not need to be a mathematician to contribute E=mc2. He used physics to make the formula, so he did contribute E=mc2. For his rudimentary knowledge, physics and math go hand-in-hand. You are probably just a noob or hater who is jealous of other people who achieved more than you ever will. Ergo, you try to make other people think that they are overrated. A hairy asshair is plausibly smarter than you. And, Leonardo da Vinci was a genuis, in no way overrated. He was a virtuoso. He was an engineer, painter, artist, inventor, teacher, singer, and probably one associated with aliens (why would aliens choose him if he were not worthy or smart enough). Pythagoras’s Pythagorean Theorem is easy, because he was able to explain it easily, whereas you probably have a hard time accentuating things. Plus, just because people are well- known and teach lectures to people on TV, it doesn’t mean that they are overrated. It just means that they are known for their awesome contributions.

    Take that noob.
    -Justice Chukwuma

    • Anonymous / Jul 4 2014 11:31 am

      *For your rudimentary knowledge, physics and math go hand-in-hand.
      -Justice Chukwuma

  175. ABluntPreacher / Jun 27 2014 2:38 am

    In what way, other than stating your own opinion, did you empirically cirtisize these supossedly “over-rated” scientists? Phygoreas is a bad mathematicion because a suared plus b squared = C squared is easy to understand? I don’t understand your logic? Geneisu’s make things simple and it is exactly for that reason as to why they are celebrated; that is, because they can explain things in a way the ” layman ” can understand them they are genuses. Trig’s foundations are build of A squared et cetera. So your argument is that the rudimentary or fundamental components of the sciences should be discredited because they are eastablished and; therefore, easier to understand? Such stupidity.

    • ABluntPreacher / Jun 27 2014 2:39 am

      Sorry about the spelling the form was cut off and it didn’t allow me to see the lower half of my words.

  176. Top Eleven Token Hilesi 2014 indir / Jun 21 2014 10:45 am

    I am not positive the place you are getting your information, however good
    topic. I needs to spend a while learning much more or working out more.
    Thank you for fantastic information I was searching for this information for my mission.

  177. ilol'd / Jun 20 2014 10:35 am

    Greatest troll article on the interwebz.
    If not a troll(which I really hope you are), then you are the biggest idiot living on this planet right now. Congratulations!

  178. appetite suppressant / Jun 20 2014 8:16 am

    This basically suggests that you will be able to eat anything that you
    want without the worry of gaining weight. The issues that come with using Adiphene make it one
    of the most essential supplements that anyone can use for weight loss purposes.
    For your self-guidance, are able to go through top quality weight loss product
    reviews and are allowed to know upon the most-sought after available inside the
    market from the reputed pharmaceutical brands.

  179. It can make your skin feel dry and tight and is not a good choice for your use.
    Metallic will get sizzling if you polish it with power tools so
    be careful. A modern jet airliner cruises at an altitude of 12,000 metres, consequently jets
    flying through contaminated airspace would need to fly through the ash cloud
    when attaining their cruising altitude and when descending to land.

  180. Dear Undergrad / Jun 15 2014 2:06 pm

    Good day, author of this post!

    From what I can gather about your fervent ardor to prove that many an intelligent individual is no more frustratingly attention-seeking than a reality-show on Georgian rednecks, you are nothing more than an undergraduate pursuing a course which he or she arguably shows dwindling interest in. No other individual of your kind could possess such excess time to spew misinformed opinions all over the world wide web.

    Now listen to me, undergrad. What I picked up after skimming through your article is that you did not establish what a ‘genius’ is. A genius could be a theoretical physicist at CERN, or the guy who fixed his bacon and eggs for breakfast. This goes to show that your list holds nearly no weight in a strong debate arena, undergrad. Okay, you’re only an undergrad, so that’s excusable. But what is NOT so tolerable is that you’re ignoring the fact that many these men are, undoubtedly, successful and influential in today’s world. They have impacted global communities past and present, and continue to shape society into the great brilliance of kindling human life that it is today.

    So, undergrad, in the eyes of many, this is a meaningless article that does not further the pursuit of any form of knowledge really. More rather, it is counter-intuitive to logical idea of these men as great and influential figures in our scientific and literary community. To me, your arguments are just unfortunate manifestations of pure stupid. Anyway, this message is in no way trying to sound like prior comments which may or may not harshly criticize this article, and I apologize if it sounded like it did. The idea I’m trying to convey here is that you are an absolute waste of anyone’s time and I would like to devote no further attention to your opinions. Good luck reading books and being a productive member of society, undergrad. Hope to see you giving a resounding speech at a Nobel Prize Award reception ceremony one day.

    • John Rhea / Jan 19 2015 5:20 am

      Notice that a favorite indictment of yours is “undergrad”. Your a scientist aren’t you? Proud of your degrees? Worked hard to earn them? Dismissive of those without them? Careful, sir. Don’t fall victim to temptation of linking your self-esteem to your earned credentials. Doing so often becomes apparent to others and can weaken the perception of your words, however sound they may be. After all, and I’m sure you would agree, some of the most asinine statements a person is likely to hear often come from the mouths of scientists with superiority complexes.

  181. steve anariono / Jun 14 2014 4:34 pm

    It’s funny you mention Ed Witten being ignored, he won the fundamental Physics Prize – the most prestigious and lucrative award around today – but he’s not the only winner. Old Stevey Hawking won it in 2012.

    “Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed, a member of the Selection Committee, said that the winners of the Fundamental Physics Prize “have done transformative work spanning a wide range of areas in fundamental physics.””

    While Ed Witten is absolutely the superior to Hawking the divide is not as tremendous as you make it sound. Hawking is easily one of the more important thinkers in the last 100 years and I don’t think Hawking’s peers are as down on him as you infer. Just because someone is famous does not mean they are over rated, I don’t think you understand that at all.

    And now to forget about you, you’re shitty blog and your stupid list…… almost…. and…

  182. steve anariono / Jun 14 2014 4:16 pm

    Only idiots consider Einstein a mathematician, he’s a well known physicist and made one of the greatest contributions (theory of general relativity) to modern man’s understanding of the universe. All you bring up is pop culture bullshib for the sake of making a list bashing great thinkers. Some of your points are valid but do not necessarily make someone less impactful or make them ‘overrated’. Intelligence is a relative term, Bill Gates looks dumb shopping at wal mart or waxing a floor, you’d probably look dumb in a boardroom or a physics laboratory. So who is this list for? People who don’t know who Michael Faraday is? Well, great list, keep up the entertainment so other’s can overrate your arbitrary and mean spirited list. (Watson was also a racist, forget to mention that about the Nobel laureate).

  183. Anirban Mandal / Jun 11 2014 12:00 pm

    By the way!! What are you a physicst , artist what??? Stop fooling arround!! As far as i know the mens who are more intelligent keep low profile and stay away from media!! And One more thing media dont give a hype on smartest persons as becoz most of the peoples will not be able to even understand the ideas of guys like edward witten!! So thats why media approaches those mens who can understood more easily!! By the way ask edward witten he will also agree einstein was the smartest physicst till today!! And may stay as the most smartest physicst in the history of theoritical physics!!

  184. very annoyed / Jun 9 2014 10:48 pm

    You should sell your computer and break your router.

    • Anonymous / Jul 6 2014 3:57 pm

      Hahaha! You’ve made my day mate!

  185. งานออนไลน์ / Jun 6 2014 11:11 pm

    Hey, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your website in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet
    Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a
    quick heads up! Other then that, great blog!

  186. Anonymous / Jun 3 2014 8:44 pm

    You have to realize that leonardo de vinci was in the renaissance era and technology wasnt as advanced , lots of invections were actually based on his blue prints

  187. Kiddy / Jun 1 2014 6:34 am

    You do make some good points however!!!

  188. Kiddy / Jun 1 2014 6:30 am

    And who are you to criticize these how overrated these men are what have you done for the world that’s of any level of significance In comparison to these guys? Your just an insignificant critic mate!!!

  189. Jason / May 31 2014 11:24 pm

    You say Edison was not a genius because he purchased most of his patents??? Even if that was the case, I think that fact alone (again, if true) makes him even more of a genius. He was able to see the value in others work and then capitalize (ever heard the saying “work smarter NOT harder”….Einstein was living that motto way ahead if his time)…..

  190. Anonymous / May 29 2014 7:42 pm

    When you write sentences like this, you disqualify yourself as an authority on intelligence: “Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.” Find the mistake.

  191. Jack / May 27 2014 12:35 am

    The reason Leonardo Da Vinci is hailed as such a genius is because he was so well-rounded. He didn’t have a specialty, he was very artistic and creative as well as analytic and scientific. There have been better artists and better scientists but no one in history has such a versatile skill set. Also, did you know that Michio Kaku built his very own particle accelerator when he was 16 years old? The only two I would agree with are James Watson and Thomas Edison. Dr. Watson completely ripped Rosalind Franklin off and Edison is hailed as such a great innovater because he had geniuses like Nikola Tesla work for him for so long.

  192. Fuck u / May 21 2014 2:21 am

    Fucking retard. How is Albert Einstein overrated? He created light !!!!!! EVERYTHING ALMOST EVERYTHING HAS SOMETHING INVOLCING LIGHT

    • Danny Bennett / May 23 2014 10:27 am

      Einstein created light?

      • Wog / Jun 4 2014 12:43 pm

        Lol… And Albert said: LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!!!

    • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:41 am

      Edison did NOT Create light! Edison was a childeler, opportunistic business man out to pad his own pockets on the back and minds of other scientists/inventors, and buy up patents or have his patents reworked by true Genius’ Genius such as Nikola Tesla. When he felt threatened by such a Genius, then he tried to squash him (same as JP Morgan and other greedy monopolistic tyrants) and was undoubtedly responsible for burning down 2 of teslas labs that he felt threatend by or that Tesla as his direct competition! Tesla engineered and invented much more efficient light bulbs, including a the much more efficient alternating current system by which we all use and run everything modern today. If we were to have continued on with Edison, Non of this would have been possible. Tesla had several degrees in Physics, Mathematics, Engineering degrees in both machinical and electical applications…and as such embodied everthoing which in modern times would qualify him with all the sciences knowledge base without mentioning his own imaginative creations based on our natural world in which he proclaimed himself a discover! Tesla was also the inventor of wireless and wired radio, NOT Marconi, of whom tesla tried to graciously help by opening up his labs, housing marconi and allowing him to use his own patents and information that Tesla had developed. As such, Marconi would later make claims to fame stating he had accomplished radio (when in fact Nikola Tesla had a proven working model of wireless radio nearly 20 years earlier, (although this technology was prolonged by “someone” bruning down Teslas lab housing all the physical evidence as part of this act of arsen, not once, but twice)… as such Marconi using Teslas patents and information falsely won a Nobel prize in physics in 1909. Ironically, Tesla had earlier turned down the Nobel Price in Physics because they wanted to offer it on contigency that it be accepted with Edison, of whom Tesla had worked for when first coming to the USA…and consequentially had reworked many of Edisons patents and repaired many of Edisons already installed/instate money making/profit generated opertunistic inventions much of which were based on others original ideas, designs, creations and patents of which Edison did indeed exploit or purchase/gain righst to. Much of the same as Westinghouse or others had exploited Teslas Genius and inventions and gained rights or consumed Teslas patents on A/C or others! In 1944 Marconi’s patents rights to radio were overturned by the United States Supreme Court sighting that his patent was based upon direct works, ideas, creations and previous patents of Nikola Tesla, of which Radio was rightfully founded, discovered, proven and invented! Finaly, total vindication to the rightful inventor/discoverer and patent holder, and just before the death of this true Genius, Nikola Tesla! The true Genius’ Genius was Nikola Tesla, mistreated by his own Country, Government and Selfish industrial monopolizing moguls of the times, and instead tried to squash his existence and memory…while discounting his genius by spreading false rumors that he was insane and other nonsense (just because he spoke of things they could not understand or feared he would provide something to a world like free power, of which they could not “meter it” and make profit from the masses)! BTW, when Einstein was asked: “What does it feel like to be the smartest man inthe world”, Einstein asnwered: “I don’t know, you would have to ask Nikola Tesla”. Einstein also referred to Nikola Tesla as the “Genius’ Genius” proclaiming that “He (Tesla) knew what protons, nutrons and electrons were before they even know what to call them, and how Tesla had warned against men playing like children with Nucleur physics (particularly the Atom Bomb), with something they shant not and the consequences that could prevail from such! Furthermore, no man ever truly creates or invents anything that in actuality he only discovers what God has created! Such as science is nothing more than men trying to understand their world around them, and many times out of their own frail, insecure, inadequate and imperfect / infallable ways of doing so. What men call facts or truths, God only smiles at, because he knows nothing is truly impossible with faith in him, and through hiim all things are possible! Finally, if something is invented by men like Tesla or Paul Pantone or whomever, and someone in power or perhaps someone that would lose money due to it’s coming out and by which may benefit the masses/mankind worldwide, then those entities in power or with the money will find a way to squash such a person….even if by imprisonment, making claims of that person being insane/unstable and by such discreting them, stealing their patents or consuming their ideas or making claims to false patents (or manipulating the patent process altogether via screening or other questionable practices) or in some cases mysterious deaths such as suicides or what could be a suspicious homicide what some would claim was a natural death! Truth is history, media, educational teachings and certain permited books allowed in schools today are nothing more than the same prolific propogation of men brainwashing generations. As was once said that history is nothing more than a few men who have agreed upon what lies that they believe the majority will accept/swallow…and then of course spread that rumor by all means possible! BTW, Many of Teslas papers were confiscated by the US Governement and to this day many have been withheld for national security purposes. I find it humorous that a man that everyone in power, and who claimed was mad or losing his mind, yet wanted to confiscate all his paperworks, studies or belongings, hide inventions or what he might have also developed or was working on. :) I’ll leave the rest to the intelligent & perceptive / discerning minds out there!

      • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:48 am

        OOps looks like spell checker or some kind of changes got made in my comment, I meant that he was a chiseler/swindler NOT CHILDELER which is an obvious typ or something changing my test during the posting process. Sorry, but just wanted to clarify this or excuse any other typos in my reply

  193. Anonymous / May 15 2014 3:02 am

    dumbest Top 10 i’ve ever seen
    I think you overrate you yourself

    • Dear Undergrad / Jun 15 2014 2:05 pm

      Good day, author of this post!

      From what I can gather about your fervent ardor to prove that many an intelligent individual is no more frustratingly attention-seeking than a reality-show on Georgian rednecks, you are nothing more than an undergraduate pursuing a course which he or she arguably shows dwindling interest in. No other individual of your kind could possess such excess time to spew misinformed opinions all over the world wide web.

      Now listen to me, undergrad. What I picked up after skimming through your article is that you did not establish what a ‘genius’ is. A genius could be a theoretical physicist at CERN, or the guy who fixed his bacon and eggs for breakfast. This goes to show that your list holds nearly no weight in a strong debate arena, undergrad. Okay, you’re only an undergrad, so that’s excusable. But what is NOT so tolerable is that you’re ignoring the fact that many these men are, undoubtedly, successful and influential in today’s world. They have impacted global communities past and present, and continue to shape society into the great brilliance of kindling human life that it is today.

      So, undergrad, in the eyes of many, this is a meaningless article that does not further the pursuit of any form of knowledge really. More rather, it is counter-intuitive to logical idea of these men as great and influential figures in our scientific and literary community. To me, your arguments are just unfortunate manifestations of pure stupid. Anyway, this message is in no way trying to sound like prior comments which may or may not harshly criticize this article, and I apologize if it sounded like it did. The idea I’m trying to convey here is that you are an absolute waste of anyone’s time and I would like to devote no further attention to your opinions. Good luck reading books and being a productive member of society, undergrad. Hope to see you giving a resounding speech at a Nobel Prize Award reception ceremony one day.

  194. heros de camelot hack / May 12 2014 6:15 pm

    Good day! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask.
    Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa?

    My website addresses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other.
    If you’re interested feel free to send me an email.
    I look forward to hearing from you! Superb blog by the way!

    • bachelorsquared / May 26 2014 7:45 am

      are you really planning to take this clown as a partner for your blog?

  195. anonymous / May 12 2014 3:25 pm

    Before estimating a genuine GENIUS or deny what he gave to the world, just go ahead and TRY do the quarter of what they did. Discover a new physic fact or demonstrate one of the many unjustified mathematic theories and even if you did, you won’t have the right to under estimate them for the one ane only reason that you are litteraly living of what they made of this world. You are using a computer that YOU did NOT create and writing in a blog (I don’t think you created blogs, did you?) and wrinting in english that you probably don’t master and DEFINITELY dind’t create.
    P.S.: Do you know what e=mc² means ? Do you know how your computer really works ? Do you know how to paint with perfect color match and appropriate shadows ? If your teacher didn’t tell you about Pythagoras’s triangle theorie, would you discover it while playing with your friends ? Do you know how the solar system works ? Do you know how the electricity in your house is produced ? Do you have any idea how much these “Overrated” –as you say– geniuses worked and how hard they tried to do what they did ?
    Learn a little bit. When you can call yourself educated and intellectual (because it’s clear from what you wrote that you are absolutely not) then you may have the ability to comment on their work, but you can never judge them or give them a status or estimate their IQ.

    • Anonymous / May 28 2014 10:34 am

      You, my good sir, are completely correct. Of course, Thomas Edison is an overrated genius. He completely ripped off Nikola Tesla.

  196. Anonymous / May 8 2014 5:54 pm

    Whoever wrote this is an idiot

  197. james bergerac / May 8 2014 8:32 am

    i totally agree with you about kaku and hawking – they are media figures with the intention of getting non-scientific people to think about science (a waste of time if you ask me)

    • Anonymous / Aug 5 2015 6:58 pm

      I wouldn’t agree with stating that bringing physics to the public in, more so laymen terms, a waste of time, since it might inspire and be the base of knowledge for future great minds. Mind you, the human mind needs some outer factors to spark an interest in a field, especially a complex one, as is physics.
      The person who wrote this article, though, is an uneducated ingrate, who clearly doesn’t even comprehend the work of these “overrated” brilliant minds and is just set on gaining ad revenue off asinine conjectures.

  198. Jack Drummond / May 8 2014 12:12 am

    Well, it sounds like someone has some jealousy going on

  199. This fucktard blogger's tranny mom / Apr 27 2014 2:08 pm

    Agreed on the Einstein and Michio’s part. But Thomas Alva Edison has invented like a dozens of important things that are used even today. He is a genius and not overrated. I mean no fucking one blabs about Edison so much as they do about Einstein.
    And perhaps your mom has cock through with you came out you fucktard for calling da Vinci overrated. Just do some fucking research and also give your mom a fucking head before you write such shit

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:02 pm

      Agreed that Edison is responsable for so many inventions other than light bulb, he is certainly not overrated.

  200. Anonymous / Apr 24 2014 9:24 am

    the author is either a troll or a dumbfuck

  201. Red Water / Apr 22 2014 7:45 am

    Da Vinci had some interesting ideas, but most of his “inventions” are kind of stupid, and would never work anyway. Except maybe in Road Runner & Wile E Coyote cartoons. I can just picture the old man sitting on the floor playing with his Lego Technic stuff.

    He was a damn good painter though.

    • Actually Satan / Mar 6 2016 5:49 pm

      You’re pretty damn stupid if you think that. Especially since most would. You’re just looking at a couple of them.

  202. garym53 / Apr 21 2014 7:27 pm

    Right at the top this fool uses the word “atheists”, as a result you can discard every subsequent word.

  203. Anonymous / Apr 13 2014 1:20 pm

    Arrogant fool.

  204. Anonymous / Apr 11 2014 6:55 pm

    1.You know nothing of physics if you think Einstein did nothing original. Certainly, the special theory of relativity would have been described around that time without Einstein, but the general theory was a non-intuitive and completely amazing paper. Physics students of today do not even start to learn it till masters level. If you knew the first thing about it you wouldn’t be writing such drivel. FYI ‘space-time’ was a serious hypothesis at the time, it was not invented by science fiction.
    2.The reason Stephen Hawking is so admired, is not just because of his amazing work, it is also because of his ability to follow concepts and the very highest level of mathematics without any kinesthetic aid. If you knew the first thing about mathematics you would realise this. To achieve the position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, you need to be at the very least a genius, but to achieve it with such physical handicaps is nothing short of miraculous.

    • Anonymous / Apr 11 2014 7:09 pm

      What a moron, James Watson graduated from high school at 15 and had a BSc by the time he was 20, no one with an iq of 115 can do that you fool. I have an iq of 131 and I struggled with calculus in the first year of my degree. It’s quite obvious that the author of this tripe is a deluded half-wit.

  205. asdf / Apr 6 2014 2:05 pm

    Why are my comments not showing up?

  206. Anonymous / Apr 2 2014 7:38 am

    Sure, many of these might be true, but who’s going to take you seriously with all those grammatical mistakes? Also, the reason people like Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku are geniuses is BECAUSE they’re media figures. Being able to express your ideas articulately is just as important as having them.

  207. JS / Mar 22 2014 1:38 pm

    Eliminating the Edison, Einstein, and Franklin types would leave us with a severely limited world for genius to inhabit. Genius limited to the 3-dimensions of IQ overlooks the nuanced pieces of “true” genius. Just as we know there are multiple dimensions that weave together our universe, so is genius comprised of the easy and “not so easy to quantify” layers. Pointing to ingenuity, as if it’s separate, misses what history sees more clearly than the limitations of the people of any given age – it is the level-set across all the dimensions of intelligence that must coalesce to create great genius.

    If we were to wager on an individual with a 200 IQ only, as compared to someone with a 120 equivalent across all areas? Well, I’ll bet on the latter, if we’re guessing on the one history will remember! Thankfully, we do not inhabit the black-and-white world to which the standardized IQ test would limit us.

  208. Anonymous / Mar 16 2014 5:20 pm

    I don’t know who wrote this, but you are a legitimate F*&%^Tard!!!!

    • Yellow Childress / Mar 19 2014 10:21 pm

      If you think this is evidence of the author’s idiocy you should check out his articles on how NAZIS were essentially leftists

      • Ray / Apr 1 2014 2:31 pm

        He’s right. The only real difference between Nazis and Communists is that the Nazis were more honest about what monsters they really were.

      • Gabe / Apr 2 2014 7:45 am

        Ahem. Nazis were not ‘leftists’, nor were they on the right. Our democratic spectrum doesn’t incorporate fascism. It’s apples and oranges. And Communism is the best form of government, the only reason it doesn’t work is because people (like you and me) aren’t perfect. Not only am I confident you have no idea what Marxism actually is, I don’t think you even want to.

      • grhrrhrhr / Apr 18 2014 6:33 pm


        He isn’t right. The ONLY thing that is similar between communists and NAZIs are their methods of attaining power. Their goals,who they decided to kill and be brutal were, for the most part, different.

  209. Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:24 pm

    My top 10 for most *OVERRATED* SO CALLED “geniuses*

    Rick Rossner
    Chris Langan
    Evangelos Katsioulis
    Marilyn Vos Savant
    Mislav Predavec
    Kenneth Ferrell
    William Sidis
    Bill Gates

    • Ray / Apr 1 2014 2:26 pm

      Shakespeare was the greatest creative artist ever.

      • Errol King / Apr 18 2014 6:36 pm

        Not sure about that(Picaso, Beethoven, Mozart,,,, Just to name a few that could be described as at least as creative). Even if you assume that I think he is till overrated

  210. Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:09 pm

    The only one that MIGHT deserve to be on that list in Einstein

    I don’t who I would put on a list of the top 10 but some I might consider might come from the
    following list

    George Orwell

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
    Immanuel Kant
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    Bertrand Russel
    Ludwig wittgenstein
    Saul Aaron Kripke

    Isaac Newton
    Leonhard Euler
    Carl Friedrich Gauss
    Srinivasa Ramanujan
    William Rowan Hamilton
    John Von Newman
    Kurt Godel
    Paul Joseph Cohen
    Charles Fefferman
    Grigori Perelman
    Terence Tao
    Nikos Lygeros
    Lenhard Ng
    Ruth Lawrence
    Akshay Venkatesh
    James Clerk Maxwell
    Marie Curie
    Murray Gerstenhaber
    Edward Witten
    John Bardeen
    Richard Garwin
    Murray Gell-Mann
    Frank Wilczek
    Chris Hirata

    Mathematicians/computer scientists/programmers
    Reid Barton
    Erik Demaine
    Shafi Goldwasser

    Gabriel Carroll.

    Computer Scientists/Cognitive Scientists
    Marvin Minsky
    John McCarthy
    Herbert Simon(also a nobel prize in economics too)
    Angela J. Yu

    Mathematicians/chess players
    Noam Elkies
    Aaron Pixton
    John Nunn
    Jon Speelman

    Chess Player/Philosopher
    Jesse Kraai
    Stuart Rachels(Marshall Scholar too)

    Chess Players
    Garry Kasparov
    Sergey Karjakin
    Magnus Carlsen

    Go Players
    Lee Chang-ho
    Cho Hunhyun

    General Stragety Game expert
    Mathew Cordell
    Demis Hassabis(also expert in cognitive science and AI)

    Denis Auroux(Also a mathematician at UC Berkeley)
    Kiran Kedlaya(Also a mathematician at UC San Diego)’
    Thomas Snyder
    Ulrich Voigt
    Wei-Hwa Huang
    Palmer Mebane

    Kim Ung-yong
    Sho Yano
    Stephen A. Baccus
    Evan O’Dorney
    Vinodhini Vasudevan

    Kim Ung-yong
    Sho Yano

    • Errol King / Mar 11 2014 9:12 pm

      Oops I just realized I made a mistake
      I said “The only one that MIGHT deserve to be on that list in Einstein”

      actually that should have been
      “The only one that MIGHT NOT deserve to be on that list in Einstein”

      made a mistake too when I said
      “I don’t who I would put on a list of the top 10 but some I might consider might come from the
      following list”

      That would be top 10 list for smartest most impressive intellects

      OH and including Sidis is right on the money. There is so much misinformation about that guy.

  211. Anonymous / Mar 11 2014 4:37 pm

    Are you fucking stupid, Hawking is one the the smartest people to have ever lived. Every thing he says is believed by both scientist and average people.

  212. Anonymous / Mar 9 2014 4:50 pm


  213. Ray Hager / Mar 9 2014 1:58 pm

    This is a nice page,and I do agree with some of what was presented, but you are leaving out the fact of what was was the AVERAGE intelligence of everyone else at the time. In all of the examples of these influential men…you have to remember over 95% of regular people couldn’t even read or complete an arithmetic problem. Success is not the MAIN gauge here to determine intelligence. Secondly, almost all new inventions are inspired from another invention or idea that preceded it.Your example on Watson was thought provoking but inaccurate. To say that him and his team contributed something that was already obvious to the scientific community was very ignorant, if it was that obvious, then certainly it would have been discovered centuries before.I completely agree with you on Edison.Edison was a business man first, inventor 2nd. Edison did everything in his power to keep his competition down…even when other inventors ideas were better than his, Benjamin Franklin was a genius…in diplomacy and philosophy. There are more was to gauge genius than my saying “what did he invent?” you could say he was a MAJOR contributor to the old american ideal of Isolationism and separatism that made are country great.His philosophy lead to the Monroe Doctrine which led to nearly 90 years of peace in international politics in the USA. Pythagoras was a SUPER GENIUS. Why? because you have to remember there was no internet no INFORMATION AGE. He lived in a time where everything was disconnected and one had to travel the world to become well educated and well rounded. Like I said before if you compare him to the average man OF HIS TIME it is easy to see he was brilliant. Finally you must ask yourself…” If these individuals had gotten the chance to have been born in our time with access to the internet and ALL types of knowledge at the push of a button…how far ahead would they be then? I am willing to bet they would have been even greater. Leonardo Da Vinci…I will not drone on about his accomplishments, I know you portrayed him as a simple artist who “drawings” represented nothing more than pure imagination. You are wrong again, he was a military engineer for the Medici family (the most powerful and influential family in Italy at the time.), these men that he worked for certainly did not PAY him for his company. Many of his designs did work…in fact he was the worlds FIRST sniper…among being the first of many things…he designed the first rifle that could accurately kill a man from more than 1,000 yards away.
    Everyone else I did NOT mention I agree with you. Those individuals are OVERRATED.I suggest you update this page and list. Conduct more Research on these individuals for REAL and come to your own conclusion based upon the evidence provided to you.
    My name is Raymond Hager,,Electrical engineer, Social Philosopher, Artist, Chess Champion( FIDE rated 2308),also inventor of the Parallel Constant Current Regulator.My I.Q. is 192 I am also a current member of Mensa.I believe what would be more interesting to read about would be a top ten list of the MOST UNDERRATED GENIUSES throughout history (Nikola Tesla being at the TOP in my opinion…he was the reason I became an engineer.). It would be informative and you will most likely not offend as many people, because you are trying to reveal “hidden” genius instead of knocking down some of the most influential thinkers of all time. There will always be an underling sense of optimism instead of this pessimism and people will be more forthcoming with valuable information instead of everyone writing a LONG message LIKE THIS ONE, defending there favorite intellectuals. Good day to you sir.

    • Yellow Childress / Mar 12 2014 9:28 pm

      “.My I.Q. is 192”
      unless that is STD 24 that means you’re better than one in million but there are no reliable IQ tests that come even close to going that high

    • Patrick Hurd / Mar 13 2014 8:32 pm

      I would probably agree with your statements and be a little more impressed with your own personal high IQ opinion, if your grammar was somewhat better; example: “To say that him (he) and his team contributed something” ….little mistakes reduce crediblity (your own personal media letting you down perhaps)…just a thought and not wanting to be personal!

      • Anonymous / Mar 23 2014 6:06 pm

        And, I would think that someone with an IQ of 192 would be familiar with the concept of paragraphs.

      • Tracy Mitchell / Jul 24 2014 10:55 am

        most people with higher IQs would not worry about proper diction, spelling errors/typos, gramatical error, forming complete sentences or paragraph structure….just as most texting via cell phones, tablets and etceteras. Point being made is that you get the point, and if you are not intelligent enough to decifer the different and need it all spelled out for you and written in crayon….then doubt away.

  214. Anonymous / Mar 8 2014 10:50 pm

    top 10 most amazing geniuses
    Here is my top 10 list of the most overrated geniuses. The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

    #10 – Bill Gates

    I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.

    I’m not sure if Bill Gates belongs on this list since I don’t consider him to be a genius of any kind. Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.

    Bill Gates never invented the computer, the keyboard, the mouse, the GUI desktop concept, or anything like that. Yet for some reason many people really believe that he did.

    The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann.

    The first computer to use the desktop mouse GUI was the Xerox Alto.

    #9 – James D. Watson

    James D. Watson and Francis Crick are universally hailed by biologists as great geniuses for being the DNA co-discoverers.

    So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115). Thirdly, according to Watson himself Crick was more clever than him.

    There are contributions that require little intellect but lots of ingenuity, there are contributions that require lots of intellect but little ingenuity, and there are contributions that require both intellect and ingenuity. This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations.

    If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data. It’s a contribution based off simple observations that would’ve happened by virtually any biologist, not a special kind of contribution.

    #8 – Michio Kaku

    People who watch TV probably think Michio Kaku is one of the greatest living physicists, but physicists don’t. There’s probably not even one physicist who would rank Michio Kaku within the top 50 or even the top 100 best living physicists.

    Michio Kaku has made some contributions, but he still isn’t even close to being one of the best physicists in modern times.

    Michio Kaku is more of a media figure who writes on popular science and appears on radio and TV shows a lot.

    Other physicists who are regarded as the best living physicist like Edward Witten are virtually ignored in the media.

    #7 – Stephen Hawking

    Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is. People who watch TV probably think he’s one of the best living physicists even though he isn’t.

    Just like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking is a media figure. Other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Ed Witten are completely ignored in the media.

    Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist.

    #6 – William James Sidis

    When people talk about prodigies William J. Sidis is almost always mentioned. He was an extraordinarily fast learner and had an estimated IQ of 250-300.

    There are many web sites dedicated to Sidis and his supposed “genius”. They will always mention how fast Sidis learned this, what he calculated, etc….but what about Sidis’s contributions?

    William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions. That’s why he’s overrated. What’s so special about being a super-fast learner and contributing nothing significant? There is nothing special about it.

    So what’s Sidis’s most significant contribution? A perpetual calendar?

    #5 – Benjamin Franklin

    When people who have no knowledge of science think about who made electrical technology possible they probably think of Benjamin Franklin.

    The only problem is that Benjamin Franklin contributed very little to science and has very little to do with the advent of electrical technology.

    The “key” story about Benjamin Franklin may also be a myth. He like other overrated geniuses on this list is just another media figure.

    The actual scientists that were primarily responsible for making electrical technology possible were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who are both completely ignored in the media.

    For Benjamin Franklin being so falsely associated with electrical technology he ranks as the 5th most overrated genius.

    #4 – Thomas Edison

    When people think of inventors Thomas Edison almost always come to mind. They probably think of a light bulb or a phonograph. He is a very celebrated figure in the media.

    So why is Edison overrated? Edison has over 1000 patents (the 3rd most prolific inventor) but Edison bought many patents and was not the originator of many of the ideas. Edison had setup many different labs and had many others working on inventions. So the vast majority of Edison’s inventions do not independently come from Edison.

    Edison was not even the first one to invent the incandescent light bulb. Edison and his team invented an improved version of the incandescent light bulb, many had existed before. Fluorescent light bulbs though are much more efficient and an overall better invention than incandescent light bulbs.

    Other genius engineers like Nikola Tesla are almost ignored in the media.

    Edison was not the genius inventor as portrayed by the media but instead a businessman.

    Since Edison did not work independently and was mostly a businessman he ranks as the 4th most overrated genius.

    #3 – Albert Einstein

    So who’s the person who’s so associated with the word genius that the image or thought of him comes in mind when the word “genius” is mentioned? It’s got to be Einstein.

    Einstein is overrated for many reasons. Many people seem to believe that Einstein was a great mathematician. They probably saw on TV “E=mc2” and thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics (in this case Riemannian geometry).

    Another reason that Einstein is overrated is because many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels.

    Einstein is also overrated for being known by many as the smartest person ever. Some people have “estimated” his IQ to be over 200 (which is most likely impossible). People like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, and others were likely much smarter than Einstein but they are not portrayed as such in the media.

    Since the mathematics for General Relativity came from Riemann, a lot of Einstein’s ideas are inspired from Faraday, and for Einstein being so synonymous with the word “genius” he ranks as the 3rd most overrated genius.

    #2 – Pythagoras of Samos

    When non-mathematicians think of the best mathematicians Pythagoras likely comes to mind. Most non-mathematicians probably think Pythagoras was the #1 mathematician or close to #1, but mathematicians don’t.

    In reality Pythagoras is not the best mathematician or even close. People like Newton, Euler, Gauss, Riemann, and many other mathematicians who are completely ignored in the media for their mathematical brilliance were much better much mathematicians than Pythagoras by far.

    Euler and Gauss (the mathematicians that are arguably the two best of all time) are virtually ignored in the media. I wonder what things would be like if Euler and Gauss were mentioned in the media as much as Pythagoras is.

    The Pythagorean theorem and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem are not difficult things to discover. There exists literally hundreds of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Most of what Pythagoras and his students did are not difficult to discover or re-discover. Just compare re-discovering the Pythagorean theorem to rediscovering Euler’s identity and it’s easy to see which requires more ingenuity.

    Even though it’s true that Pythagoras and his students made some contributions Pythagoras is still far from ranking within the top 10 or top 20 best mathematicians, which is why he is one of the most super-overrated figures.

    Since the vast majority of Pythagoras’s contributions are easy to re-discover and since Pythagoras is synonymous with the word “mathematician” despite being far from the best mathematician he ranks as the 2nd most overrated genius.

    #1 – Leonardo da Vinci

    So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci.

    Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented.

    Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was.

    Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”.

    Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”.

    In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions.

    I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations:
    – At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all
    – Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far
    – Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ)
    – Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ

    Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140.

    Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things. This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so.

    This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how).

    Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary.

    The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs? Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail).

    Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much.

    Other much better engineers like Heron, Archimedes, Al-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media.

    Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media.

    Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media.

    Da Vinci is perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of all time. For Da Vinci being so super-overrated that people think his IQ was 200+, for at least half of Da Vinci’s designs not working, for his inventions being grossly overrated, and for the media and many others super-overrating him he ranks as the #1 very most overrated person of all time.

    There doesn’t even exist one other genius in all of human history as overrated as Da Vinci.

    From my list we can see that the media is full of lies and exaggerations. Those are all my thoughts on who’s overrated. I wonder how controversial my claims may become…
    Except for michio kaku and Stephen hawking these are the greatest geniuses of our time.

    • Ahmet Birsen / Dec 14 2015 12:13 pm

      Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell ??? I would add Heinrich Hertz and Karl Ferdinand Braun these two German Nobel prize winners have revolutionized the electric and electronic technology we have today including Radar and TV ..

  215. Belstaff Deutschland / Mar 8 2014 10:38 pm

    Hello there, I discovered your website by the use of Google at the same time as searching
    for a comparable subject, your site got here up, it
    looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

    Hi there, just become alert to your blog through Google,
    and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels.
    I’ll be grateful in case you proceed this in future.
    Many people might be benefited from your writing.

  216. How to Win the Lottery Powerball / Mar 8 2014 12:45 pm

    I comment whenever I like a article on a site or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
    It is a result of the fire displayed in the article I browsed.
    And on this post The Top 10 Most Overrated Geniuses | itsnobody.
    I was actually moved enough to leave a thought:-) I
    do have a couple of questions for you if you don’t mind.

    Could it be only me or do a few of the responses appear as
    if they are coming from brain dead people?😛 And, if you are posting on other online sites,
    I’d like to keep up with you. Would you list every one of your public sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin

  217. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 9:41 pm


  218. Anonymous / Mar 7 2014 7:53 pm

    Bland repettative writing

  219. Anonymous / Mar 5 2014 10:20 pm


  220. Anonymous / Mar 5 2014 10:18 pm

    da Vinci – is not Leonardo’s surname,and should not be used as so,it means literally- from Vinci,the town in Italy where Leonardo was born , if you where in Italy and you say to someone da Vinci,you would be considered to be saying ,are you from Vinci?
    you do not say anything about his anatomical drawings ,which where the only precise diagrams used till very recent times to teach medical students, therefor you are incompetent sir,and should keep your stupidity to yourself. Paolo Serra

  221. Emma / Mar 5 2014 8:44 pm

    I do not see the point in even writing this list. To devalue the contributions others have made is ridiculous.

  222. top muscle build supplements / Mar 5 2014 1:52 am

    I recommend foods that arehigh in nutritional
    value to promote building muscle and notfat gain. The human body needs water to stay cool, to discharge
    waste material from the body, to provide the base for various
    chemical reactions in the body for metabolism.
    There are many different types of body building exerices; some of the basics include leg extensions, flyes, dips, bench presses, curls, dead lifts, pull ups,
    incline crunches, lateral pull downs, lunges, squats, side laterals, work with dumbells and
    barbells and all of the “regular stuff” like running, stair climbing, biking and swimming.

  223. Investor in 10017 / Mar 3 2014 5:12 pm

    hi!,I like your writing so so much! percentage we communicate extra about your article on AOL?
    I need a specialist on this area to resolve my problem.
    May be that is you! Taking a look forward to see you.

  224. Anonymous / Mar 3 2014 2:09 pm

    This could not be a more ridiculous waste of an internet page.

  225. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:21 pm

    is the writer itsnobody a retard?

  226. Anonymous / Mar 2 2014 6:17 pm

    is the writer “itsnobody” a former phd candidate that developed a severe mental illnes?

  227. Anonymous / Feb 28 2014 8:30 pm

    How can we assume merit of someone who writes so blandly and with so many errors? Also, I don’t understand how the writer of this article or the people commenting on it believe they have any stance on this matter. These people are talking about contributions? Every one of the people on this list contributed to the world of science exponentially more than any of us! I don’t think the writer of this article had the authority to judge the percepted geniuses of history, because, even if they are over rated, they have much more merit and accomplishment than the writer does!

  228. Brand and marketing / Feb 28 2014 5:57 pm

    Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every
    day. It will always be useful to read through content from other writers and practice something from their sites.

  229. Anonymous / Feb 27 2014 8:21 pm

    I hope the writer cuts his hands off

  230. The Cryptowizard / Feb 26 2014 7:10 pm

    The quality of this article suggests that the author isn’t very educated. All science is built on previous science. All facts are derived from other “facts”. Disqualifying genius because they weren’t the first to discover something, improved what someone else conceived, or contributed little is ignorant.

    All of these men have each individually contributed more to science than a majority of mankind throughout history. If nothing else, managing to make yourself viewed as a genius by the world when in fact you may not be by definition is in itself genius. Perception is reality.

  231. Anonymous / Feb 26 2014 4:54 am

    i saw some of the comments and observed that many readers of your post underlined the issue of linking iq with the notion of genius, i also read some def of genius posted by you. I advice you to consider the etymology of the word which is the primary and the genuine signification of ‘genius’

  232. Anonymous / Feb 26 2014 4:15 am

    It is true that your list contain many overrated pers. but your point of view is narrow and your argument is weak

  233. davekeller / Feb 25 2014 8:04 am

    Very amusing list. I agree about Leonardo Da Vinci. But Albert Einstein was a true genius. Even if he did not invent Reimann geometry, it was a work of genius to apply it to the space-time continuum in a way which was true and physically verifiable. You seem to acknowledge the genius of Newton, who “merely” applied differential and integral calculus to the physical world in the same way that Einstein did, but at a much lower level of mathematical sophistication. You are going to say that Newton invented calculus (concurrent with Leibnitz) but, really, if you look at Einstein’s work in detail, wasn’t there a lot of invention or at least mathematical creativity there too at a very high level. Einstein developed the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and seminal contributions to quantum theory, every one of which would have won him a Nobel prize in a non-racist Europe. Come on, take Einstein off your list, it really costs you a lot of credibility.

  234. kd / Feb 23 2014 10:23 pm

    Why isnt steve jobs here. Also by saying someone like einstein simply puts together known ideas or other peoples “work” is incredibly stupid. You basically said that every genius who ever lived is overatted just because every day they use someone elses axioms to prove other things. By this logic, euclid is the greatest human to have every lived, as his first 4 axioms are the most fundemental in all of mathematics(not his 5th, in the cases of bernard rieman). Also saying that he stole space time from “science fiction novels” is sooooooooo freakin stupid, holy shit your dumb. Thats like saying if someone invents time travel, he would have stole the idea because it was in back to the future first. Thinking of something his the easy part, finding out how to do it , harder, and actually doing it is the hardest.

  235. Alex / Feb 22 2014 10:21 pm

    Top 10 overrated “geniuses.”

    1. Einstein
    2. Einstein
    3. Einstein
    4. Einstein
    5. Einstein
    6. Einstein
    7. Einstein
    8. Einstein
    9. Einstein
    10. Einstein

    Who did he NOT steal from? You say Faraday, you could have said “Poincare” or many others. He is promoted by a certain militant (certainly in self-promotion but at times literally terroristic) group that happens to control much of the media….and if you say they control the media they will immeditely destroy you to….disprove (?) that claim… Ask Rick Sanchez.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:22 pm

      R U anti-Semitic or just a regular whack job?

  236. Zak Perea / Feb 22 2014 9:25 pm

    the person itsnobody who wrote this article of overrated geniuses is a complete retard except for michio kaku in the sense that he claimed he invented radio.

  237. best butt workouts / Feb 22 2014 10:53 am

    This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking
    more of your magnificent post. Also, I have shared
    your website in my social networks!

  238. Alberto / Feb 21 2014 11:00 am

    You’re a big retarded. Leonardo overrated? Da Vinci is the number one and always will be. Learn some history.

  239. Me / Feb 21 2014 10:51 am

    Interesting ideas. I didn’t know that IQ was so important for determining genius. The only person I’d keep on that list is maybe Bill Gates, but then again, you don’t become one of the richest people in the world by being stupid. Also Einstein didn’t really accomplish much besides publishing papers explaining photons, atoms, and relativity all in the same year and all before he even had a job as a physicist. That’d be like a bus driver being able to explain black holes. More important than all of that, Einstein helped make science more public. He went on long trips across many countries and continents to talk to crowds of people. This is exactly what makes people like Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku so important–they bring science to the public and get people interested in it.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:17 pm

      Yeah, just because Einstein was a rock star of his time in no wise diminishes his miracle year of 1905. NO way he belongs here. Same with Hawking. He has been a popularizer, but again, he’s done some pretty genius level stuff. And Da Vinci as #1? R U kidding me?

  240. Zak Perea / Feb 20 2014 3:03 pm

    the person who wrote this article is a complete retard.

  241. Anonymous / Feb 20 2014 7:00 am

    Actually, you are wrong, the definition of “genius” is IQ = 140. No (living) person has an IQ of 0, even monkies have IQ of 40 (on average, by playing a random choice game).
    Da Vinci is not the only historical person to have IQ of 200+, there are even historical people with estimated IQs of 300+. Don’t be jealous. There are also living people with IQ approaching 200, who are unknown to the world because people don’t like people who are smarter than them.

    • MitchyC / Feb 24 2014 3:20 pm

      You are so right about people. They don’t like people smarter than them.

  242. Anonymous / Feb 17 2014 6:24 pm

    I agree with some of your “overrated geniuses”, but the assertion that Albert Einstein is overrated is completely absurd.

    First, you argue that people think Einstein is a great mathematician. You have to be living in a hole if you think Einstein made contributions to mathematics. He was a physicist who actually opposed using math at all to formulate his theories. He preferred pictures to equations, a sign of genius.

    Second, you claim that Einstein got a lot of ideas from Faraday. But to assert that a genius has to discover or achieve something completely by themselves is preposterous. Only by standing on the backs of the greats before us can we continue advancing.

    Third, you say that apparently the idea of space time unification had already appeared in some books (I doubt their existence and would be pleased if anyone could show me one). But these books were science fiction books, written merely to entertain. They probably contained absolutely no concrete physics. Einstein was the first to unify space and time to create an invariant property of nature that we could measure and predict.

  243. Anonymous / Feb 17 2014 4:40 pm

    … If you think Isaac Newton is ignored in the media… he isn’t and you’re retarded

  244. Eric / Feb 15 2014 5:44 pm

    It is worth noting Leonardo is thought of as a genius by many due to his art works, and his interest in science was subordinated to his concerns with visual representation. Not many people in history can match him as a painter. It’s like questioning Witten’s genius because he probably can’t draw…

  245. daughter quotes / Feb 14 2014 5:20 am

    Amazing! Its in fact amazing post, I have got much clear idea concerning from this piece
    of writing.

  246. xyz / Feb 12 2014 1:44 pm

    Somewhat agree with author.

    Einstein is still better than most physicists out there, he had clarity in his thinking. Definitely Euler,Lagrange,Guass,Reimann,Newton are way above him. I would even place Dirac slightly above Einstein.

  247. Colton Horn / Feb 9 2014 9:11 pm

    This article may be the dumbest thing I have ever come across. To claim that people like Einstein, DaVinci, Hawking, and Gates are not genius is beyond me. Shame on the writer of this article.

    • Anonymous / Feb 11 2014 8:29 pm

      he never discounted the inteliguens

    • Anonymous / Feb 20 2014 2:03 am

      It’s true that Gates is a hack. Not as much as Steve Jobs for ripping of Steve Wozniak, but still a hack. DaVinci was an artist. Flying machine sculpting and painting. Not much more than that. I love his art, though. That’s where DaVinci’s a genius. His art.

  248. Anonymous / Feb 9 2014 7:27 pm

    Fuck You Bitch. That’s all that’s worth saying about this post.

  249. mudgenhead / Feb 2 2014 6:12 pm

    muahahahaha…. what a joke this list is. What is even more overrated than the people on your list, is the role of IQ in being a genius – what you quite obviously don’t understand…

  250. Al Tesla Azog / Feb 1 2014 8:10 pm

    This list is so foolish, it doesn’t really need me to even type this sentence. There are better ways to have come across better on this list, but listing Leonardo Da Vinci, as number one is not one of them. You should have simply gone with Einstein, who’s IQ is exceeded by many other geniuses, and General Relativity theory has a few holes in it, that now need explaining. All lists of these types that have a top ten are stupid though. Maybe you could argue for a top 5 geniuses that shouldn’t be considered so. It’s all an example of immaturity and insecurity of the list creator though, so who really cares.

  251. free high speed internet proxy / Jan 30 2014 7:58 am

    what is the fastest ram available for desktop computers

  252. Alfie / Jan 26 2014 12:36 pm

    Your list is ridiculous
    Einstein’s theory of e=mc2 was an original idea because although the idea that the speed of light being the fastest speed was in maxwells/faradays equation it did not say anything about energy-mass equivalents. Also Stephen Hawking is not overrated, he was able to help uncover mysteries about black holes.

    Your list needs to be improved.

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:41 pm

      The e=mc2 equation is not from Einstein. It is from Olindo de Pretto. The rest of Einstein’s work on general relativity was basically plagiarized from the work of other scientists. Einstein is not only overrated, he is a complete fraud when it comes to relativity.

  253. Ga les / Jan 26 2014 12:01 am

    agree at all … I’m a mathematician and everything said is true … more q “geniuses” they are promoted. Riemann discovered the theory of relativity before. Ed Witten is a genius in physics, which unify string theory … THOSE ARE NOT SCIENCE BUT MAY BE AGAINST THE REALITY IS AS SHOWN HERE. THEREFORE, IF YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATE BEFORE YOU SPEAK … IGNORANT OF SCIENCE

  254. Shreedhar Shekhar / Jan 22 2014 4:55 am

    this is a post from madman who neither know history nor physics.Why would Albert Einstein contribute to math while he is a physicist.He did not borrowed ideas from anyone,I think you have never ever studied relativity but you are giving opinion on it and by your style of writing I could easily say you don’t even know what ‘E=mc^2’ implies.

    • itsnobody / Jan 22 2014 8:51 pm

      You are an idiot.

      Einstein did indeed borrow ideas from Faraday, as Einstein himself cites Faraday as one of his major inspirations, but it was mostly Maxwell who copied from Faraday first unifying magnetism, electricity, and light as one. Faraday tried to unify gravity long before Einstein did, so most likely Einstein did indeed copy the idea of unifying all things from Faraday, attempting to unify everything as one since Einstein read lots of Faraday’s papers.

      The idea that time is the 4th dimension didn’t originate with Einstein, it was in the science fiction novel “The Time Machine” (by H. G. Wells, published in 1895).

      These two things make Einstein’s so-called originality not very original.

      If we’d have to say who’s ideas were really original, I guess it would be Faraday’s.

      “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” – Albert Einstein

      Einstein contributed very little to mathematics, even if we count the joke “Einstein summation”, which is just re-writing a summation, lol. I mentioned it because it’s part of Einstein being an overrated figure.

      James Clerk Maxwell isn’t considered to be an important figure in mathematics even though “curl” and “div” have more important useful applications than the Einstein summation does.

      The one who invented Riemannian geometry was the mathematician Riemann not Einstein (which is used for GR).
      The ones who invented Calculus were Newton and Leibniz.

      “E=mc^2” is just mass-energy equivalence, ‘E’ means energy, ‘m’ means mass, ‘c’ is the speed of light in a vacuum.

      I’m sure you didn’t know that “E=mc^2” wasn’t used for making the atomic bomb, it’s just popular myth circulated in the media.

      While I consider Einstein to be a genius, he’s definitely an exaggerated/overrated one.

      In my opinion Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell are more important figures in history than Einstein was.

      You sound like an idiot who has no understanding of basic history or physics, you probably just read junk in magazines and web sites, you probably don’t know that there were lots of physicists and mathematicians attempting to unify gravity during and prior to Einstein’s time using Riemannian geometry (Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, Theodor Kaluza, etc..), this makes Einstein’s so-called originality less original.

      I’m sure you never heard of Maxwell’s equations, or JC Maxwell since he isn’t mentioned in the media much (almost not at all), lol.

      Maxwell’s equations is much much much bigger than anything Einstein did, Maxwell’s equations had arguably the biggest effect on human history than any other single physics achievement.

      It’s debatable what effect General Relativity really has on us and human history…even if you count things like GPS since GR has few real-world applications.

      I’m not sure if GR is really true, I think it’s closer to the truth than Newtonian physics, but a lot of the material dealing with GR is abstract as opposed to concrete so I can’t really tell if GR is merely an accurate model or closer to the literal truth.

      I’m working on my own physics model which for practical real-world applications I’ll only need vector calculus. It invokes the existence of multiple timelines, shows energy to have different properties, shows matter itself to be wave-like, makes empirically testable predictions that can be tested and experienced as real, and has countless real-world applications. Since it has too many real-world applications that could threaten the economy and national defense I’ll probably have to keep it a secret.

      I think modern day science is headed in the wrong direction, people focus more on expanding models or correcting models or coming up with new models rather than looking what empirical observations & reality tells us, and attempting to know the actual truth.

      Since many many things about Einstein are exaggerated I can only label him as overrated.

      If you disagree with any of my statements feel free to refute anything, rather than just throwing baseless personal attacks.

      • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:46 pm

        Einstein is overrated. The author of this article states that Da Vinci couldn’t be a genius because he wasn’t “good at math”. Again, one can be a genius and not be good at math. As in being a top class mathematician. In many cases it is the structure of a person’s intelligence that dictates math ability – among other abilities.

  255. Anonymous / Jan 21 2014 4:09 pm

    Absolute garbage of a post.

  256. Anonymous / Jan 16 2014 2:28 pm

    You say that Einstein made no major, original contributions to physics. Before his papers were published, physicists were attempting to measure the so-called “ether,” which was a constant frame of reference.

    • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 5:36 pm

      Just a straw man argument, I argued that Einstein’s originality was exaggerated because his idea to unify things was copied from Faraday and partially Maxwell.

      But I consider Einstein still to be a great genius, just an overrated one.

  257. it_matters_not / Jan 15 2014 11:38 pm

    You seem quite bitter. While I appreciate the work that went into this, the drive to disprove abs discredit some amazing thinkers, shows little ingenuity on your part.

  258. Jim King / Jan 14 2014 10:39 am

    This list is embarrassing. Although I agree many deserve to be on it your understanding of the accomplishments of many of them is limited (especially Einstein), and your poor writing doesn’t help. Unless you want to sound retarded don’t talk about who is the “best” physicist.

    • Mark / Feb 17 2014 7:11 am

      Don’t remark him as best. He is far less BOLD than Max Plank and Heisenberg.

  259. Anonymous / Jan 14 2014 12:24 am

    Having a high IQ does not make you a genious. It is the creativity and making a accomplishment that changes a field forever. And how can people possibly claim to know Da Vinci’s IQ if intelligence scores didn’t exist? Also, failing a experiment, invention, or anything is how we learn… And he had much less to work with than we do now.

    • S. Holmes / Jan 18 2014 2:59 pm

      Actually by definition, having a high IQ is what makes you a ‘genius’. Whilst yes there may be other uses, this entire page is flawed. What is a genius. What they have done for society, or how they are portrayed is not the definition. It is someone who displays an exceptional intillectual ability.

      • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 5:33 pm

        Wrong again.

        It depends on which definition of ‘genius’ you use…IQ is just a man-made test…so what if someone has a high IQ but accomplishes or contributes nothing?

        “gen·ius [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA
        noun, plural gen·ius·es for 2, 3, 8, gen·i·i [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA , for 6, 7, 9, 10.
        an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. Synonyms: intelligence, ingenuity, wit; brains.
        a person having such capacity.
        a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140. Synonyms: mental giant, master, expert; whiz, brain, brainiac. Antonyms: idiot, imbecile, half-wit, dope, moron; fool, simpleton, dunce, dullard, dolt; numskull, blockhead, nitwit, ninny.
        natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership. Synonyms: gift, talent, aptitude, faculty, endowment, predilection; penchant, knack, bent, flair, wizardry.
        distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language.” –

        Using your reasoning you would consider a low IQ person who contributes lots to be a non-genius and a high IQ person who contributes nothing to be a great genius.

        But it’s only been in relatively recent times that IQ testing has really become popular. Since IQ is just a made up test this means it relies on the type of test and what questions that IQ inventors choose.

        Most popular IQ tests seem to have to do with recognizing patterns, which is just one type of intelligence.

        Making Nobel-prize winning contributions probably involves other things not measured by IQ tests.

        I don’t think any man-made test can accurately measure everything that our neurons do, do you?

  260. Hock Lim / Jan 12 2014 10:27 pm

    A cynic with an acrid tongue. show us what you have contributed to the world.

  261. Mau / Jan 9 2014 9:12 pm

    You got to be kidding with einstein, the implication of e=mc2 is huge for example that matter and energy can be exchangable ergo matter comes from energy. He reinvented the concept of dimension adding time, to form space-time dometion. He was the first person who ever thought that the universe can be altered by its content nor newton or galilleo. Read a bit more. Hawking too i mean obviously not at this level but for example he solve the singularity situation just that gibes him huge merit

  262. Humble Non-Genius / Jan 7 2014 6:05 am

    This article? I AGREED with most of the author’s choices…..however, I also cannot respect any writer whose obvious anger/bitterness/sarcasm for the subject matter negates any (otherwise) points of merit or correct analyses, nice try. One quick observation, tho, and what the guy was probably REALLY trying to get at?….is the waaaaay overuse and misuse of the word “genius” by people, especially on TV, for the past 20 years. True Genius turns the world on its figurative ear, when it DOES hit. It’s a rarer-than-rare occurrence in both persons having it, and circumstances containing it (discovery, invention, etc). I find myself literally wincing approximately 19 times out of 20 when hearing it used incorrectly on TV. Succinctly put? “Genius” on TV, when used incorrectly, may be defined as “An ability that, while both unique and successful, cannot on its own merit be considered necessarily of good quality nor significance as implied or stated outright.”

  263. indiecat379 / Jan 4 2014 7:50 am

    you’re nobody

  264. Anonymous / Jan 2 2014 2:08 pm

    The guy who wrote this article is clearly jelly ^_^

  265. Anonymous / Jan 2 2014 2:03 pm

    This article was bs from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about

    • Anonymous / Feb 9 2014 8:16 pm

      It’s still one man’s opinion

  266. Tony / Jan 1 2014 9:54 pm

    Ridiculously stupid article. Even Googling shows basic mistakes in the naive logic used here, not to mention real books.

  267. Zen Galacticore / Dec 31 2013 3:25 am

    You write, “than Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is”.. First of all, there’s no reason to end a sentence with ‘is’ unless it’s absolutely necessary. Proper grammar demands that the way to end such a sentence would be: “Hawking is overrated in the same way as is Michio Kaku.”.

    Don’t get me wrong, I mean no offense. I’m highly educated in the arts as well as the sciences, and even though I read Kaku’s “Hyperspace” years ago, I now think of him more as an annoying mosquito than a physicist.

    Many of these modern “science media” hopefuls seem to be envious of Carl Sagan. (You no doubt have much negative criticism of Doc Sagan.) At any rate, who really cares? You keep mentioning, “people who watch TV”. Do you never watch TV? I myself watch PBS, for the most part. After all, “TV” is a powerful medium. And from the research I’ve done, the info on PBS is, generally, more accurate than much of the info I get off of the internet!

    Anywho, you sound kind of like a failed grad student or unsuccessful doctoral candidate or something.

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:48 pm

      Kaku is a hack. More and more he’s coming across as a paid shill for corporations wanting to expand the H1B program to keep salaries down among other things. He has done very little in terms of real work, anything groundbreaking.

  268. anon / Dec 29 2013 12:22 pm

    why dont you start your own bn$ company and earn 73bn out of nowhere , you are a harvard grad ? right ?

  269. Vann / Dec 28 2013 4:12 pm

    So in short this article is good but falls Short of the Huge Propaganda of the media
    but also of Scietist organization with their Nobel Prize.. Imagine that obama got the Nobel Prize of Peace.. to give you an Idea of how ridiculous have become the Mainstream media but also Popular Scientific Organizations.

    will have been also good to mention..J. Robert Oppenheimer the so called ” Father of the Atomic Bomb.” ,that never was ,,but the Italian Enrico Fermi ..who invented the first Nuclear reactor ,and who was hired by the US with other world scientist to create a bomb for them. Robert , was the Edison of the project.. (ie.. the dirty manager who later take the credit) for the works of others..

    Another worth mentioning is Ben Rich ,the so called “Father of Stealth” who designed the F-117.
    Reality is the stealth technology was invented by Russians 20 years earlier before Americans began to research how to evade radars.. and develop a stealth plane.. to make story short.. After the collapse of soviet union ,many Scientist were offered jobs in America and Petr Ufimtsev ,who invented wrote the theory of Stealth and published books. began to work in secret for the F-117 team project. and he was the Soul of the stealth project. Albeit he never knew his seminars and teachings of how radar evasion works were used to develop a weapon until they build it.

    Peter Ufimtsev deserved the Nobel prize of Physics since his discoveries ,have totally modernized the way technology today is developed to lower radar detection.

    Wright Brothers neither invented the plane they copied other planes that already were developed in Europe .. same with Edison works . the Real Greatest Scientist /inventors ever are the ones which their names have been agreed to be used worldwide by all nations internationally as unit of measure in books of Science. names like Newton,Faraday,Tesla ,Pascals..hertz ,Volta, watt , ohm.ampere
    . im sure many people ,even the ones who knows nothing about science have heard some of those names a lot when buying a new computer or home theater or need to buy electrical machines for repairing your house..

    a follow up report should name the most UNDERRATED Geniuses in the world ,which by “mysterious
    coincidences” their works and or discoveries have been enormous for the development of all science and technology in the world today. is not complete but a good starting list..

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:50 pm

      Even the Nobel Prize is becoming less and less of a standard to judge the genius of a particular individual, it’s becoming so politicized. More than a few judges have complained about the pressure from certain groups and lobbies to have their “man” given an award.

  270. Vann / Dec 28 2013 3:22 pm

    Very good article.. indeed Leonardo the most hyped inventor on the planet.. is ridiculous.. he was just a Good Concept Artist with a lot of creativity for designing military machines.. He was hired not for his art but for his creativity for designing tools that could be used for war.. So a genius NOT ,just a man with a a lot creativity . He was neither that good in Art ,there are millions artist better than him.. look at Michelangelo for example sculptor and painter. ,There are millions artist today better the Leonardo and not kidding. Just the media love to create Heroes ,when they have sympathy for his Political life.

    About Einstein.. He was Good in Physics but not the best one ,and he was not so good in mathematics which Einstein himself admitted..He did not invented Relativity , Henri Poincaré a french mathematician did it. Einstein learned a lot from Henri Published works and continue developed from there.. But what is scary about Einstein is that he never in his life gave credit ,to any of Henri’s relativity works when clearly he was the base of Einstein works in Relativity . So Einstein is over rated Yes… Since he copied much of the work he claimed as its sole discovery.

    about Michio Kaku…

    He is a clown,, he is a PR man ,and his works on String Theory are nothing to worth of mentioning , is worth to mention Russian Physics in the 70’s in the times soviet union were among the first in the work with the String Theory that now is very popular.

    good article..

    • Steve Kikuchi / Jan 27 2014 5:55 pm

      Good post. I would think that Leonardo’s creativity is evidence of genius. In that he thought up things that no one else had on many occasions, and he had a broad array of talents. But he wasn’t the greatest genius ever, and there is no way to quantify or qualify who was the greatest ever. But certain “groups” of people will rally around their own and tirelessly promote them. Einstein is without a doubt the biggest beneficiary in terms of lobbying of any scientist. Leonardo is is overrated because his artistic abilities make a lot of his work easily visible. But he was likely a genius. Einstein was talented, look at his work re the Photoelectric Effect. But he is hardly the greatest physicist ever, nor the smartest man who ever lived.

      Kaku is a clown. A paid shill.

  271. Calvin / Dec 27 2013 12:37 am

    I see your point for some points especially Tesla I love him. But the scientists/mathematicians did do important things. One could argue Aristotle was a bad scientist because his theories were mostly incorrect. But he is one of the first people how could be called a scientist making him very important. Similar applies the list(although their actual achievements aren’t revolutionary).Also you criticized da Vinci because his invenions didn’t work. Many many inventions fail the first time.

  272. Tone / Dec 26 2013 1:39 am

    Well that was a wasted 5 mins if dribble. I notice nobody put their name to it.

  273. John Newman / Dec 25 2013 10:13 pm

    Trying to compare the intelligence of people in ancient times with those of today is an exercise in futility, owing to the spottiness of the record left for us to work with. How do we even really know that a particular figure from thousands of years ago, actually achieved what he is said to have achieved? With many figures in ancient cultures, we are relying on second and third hand tales written by people who, like us had opinions and biases, which have colored their writings about personalities of the past. I think that to be fair, we should only compare the “geniuses” of today with each other as we still have their work to evaluate and compare.

  274. Anonymous / Dec 23 2013 11:49 pm

    Realize that Da Vinci was under a contract to create inventions, whether they worked or not. His primary goal was to make money, and of course, creating a false idea makes him money and ensures that his competitors are led the wrong direction. This is emphasized in many historical analyses of Da Vinci.

    • Zen Galacticore / Dec 31 2013 3:39 am

      Da Vinci was under contract? To whom? The Roman Catholic pope?

      • Just an idiot / Feb 4 2014 9:04 pm

        Are you joking.? You correct peoples grammar. You tell us your highly educated. Left Wing blow hard.

  275. Anonymous / Dec 22 2013 9:38 pm

    Coming from someone who understands physics, mathematics, and science at an extremely high level (I would go into particulars but that’s pointless because a person can claim anything on the internet). This top ten list is laughable. Almost without exception all of these people are great geniuses. Your criticism of Kachu and Hawking show your lack of understanding it what they actually do. Their work is in a comprehensive understanding of the universe and relating physics to theology, psychology, mathematics.. etc. If you can’t appreciate their work than it shows a luck of understanding on your part

    • Anonymous / Dec 23 2013 2:52 pm

      i dont know who you are but i agree 100% with what you just said and that is also coming from a physicist, the fact that he claims Einstein, Michio kaku and Hawking are overrated is almost conclusive evidence pointing towards him having a lack of scientific knowledge

  276. Derp / Dec 21 2013 4:50 pm

    I think the author is really really jealous, and butthurt.
    Nice try, but this article sucks

  277. Anonymous / Dec 21 2013 8:37 am

    i think the person that wrote this doesn’t know that da vinci purposely drew his sketches wrong so if people tried to steal his ideas they wouldn’t work

  278. Sue / Dec 20 2013 10:11 pm

    I am grateful for everyone of the men the author has listed. Thanks for the list of other minds the author says are under rated. I am in awe of all of them.

  279. Glenn / Dec 19 2013 2:12 am

    This article is ridiculous. The writer cant even provide any supporting concrete evidence for his claims. Nice try.

  280. / Dec 18 2013 9:16 pm

    At Joe request, dress casual, no flowers please.

  281. / Dec 16 2013 8:43 pm

    Damn Valentine’s Day..

  282. Anonymous / Dec 13 2013 2:09 pm

    I would agree with you on everyone except Einstein and da vinci.., do you got any idea what’s Einstein’s theory is…? He was the first and last person whom actually understood how universe works., and his work simply changed the very fabric of physics and the best living physicist still hardly Einstein’s theory… Its a beautiful theory, if it wasn’t Einstein, we would still be stuck on Newtonian gravity, which himself knew was wrong…. And da vinci.., his drawings and works are unique and genius, many of his works are still not understood, or his drawings, they are absolutely unique and non can or had imitate his works….

  283. richards / Dec 13 2013 2:07 pm

    I would agree with you on everyone except Einstein and da vinci.., do you got any idea what’s Einstein’s theory is…? He was the first and last person whom actually understood how universe works., and his work simply changed the very fabric of physics and the best living physicist still hardly Einstein’s theory… Its a beautiful theory, if it wasn’t Einstein, we would still be stuck on Newtonian gravity, which himself knew was wrong…. And da vinci.., his drawings and works are unique and genius, many of his works are still not understood, or his drawings, they are absolutely unique and non can or had imitate his works….

  284. Hazel / Dec 8 2013 12:04 am

    I think you forgot to include yourself on this list
    If you can’t prove that you’re more intelligent than the geniuses you posted about you’re in no place to give such an unjustified and unobjective personal opinion

  285. Nicole / Dec 5 2013 3:08 pm

    Sometimes genius is in creativity not just IQ. This article was awful, it just kept repeating the say explanations for every ‘overrated genius’. Unsubstantiated nonsense written by someone who sounds pretty full of himself.

  286. carlostp11 / Dec 5 2013 9:19 am

    Pron blog site
    best erotic novel vampire erotic erotic graphic novels erotic nudes free prono xxx

  287. Jacob / Dec 3 2013 3:21 am

    I think Newton should be on this list. He was a fucking idiot.

    • somnambulist melatonin / Dec 5 2013 5:43 am

      I think YOU should be on the list for not providing any supporting arguments for your claim.

    • Scott / Jan 10 2014 12:55 pm

      Actually, Newton is likely the greatest scientist and mathematician of all time. You’re probably just trolling though (or really stupid).

  288. yeahok / Dec 1 2013 8:01 pm

    This is based way to much on iq alone…. iq means nothing without imagination which da vinci and einstein were not lacking at all.. you cannot compare people based on something which you dont know.. you can not possibly say einstein just copied faraday when he did succeed in what he went out to achieve

  289. lol / Nov 30 2013 6:43 pm

    Wow such hostility in all the comments. While I don’t agree with all that the author says he is generally correct. There are many underrated genius that deserve much more light than those listed here. Einstein should be considered a genius for his work on general relativity, but even so he is probably the third most influential physicist in modern physics and much overrated.

  290. Sibonelo Prince Mqadi / Nov 30 2013 9:04 am

    The person who wrotes this article is wrong Isaac Newton is the best genius ever lived despites that there iz nt much history about him but I believe that he is the greatest genius ever lived

  291. Sibonelo Prince Mqadi / Nov 30 2013 8:59 am

    I thought Isaac Newton was the best genius ever lived. He was the great physicist, mathematician n a great inventer

  292. yousaf / Nov 28 2013 12:43 pm

    God Damn the fool wi wrote this article. I think this person has newly learned the word “overrated” and likes to use it alot saying Einstein, newton and even gauss are overrated. And do you even know who is Stephen hawking is? You piece of crap!

  293. Anonymous / Nov 26 2013 9:50 am

    lol just wasted my time

  294. Anonymous / Nov 25 2013 10:13 am

    got sick man this list was rubbish

  295. Anonymous / Nov 24 2013 9:06 pm

    How the hell can you state that Newton, Archimedes, and Gauss are smarter than Einstein if you can’t prove it in anyway, you dumb piece of shit.

  296. Anonymous / Nov 18 2013 7:49 pm

    This list makes me dislike you. Go shove a carrot up your asshole.

    • Anonymous / Nov 21 2013 3:02 am

      i second this

    • Anonymous / Dec 3 2013 3:50 am


  297. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:23 am

    Since the author clearly thinks math is impossible, here is a simple equation: IQ ≠ Intelligence

    A genius is someone of insight or achievement. Safe to say everyone on this list qualifies, and that they had/have far more talent, ability, and creativity than the average Joe.

    • John D. Lamb / Nov 16 2013 9:46 am

      I would like to reiterate this statement. Whoever wrote this article is quite clearly restoring to some misguided resources and may not have any knowledge of Physics at all. To label one of the greatest thinkers, a man who initiated the idea of String Theory, a solution, an equation to everything that encompasses our universe; an overrated genius must be the most egregious and outrageous thing I’ve read this month. Einstein should

  298. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:13 am

    The suggestion that someone does not possess a high IQ (not an actual measure of intelligence or a valid measure of revolutionary thought anyway) simply because half of their ideas or inventions don’t work immediately, is a beautiful illustration of the authors ignorance of the scientific method and how science and research are actually conducted. I guess he thinks Archimedes actually did everything by Eureka method and not the painstaking trial and error that every scientist in history has applied.

    Also humorous how the author is clearly baffled by mathematics and weights his rankings heavily on whether or not someone was revolutionary enough in that discipline to be a genius – as if there can be no other kind. Which is funny since Hawking is one of the most respected living mathematicians and held the same professors chair in math as Newton for several decades.

  299. Daniel de Lacroix / Nov 9 2013 1:35 am

    Some of the names you mentioned at the beginning of your list i would agree that they are not geniuses, but someone like Leonardo di Vinci could very well be considered ‘the genius’. A person like Einstein and others involved in science excelled in mathematics or their area of expertise. Leonardo was multifaceted and excelled at everything that intrigued him. he had a free associated mind which meant that even though he didn’t produce a lot in the short run, he ended up producing a significant amount of beautiful art and volumes of scientific and engineering knowledge that includes the following: flight, weighing scale, scuba diving equipment, the first parachute among others. And don’t forget of course his Mona Lisa and The Last Supper amongst other wonderful pieces of art. Also I would like to include, because I am a painter, that Leonardo was one of the first painters in europe to start using oil based paint rather than the traditional egg tempura based paint.
    If you won’t listen to me than i urge you to watch a BBC documentary that they did on Leonardo di Vinci. If there is anybody in history who was a genius it was him. thank you.

  300. close / Nov 8 2013 10:21 pm

    Where is N.Tesla?

    • Anonymous / Mar 23 2014 6:11 pm

      On the most underrated list. Seriously, inventing AC current as a “fuck you” to Edison is one of the most bad ass contributions to science ever.

  301. Anonymous / Nov 6 2013 5:34 pm

    Your list is rubbish, people like Einstein, Hawking and Leonardo da Vinci have made an amazing contribution to their fields 😠😠😠😟

  302. Sten / Nov 5 2013 2:12 pm

    Good list. Educated scientists I think will agree with it. The big question is about Einstein — everyone who knows science knows that he is overrated, that is not controversial — but was he also a fraud? His original 1905 paper on relativity didn’t bother to cite all the relevant work that had gone of before. Einstein clearly wanted to leave the impression that he was doing something so novel that there was no relevant literature — or else he was just lazy. Or both. He did have a reputation for laziness. Certainly if you read Einstein’s popular books, such as “The World as I see It”, you see he was at best a 3rd rate thinker on the issues he addressed. A genius? Obviously not. A charlatan? Perhaps. Boosted by the Zionist and Jewish network: definitely. Ironic, because there are so many Jews who are so much smarter than Einstein. For example: Pauli, Michelson, and even Feynman. Yes even Feynman, who although at best a 2nd rate scientist, was smarter than Einstein.

    • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 1:51 am

      Yeah Feynman was super overrated. Any regular physicist can elegantly express and understand Quantum Electrodynamics.

    • Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 8:58 am

      Everyone who knows science knows Einstein is overrated? What a stunningly brazen statement of your own ignorance.

      Guess you must know more physicists than the IUPAC, which commentated Einsteins “miracle year” in which he wrote the four papers that revolutionized Newtonian laws and laid the foundation upon which modern physics stands. There is no single more important and encompassing work than special relativity, and any actual learned scholar would tell you they would give anything to write one paper as brilliant as Einstein, let alone four in one year.

      …. As far as the rest of the list, describing the literal embodiment of a “Renaissance Man” as anything other than a genius shows that the only thing overrated is the notion you can quantify genius without bias towards what you think is important or difficult (or in the case of this author, what little he understands).

  303. Anonymous / Nov 1 2013 6:02 pm

    You’re a fucking dumb ass for even thinking that these guys are overrated. Unlike you these guys are geniuses.

  304. Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 11:28 am

    Wow, this is terrible. You’re just an idiot. So glad I learned that in fact Einstein did not invent physics! Of course he used the ideas and maths of his predecessors. Every scientist stands on the shoulder of giants. That doesn’t mean that relativity wasn’t still one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect. 100 years later there are still very few people who truly understand it. You, obviously, are not one of them. Dumbass.

  305. Vicky Sharma / Oct 30 2013 6:19 pm

    Do you know that you have pretty less knowledge (almost zero percent)about these personalities. What is your qualification? You are a fool

  306. Anonymous / Oct 28 2013 6:36 pm

    You sir… are (at the least) retarted

  307. Hendrik Janson / Oct 28 2013 5:12 pm

    Just read your blog on atheism. You really are sick.

  308. budoy / Oct 26 2013 10:19 pm

    ALBERT EINSTEIN???? NO. 3???? SERIOUSLY??? now I ask you, do you really know this guy??? have you meet them in person??? are you a vampire or a gumiho who lives thousands of years and already meet this people during their era??? Seriously dude the way you rank and put your ideas about this guy’s ESPECIALLY EINSTEIN… I can say that


  309. Hendrik Janson / Oct 26 2013 4:41 pm

    This is the most stupid, short sighted, senseless, arrogant, self overrating, self serving piece of hog-wash I ever read.

  310. iceknight / Oct 24 2013 7:27 pm

    Blah blah blah and of course, you make no mention of Egyptian, Japanese and Indian scientists or their scientific work. “ignored by media” can happen easily. Chill out.

    • Mzuma Kotto / Dec 25 2013 10:35 pm

      All the writers are ignoring the great scientis of the great kindom of mali who invented astromony, enginering, matematic, scinefifc proces and religions. you are al rasist white devils.

  311. Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 12:50 pm

    This is garbage. You might as well target people from the philo-science genius era.

  312. Nobody / Oct 23 2013 7:05 pm

    Nobody said Albert Einstein was a mathematical genius – he was a Physics genius.

  313. Anonymous / Oct 20 2013 1:40 am


  314. Anonymous / Oct 18 2013 8:12 pm

    How is Isaac Newton ignored by the media?

    • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:04 am

      Because he is rarely mentioned at all in comparison to other notable people

  315. nilesh / Oct 18 2013 3:48 am

    you miss ” richard feynmann ” no ordinarry m

  316. Anonymous / Oct 16 2013 3:01 pm

    Absolutely hilarious how most of his geniuses who were “ignored by the media” are for the most part Jewish.

    • iceknight / Oct 24 2013 7:33 pm

      not sure what you are blabbering about but he was bitching about Einstein too..

      • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 1:54 am

        It’s also pretty fantastic how he acts like Pythagoras has been boosted by the media. All those scribes wouldn’t stop talking about him. This guy writes like a middle schooler.

  317. Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:48 am

    Who are you to criticize these geniuses IQ dosent define you’re intelligents and all inventors have failed inventions nobody’s perfect Albert Einstein is probably the smartest person in modern times his contributions to science are unmatched by any scientist in the last 300 years you’re opinions on these so called overrated geniuses is extremely ignorant

  318. shakingMyheadatThis / Oct 15 2013 2:54 am

    Winners have a thousand fathers and losers are an orphan. I know you crave recognition which you are only receiving for being less than adequate here. #epicfail

  319. Serkan / Oct 15 2013 12:02 am

    are you a retarded person? i read a single paragraph of your article and i feel like i caught your stupidity, this must be the worst article ever.

  320. marsh / Oct 13 2013 11:03 pm

    Poor, poor article.

  321. AW / Oct 10 2013 10:10 am

    Where is nikola tesla?

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:54 am

      Newton is also extremely overrated

      • clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right / Nov 17 2013 1:32 am


  322. Anonymous / Oct 9 2013 7:13 am

    enough with comment his article, he’s just want you to put his name on your article called ” Top 11 most overrated geniuses- itnobody ” based on and . you know who most genius all the time? ” GOD ” that tittle belong to “GOD”, cheers😀

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:51 am

      The only gods are the earth and the sun

    • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:06 am

      Fuck off with the whole religion shit. How many disasters, genocides, wars, and other horrible deaths does it take to realize perhaps the religious system isn’t perfect?

      • Reddit Armi. / Dec 8 2013 12:19 am

        How many retarded militant-atheists does it take to realize that religion itself made an impact on Science? Also, wars are mostly based on politics, you pseudo-intellectual fuck nugget.

  323. Peter / Oct 9 2013 4:40 am

    They writer of this list is an idiot plz don’t listen to him

    • Ray Hager / Mar 9 2014 1:04 pm

      I agree. Bill gates was brilliant because he upgraded us all from DOS. I wonder if the man who created this list is over 25 years old.

  324. Guest / Sep 28 2013 2:27 am

    What exactly makes you such a social and intellectual genius as to critique and badmouth some of the most celebrated thinkers of humanity? Where is your ethos? If you are in a position to trash these brilliant men then why is your article full of flaws? Your data is non existent. Your blame falls entirely upon “the media” even in the case of Pythagoras. Pythagoras is never on the news on my tv last time that I checked. Also your entire article is teeming with grammatical flaws. I’d expect a genius such as yourself to know that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition and that appositives such as “however” are to be set off with commas. Next time you want to criticize people more intelligent and famous than yourself, do us a favor: don’t.

    • adam c / Sep 29 2013 11:40 am

      well said… very well said…

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 5:57 am

      I completely agree with you this author is a moron

      • Anonymous / Nov 10 2013 2:22 pm

        Big Daddy Guest seems to be on the loose.

  325. Vishesh Dewan / Sep 25 2013 7:13 am

    You obviously don’t have much of an idea about what genius/intelligence really is, do you? you seem to heavily be relying on IQ statistics over here. That’s a give away.

  326. Paul Michalak / Sep 23 2013 1:57 pm

    Da Vinci is one of my favourite genius. His skills were very mixed. He may have also created the first ever photograph, the Turin Shroud. But amazing pictures of helicopters, and just his knowledge of anatomy. You cannot fail to see the genius there.

  327. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 8:20 pm

    lmao whoever wrote this was retarded.

  328. Anonymous / Sep 22 2013 3:24 pm

    You really like the phrase “ignored in the media”

  329. varad phadnis / Sep 21 2013 11:35 am

    but the most important genius of all time is worlds best mathematian late mr. shrinivas ramanujan! he is all time great genius of all time!

    • Anonymous / Sep 24 2013 9:46 am

      Nope, Leonhard Euler Is Greatest Mathematics Ever Walked In Planet

  330. Anonymous / Sep 20 2013 5:47 pm

    Who is the genius? The guy who invents stuff or the guy who use the others guys inventions and becomes rich of it.

  331. Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:47 am

    pick any person from this list at random and subtract her IQ by 10 to find out the IQ of the OP of this article. LoL, gota love the internet.

  332. Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:44 am

    The Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses” >> people who write articles like these are retards themselves, yet they don’t even suspect it. The irony.

  333. Anonymous / Sep 19 2013 2:40 pm

    I find the fact that someone who would take on a subject like this might have some concept of what genius is. You obviously think genius is gauged by original, groundbreaking theories which eventually are proven true. If this is your criteria, then you are a fool. Genius comes in all forms and fashions, but one of the stalwart traits is being able to take information you have been given and apply it in such a way that is groundbreaking. Einstein was a master of this, and to question the man’s intellect is ridiculous, I agree with your placement of Stephen Hawking and Ben Franklin, but most of your other data is speculative at best. But the crown jewel of mistakes is putting Da Vinci on this list. Take a moment to actually study his notebooks, then open your mouth.

    • Anonymous / Sep 21 2013 1:25 am

      Thank you, you reflect my thoughts of this post like a mirror. Einstein blew me away, but when I saw davinci, I almost lost it. First of all, davinci was original and groundbreaking, but as you said, where Einstein shined was building upon genius. Yes he had to use others’ math, but he along with Bohr, Schrodinger, and many others, birthed us out of the dead Newtonian physics era. A try genius builds on what comes before, with his own personal insight.

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 6:11 am

      You sound way more intellectual than this author I agree with everything you said

    • Anonymous / Jan 1 2016 6:13 am

      I believe a quote says that “genius is to see what all others have seen, and think what no one else has thought.” Also, by Newton, “I have only seen as far as i have seen by standing on the shoulders of giants.” please correct me if i misquoted, but i believe the gist of it is accurate.

  334. Anonymous / Sep 19 2013 1:05 am

    Whoever wrote this article is a mental midget

  335. john / Sep 18 2013 2:57 pm

    Finally an objective analysis of these lionized celebrities

  336. Daniel / Sep 18 2013 4:54 am

    Just because Rosalind Franklin and John von Neumann are not as often mentioned in the media as Da Vinci and Einstein, it does not mean the latter scientists are “overrated”; but, I do believe that von Neumann, despite being a polymath, is underrated. You know nothing of theoretical physics and it seems to me your hatred of atheism has led you to write this poorly written drivel. FYI, Rosalind Franklin was an atheist, too!

  337. Chris / Sep 18 2013 12:51 am

    Very ignorant author…people like this are a waste and belong in jail for their bullshit

    • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:29 am

      Ignorant, bullshit, belong in jail…Seriously? Something very wrong with you son. Grow up.

      • Anonymous / Oct 24 2013 2:09 am

        Agreed. Just because people don’t appeal to your authority figures doesn’t mean they belonged jailed. In that case, Chris would belong in several people’s jails probably.

  338. Ayoub / Sep 16 2013 4:28 pm

    This article is TRUE SHIT😀

    The writer is talking about using intelligence and not only memorie, but have you used your intelligence while talking about IQ?

    IQ my friends means NOTHING AT ALL! People thought once that the higher is the IQ the more intelligent is the person. Not today!

  339. Jason / Sep 14 2013 10:03 pm

    Why does the author put so much credence into IQ? Great physicists like Richard Feynman had barely above average IQs, but clearly demonstrated a level of understanding far beyond the vast majority of people. On the flip-side, I have abnormally high IQ, but I wouldn’t consider my reasoning capacity anywhere near the same level as people like Einstein or Heisenberg. Btw, 130 of the best physicists in the world today voted Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg, Bohr and Maxwell as the five greatest physicists of all time…they even voted Steven Hawking as 16th.

    • Jason / Sep 14 2013 10:04 pm

      I’ll give you Gates, Watson and Edison though…very overrated.

    • David Sairf / Sep 18 2013 3:37 am

      Probably because myriads of people use IQ as a basis for intelligence, though it merely says how quick your synapses work to solve simple problems such as 22/2=11

  340. You are hurting society / Sep 13 2013 2:02 pm

    The existence of this article makes the world dumber. The author possesses no knowledge whatsoever, as demonstrated by brilliant commens such as:

    “Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.”

    What a brilliant statement. Someone hand this man the Nobel prize for literature.

    Please PLEASE erase any information your brain may have inadvertently logged during the reading of this article. For the good of humanity, the author should remove this article from the internet, cut off his hands, and remove his voice box so that he may never communicate his shockingly ignorant ideas to another human again.

    • Katokiari Kitekumelukizkuzuki / Sep 20 2013 6:51 am

      the author should be shot on sight and fed to hungry pigs

      • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:31 am

        And people like you should rather remain quiet, especially since you have nothing intelligent to say/add.

    • Kay / Oct 1 2013 11:35 am

      The only person making the world dumber is pseudo-scientists like Hawking. I cannot believe people buy in to his philosophical rubbish.

  341. Jairin Ervin / Sep 12 2013 12:51 pm

    Da Vinci didn’t test his inventions most of the time; you saying that they failed is incorrect, some did succeed but others he didn’t test, in fact we tested his inventions that he didn’t put to the test, they worked. he has covered more fields than anyone now a days. He literally earned the term “modern mind”. You even saying anyone could invent those things is complete ignorance. THE TIMES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, he was way beyond his time. Please respond to me, I would love to see your argument, and I don’t mean to be rude but when people make accusations especially about Da Vinci when they are completely wrong, it pisses me off.

  342. Barbaselo / Sep 9 2013 7:57 pm

    What? Is Bill Gates considered a genius? I did’t know. I know he produced the first Basic language for what was then called home computers, which was the beginning of the revolution that made people be able to program computers themselves in their homes.

    But that doesn’t require a genius. It just requires to have knowledge enough and be at the right place at the right time. Everyone over 45yrs remembers Applesoft Basic. At that time, around 1977, Apple and Microsoft were partners.

    And you also write “The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann.”

    Would you like to know who really started programmable automation?

    Here you go:

    (Punched cards were first used around 1725 by Basile Bouchon)

    • James Reed / Sep 18 2013 12:35 pm

      Bill Gates is rightly revered as a genius, but for the wrong reasons. Nobody much knows, but he wrote the first 8-bit BASIC interpreter when he was 19 in hex code, on paper tape and the pre-loader for it, BEFORE anyone else had done such a thing. Make no mistake, You have the be seriously clever just to do that, BUT he *also* was business savvy enough to sell it to the Altair guy (the first real consumer computer), not just as a one-off but as a the license – that’s an incredible combination of skills. He was then enough of a genius to realise software was the future and clever enough to make himself the richest man in the world and keep himself there. The IBM MS-DOS deal alone is pure business genius, say what you like and dislike him, but no ordinary person could’ve pulled this stuff off. Of course he underestimated the Internet, but being a genius doesn’t mean being faultless – also IE and MSN still hold huge market share.

      All said though, I rate Steve Wozniack of Apple as probably a greater genius than Gates, in the strict sense of the word. Certainly technical wise he could be up there, as well as being the world’s best logic gate circuit designer, he practically invented the personal computer, along with the mouse, keyboard, monitor setup, he could also code BASIC interpreter level stuff too. Worth reading his autobio.

  343. Anonymous / Sep 8 2013 12:22 am

    you lack so much knowledge on these people. you dont even make any valid points.

  344. Anonymous / Sep 7 2013 9:51 am

    You Know, the Google link is like – “The Top 10 Most Overrated Geniuses – itnobody”
    Sounds like you yourself agree that nobody is overrated !

  345. Richie Banks / Sep 4 2013 9:43 pm

    All I’ve got to contribute is that Da Vinci’s designed were often designed with deliberate flaws in them as a sort of makeshift protection of what we would no call his intellectual property. His ideas were not completely developed etc… due largely to the sheer quantity of them rushing through his head. Some of the rebuilt models of his were taken from scribbles he’d probably have destroyed them if he thought anyone would judge him for them or care, like Michelangelo did later in his life. In fact, I am surprised he is not in there in his place, although I do agree the extent of Da Vinci’s feats are exaggerated for the sake of inspiration and narrative effect, if you research him properly you will find he was in all likelihood an outstanding genius when it came to perceiving, representing and manipulating the structure of the world through art and understanding. Heed my bias as a Da Vinci fan though as I summarise if 75% of his inventions failed, this still leaves evidence of significant ingenuity.

  346. Anonymous / Sep 4 2013 11:14 am

    You sir are completely inept, Albert Einstein is a personal hero of mine, and reading into him a lot I am frequently amazed time after time finding out about the different breakthrough’s and discoveries he created. There are 3 main theories in physics: Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and gravitation. Not only was he a pioneer in developing quantum mechanics, the forefront of modern physics, he corrected many of newtons laws of gravity and motion, and was the origin of special and general relatively. Einstein fixed a lot of the problems physics was having pre 1900 and was a leader in the quantum revolution at the start of the century along with Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and later on Richard Feynman. If you seriously think Einstein is overrated, you clearly no nothing about theoretical physics.

  347. abcd / Sep 4 2013 8:46 am

    Dude, You are overrating newton a lot. His major work was calculus, a crude form of which was discovered by Archimedes before him. Newton only gave form to it.

    • Anonymous / Sep 4 2013 9:08 am

      Epic reply.. Sarcasm eh??

  348. Blog_Voice / Sep 2 2013 1:37 pm

    Creativity can’t be measured by IQ. And creative people are the ones who come up with new ideas, not the absolute-logical ones(logic helps more in IQ). Even Einstein said that.
    IQ is only a simple analysis of how fast you can learn things which are already there, which exactly what logic is(working with the things in your hand).
    Creating something new requires a very different kind of intelligence. Called imagination, a very powerful imagination that works well with their logic.
    One suggestion to the stupid blog owner.
    Before studying on the inventions of notable people. Study on the human mind.

  349. harry / Sep 1 2013 8:16 pm

    I kinda agree with you at this article, except on your opinions for Einstein and Hawking. If you really understand Einstein theories, you would be amazed by his originality, and persistence in pursuing a new and better theory. About Hawking, I agree that his work is less important compared to Einstein, but he worked most of his theories without pencils and papers, the two basic needs of theorists. That is, in my opinion, the genius of Hawking. And if you know about Hawking’s information lost problem, a puzzle that he proposed around seventies, nobody can really resolve it even until today.

  350. Joe 12-Pack / Aug 30 2013 4:27 pm

    I have no opinion. I just want to be one of the gang.

  351. Jason / Aug 29 2013 7:57 am

    The list is a good list. I have studied many inventors and was myself surprised of these individuals making the top list. Lots of Italians are going to defend Da Vinci as genius but it’s so true his inventions are nothing more than worthless fantasies. He was a good artist but as a inventor there is nothing worth mentioning.

  352. Anonymous / Aug 29 2013 2:50 am

    Anyone thinking that can judge someone by their I.Q. is an asshole.

  353. Anonymous / Aug 27 2013 9:45 pm

    Albert Einstein is not an overrated genius. He did apply some of his predecessors work for his theory of relativity, but the idea is completely his own. He worked for years on that theory day and night, and what he did changed science. It is true that he is not the greatest scientist of all time, but he was one of them. And he will not be criticized by an ignorant fool like you, not today sir. Also, actually learn more about these people before you criticize them, you ignoramus.

  354. Anonymous / Aug 27 2013 6:14 pm

    The person who wrote this is an idiot.

  355. Gegenstand / Aug 27 2013 9:37 am

    Having just visited an exhibition on DaVinci’s inventions with prototypes built on his drawings, I support the conclusion that he was overrated as an inventor and scientist. He was fixated on gears and drew very simple machines that were never constructed and would not have worked. He did not understand basic physics since the tank he drew that was meant to travel in multiple directions, would, on the basis of his design, not been able to move at all. Da Vinci liked to doodle machines. He was not an inventor and did not invent a single useful machine. He is an accomplished artist and his anatomical drawings are the perhaps the first of his kind, if only for the reason that he studied human cadavers. However, it doesn’t require particular genious to render the drawings from a scientific perspective. Most of his accomplishments are artistic but the fact that he is popularly considered a genious in other fields like engineering and science is completely unjustified.

  356. eddy / Aug 27 2013 4:25 am

    If you read the about page of Mr. Nobody it’s clear that he considers himself one of the most underrated geniuses of all time.

    He says, “With the highest innate ability for argumentation logic (probably the highest that ever existed), high intelligence, high intuition, and high originality I wonder how much of my knowledge I should share with the world…and how much I should keep secret…”

    That’s why he hates the geniuses who have been recognized coz his own genius (imagined) has not been recognized. Even his name suggests his hatred towards the world for not recognizing his genius and not making him famous.

    Sad really.

    • David Sairf / Sep 18 2013 3:42 am

      Talent is a cheap commodity though, so really there are far more unknown geniuses out there. Along with that most of these people don’t know how to get anywhere with their purported talent and thus only few can become recognized.

  357. Daly / Aug 26 2013 8:23 pm

    Sounds like an angry little mathematician. Physicists get the credit for the big discoveries and changes in our understanding… Blame your hated media. Not them. Aside from the fact that this is one of the most biases pieces of drivel I have ever read, it’s very childish. Here’s just two teeny problems out of the overflowing bowl of error that you bestowed upon a sad WordPress: 1) DaVinci was predominantly working in secret due to this thing called the Inquistion. You may have heard of it. Imagine how hard that would make… Anything and everything for a creator such as himself. 2) Kaku is an amazing theoretical physicist and is regarded as such. He may not be one of the top 10, but he’s far from one of the bottom 10. He’s well known for being the face of modern physics, for boiling the extremely hard to understand down to a nice oatmeal that the common man can digest. Science needs this. The world needs this. Hate the man because he’s making the universe accessible to everyone? Jokes… That’s why I love the man.
    Look at the great world that we live in, a flake such as yourself is able to attack at least 6 exceedingly important men because they aren’t mathematicians and gets read because of it. I’m gonna start a word press complaining abou how boorish mathematicians are, about how they want sole credit when shared credit is due. Wait, no I won’t. It’s much easier to destroy than it is to create. You my non-friend took the easy route, the path well traveled. Shame.

  358. Christina Novoa / Aug 25 2013 11:56 pm

    Unless the idiot who wrote this article is an acceptably-rated genius, they need to shut their mediocre mouth. This, as the urban youth would call it, is an example of “hating” at it’s finest.

  359. Anonymous / Aug 23 2013 10:56 pm

    Unbelievable, I feel I must have lost a few IQ points reading this uneducated trash.

    Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci…really?

  360. Anonymous / Aug 23 2013 9:59 am

    Albert Einstein is a theoretical Physicist not merely a mathematician those are different field…

  361. Anonymous / Aug 22 2013 11:35 am

    If you mean the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauß – by the way it is written with an ß, not with ss.

    • Anonymous / Sep 1 2013 3:39 am

      ß is pronounced as a double s, and it is written as such when you can’t produce a ß

  362. me / Aug 21 2013 10:52 am

    My list of overrated dumbasses…

    Nos. 1-10


  363. Anonymous / Aug 21 2013 3:08 am

    getting other’s work and work on it? c’mon we all know that every people in this world starts with nothing.. and you think you can make your own math and another brand new basis of science that you can call your own? in that phrases you appeared to be illogocal in your point everything that … every principles in any fields of subject that is accepted as a fact, it is accepted becoz its the truth… not that they just choose it as the truth but becoz it is how it goes.. like fire.. if you put enough heat on a gasoline itll sure creates fire, fire is created not becoz you did something, but becoz thats how it goes … when you were born you dont know anyting at all.. you just learn and adopt.. which means the information stored in your brain came from something.. you dont create your own information lol…dont you think that einstein’s work is something new.. cause if einstein’s work already exists then why would the world declare it as its einstein’s.. and we are not sure if the information we get, we read, we heard is all true… adition and deletion is a factor as well.. specially when the informations about something or about someone is half a century or several centuries away.. like da vinci and pythagoras… you just like to critcize or make an argument… your basis for a genius is to create new… and do something that has never been known ever.. toinks

  364. Anonymous / Aug 19 2013 7:09 pm

    I award this guy with the Darwin Award; get out of my gene pool.

  365. Anonymous / Aug 18 2013 5:41 pm

    how old are you, 14?

  366. Anonymous / Aug 17 2013 7:46 pm

    Intelligence means nothing if a person has no drive. Many misinterpret da Vinci’s drive with his intelligence. An example of this is that everyone has the idea of a flying car, but no one knows how they would do it so they don’t make an attempt. If humans did not have this mindset there would be more of these “impossible inventions.”

  367. Anonymous / Aug 16 2013 12:44 pm

    One of the funniest comments section I have ever read. Lol. It’s like reading an episode of The Big Bang Theory where OP is Sheldon, only a few intellectual levels lower. Oh, and I’m pretty sure you’ll attack my intelligence just because a certain television program that is themed on geniuses entertains me. Just freely do so, it’ll entertain me

  368. Anonymous / Aug 16 2013 7:40 am

    I agree with most except Einstein LDV and Gates.Einstein was a shocker.For the record Einstein was bad at calculating ,not mathematics in general.Mathematics is a lot more than calculations on which Einstein is amazing(calculus,etc).He is probably the best physicist of all time.

    • Don / Aug 25 2013 12:15 pm

      Gates? Really? REALLY? What do you think he did that is even remotely genius?

  369. Anonymous / Aug 13 2013 12:27 pm

    whoever wrote this article is an underrated idiot…

  370. K / Aug 12 2013 11:02 am

    Da Vinci overrated No1 ? Go kill yourself .

    • Anonymous / Aug 25 2013 5:21 pm

      Agree with first. Disagree with second.

      • Anonymous / Sep 6 2013 11:08 am

        whoever made this list is severly mistaken with some.. well, most of his or her claims.

  371. Anonymous / Aug 11 2013 11:09 pm

    People, c’mon. This drivel has nothing to do with who’s smarter than who etc…etc…It’s all about hate and disrespect for the people responsible for turning the Bibles version of the universe on it’s head. Folks like this can never be dealt with in a normal, objective way. Smile, nod, move on.

  372. Ari / Aug 11 2013 11:20 am

    LOL..Einstein is overrated??? what a moron you are? I am not talking about Da Vinci who was one of the greatest ..Bill Gates O.K Nobody considers Watson and Crick as outstanding genious.
    Edison was an outstanding genious considering the fact that he had no formal education ! nobody can buy or copy 1000 patents .So your list doesn’t make any sense..

  373. Its_not_bad_to_think_you're_smart_if_you_are / Aug 10 2013 9:24 am

    What an astonishing article.. Up until this day I had no idea that these people were so over-rated?
    Einstein, Watson and Da Vinci I think are the most over-rated of them all.. They are actually ignorant fools.. Einstein specially is not even close to genius because he used other peoples work who came before him and worked on that.. What he should have done was forget all previous people’s work and build physics from the scratch.. That would make him a genius..Hmm.. Stephen Hawking on the other-hand is also a fool, that’s because.. err.. He can’t walk..I guess.. Seems a better logic than the one posted.. This article completely changed the way I think and enlightened me. Now I’m completely sure that Humanity is doomed because Intelligence among mass population seems to be following a negative exponential curve.. I don’t really like the internet. That’s because it gives “shitheads” an opportunity to spread there..well..shit.. more like bullshits(oh god.. I’m damned have to listen to that “ad hominem” again).. I reckon nihilism is the new cool thing.. I guess i can’t blame people either. Without it they are just a normal bunch of guys who doesn’t have anything else to show for their achievements in life. The thumb rule is, ” You challenge what is established blindly, and you’re instantaneously a 100 I.Q point more smarter”, i guess that’s the absolute measurement scale of ingenuity.. at least after reading this article I think it is. hmm. I’m quite sure this comment will be subject to severe scrutiny, followed by shameless cherry-picking, and then blatant accusation would be made about not arguing within some accepted bounds. well I’m pretty delighted to say in defense that…I simply “Don’t Care”… that sums it up I guess.

    • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 2:46 am

      Spot on mate.. You’re totally right..

    • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 2:56 am

      Didn’t read everything but come on…. ‘I can’t be a genius because I cannot walk’? What a shitty comment…

      • Anonymous / Aug 12 2013 3:34 am

        You think he meant, hawking’s not a genious cuz he can’t walk, because as you yourself pointed out.. You didn’t read it all.. People these days just tries to find fault.. Read before you comment.

    • Anonymous / Aug 20 2013 8:32 am

      Its easy to criticize others when you haven’t contributed anything

    • Derek / Oct 15 2013 6:07 am

      You’re retarded

  374. Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:31 pm

    The fact that Einstein is on here demonstrates your ignorance of physics. Einstein was the first to visualise and publish on special and general relativity, which revolutionised our understanding of the universe. He stands alongside Newton and Galileo. He also made important contributions to quantum physics. You should be embarrassed at yourself.

    • Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:36 pm

      Ah, now I see all the anti socialist/atheist links to blog posts.

      That explains a great deal about tyour pathetic grasp of science and logic.

      • Samuel Terik / Aug 8 2013 11:46 pm

        Man, this is the single largest load of muttering crap I’ve ever read. You have to do RESEARCH when you write an article. Don’t just go on wikipedia, even if you would read the entirety of the references available it’s still not enough. And for the record, despite popular belief, Atheism is a sign of intellect in the 21st century by intellects and theism is considered (by real intellects) to be moronic and your insecurity about that is reflected in your anti social behavior towards Atheists. (I’m hinting on your constant linking atheism to what it has nothing to do with, like everything in this article for example.) As student at CIT I can assure you that much of this is dead wrong in clearly show a very shallow research and poor comprehension of the subject. I advise you to forget about writing articles about something you lack so much understanding of until you have a little more reliable data.

  375. Anonymous / Aug 6 2013 12:30 am

    Hey dude, science is developing from previous. so Einstein didn’t deserve to be overrated. he had make some incredible contribution, this is too subjective bullshit

  376. Anonymous / Aug 2 2013 4:39 pm

    Someone is butt frustrated.

  377. raju / Aug 2 2013 7:18 am

    It was okay till Stephen Hawking.
    but Albert Einstein is also in your list.Seriously??
    Clearly you are not a science lover.
    And you don’t know anything about STR and GTR and how Einstein did what he did.

    Now coming back to your post:-

    1) Einstein himself said that he had hard time with maths. So there is no point of being overrated. And obviously he was a physicist not a mathematician.
    2) Obviously he was a successor of james clerck maxwell and farady. Scientists don’t start their inventions from scratch. And if maxwell and faraday and others before him were so intelligent then why couldn’t they do what einstein did.
    3) One doesn’t need a high IQ for such discoveries. what is required is love , passion and lots of time.
    4) You compared him with riemann. As i said he was not a mathematician. But it was his idea…

    sorry i wanted to write more but i think you don’t deserve even this much.
    next time, go write a blog on politics or “how to make people like you”:) but stay away from physics.

    • Salil / Aug 6 2013 2:48 pm

      I love this response. Had the same shock in my eyes when Einstein came up in this list. The miracle year of 1905, the perseverance to move from the special theory to learn all the mathematics needed and then to conceive of the idea that gravitational interactions result from the geometry of a 4 Dimensional space time – if this is not genius, no idea what is.

  378. referencement conseils / Aug 2 2013 5:49 am

    Thank you, I have recently been looking
    for information about this topic for a while and yours is
    the greatest I’ve discovered till now. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you positive concerning the source?

  379. Anonymous / Aug 1 2013 2:28 am

    Trollin ?

  380. Abdulbak / Jul 30 2013 2:34 pm

    He also states “Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list.” This moron is probably some sort of christian moron.

  381. Anonymous / Jul 30 2013 10:15 am

    Fucking idiot motherfucker, die… Pythagor theory you say might seem simple NOW, although it would look impossible at the times he invented that, it was like middle-ages… Leonardo Da Vinci had plans for Planes in middle ages and air ballons, he drew Mona Lisa, you think this might seem nothing so what Mona Lisa, well maybe you pretty much know NOTHING about art and deep shit about it so you can’t understand why it is unavailable to say how much would it be worth… 1 grader bitch gtfo to school and after 12 years kill yourself, so no other people have to teach irrogant fuckers… Btich your mother is a fucking whore spammer motherfucking gay, lesbian BITCH LIKE YOU DAD. Her pussy is not deep but negative so she has pussy-type dick…

  382. Anonymous 2111 / Jul 27 2013 4:29 am

    To itsnobody:

    This article and the comments are the funniest I’ve ever seen!! I am going to ask a few questions about the article because of the amount of controversy surrounding the article.

    What is your personal definition of ‘Overrated’?
    What is your personal definition of ‘Genius’?
    What qualities must a person possess to be defined as a genius?
    Is being overrated connected to the media? Explain.
    Did you want to prove a certain point to the public using this article? If so, what was that point?
    What do you think about the controversial comments that surround your article?

    P.S. This is not a personal attack on you … I just have a few inquiries about this article:)

  383. crossx / Jul 25 2013 11:13 am

    you are such a nuisance. I’m a physics student and i know the difference between Einstein and Faraday. Faraday had nothing to do with theoretical physics but Einstein’s relativity is purely theoretical. Don’t give wrong information to people. Einstein was one of the greatest physicists and he will stay as a great physicist, what he brought is so revolutionary that you can’t just neglect it.
    If it wasn’t for Einstein I would have fallen into your trap of degrading all these geniuses.

  384. Anonymous / Jul 23 2013 11:40 am

    Whoever wrote this is obviously not a genius either. The author of this blog is not credible or reliable and most likely not educated.

  385. a / Jul 21 2013 8:38 am

    This website is great 5f7604f39762c98d851823727ded3113

  386. Anonymous / Jul 15 2013 8:01 pm

    Whoever wrote this is clearly retarded.
    You can tell by the continual allusions to IQ, and how x didn’t have a high IQ or probably didn’t have a high iq = therefore not a genius. The idea that you require a high IQ to be a genius, or that you aren’t a genius even if you made important contributions but had a low IQ… is a sure sign of complete idiocy.

    • Tom / Aug 7 2013 6:39 pm

      Yes, there is some bouncer with an IQ of 195 who is trying to get scientific papers about God’s existence published in peer-reviewed journals. A high IQ doesn’t necessitate genius.

  387. Muhammad / Jul 14 2013 12:33 pm

    These men have all contributed to the world in a gargantuan way. Albert Einstein for example made a theory that would take us to the moon. Bill gates is not a genius in the fields of engineering or any type of science. Although he was a genius in business and excelled Microsoft forward no matter what happened. These are my regards on this entry.

  388. TBA / Jul 12 2013 11:58 am

    Great, If Leornardo da Vinci wasn’t a genius who will be? He contributed to humanity in many ways.. He is considered genius because many people appreciate his effort, and you’re not.. Just because someone expanding other theory it doesn’t mean they are less intellect than the founder, IN FACT they should be more genius as they can think outside the box while the founder only stuck on that theory they found, They can found something new from something else and it is in fact harder than found something that completely new as the room for someone to found something beyond something is lesser. Let’s say that Albert Einstein found something use Faraday as inspiration, in fact he is genius if we consider Faraday as genius then Einstein is beyond that, because he could found something that even Faraday the genius couldn’t realize or found…

    And nobody said Bill Gates build computer, only you said that, so according to that you’re maybe the atheist, He is called Genius because he was from office boy then he can create Microsoft and make the company like now.. Not many people can do it, being able to crawl from bottom to the top..

    Please appreciate them, called them genius was some ways to appreciate their efforts.. face it they are geniuses.. You are able to live with this kind of technology, live like now is indirectly from them!

    • DC / Sep 9 2013 3:01 pm

      I’m an artist and industrial designer and work for an automotive company as the designer and finished a car at the age of 24 & currently designing a motorcycle at 25, its honestly a mental puzzle balancing aesthetics and practicality or feasibility to be made, while considering budgets and communication with others. I am fairly intelligent academically with honours for 3 years out of 4 and highest achievement awards in several classes during high school and excelled in university as an art student, since I wanted to pursue my natural ability. I won’t go as far as to say or brag that I’m a genius, but a lot of IQ questions are stupid and sometimes based on cultural references/useless knowledge never to be utilized in the real world. A lot of people can be smart academically, but to be multi-talented and to convey senses such as visuals as a communication medium is incredibly special, since its going beyond what you know exist (which engineers tend to fail at), while a good designer predicts the future trends and makes things work with form and function in mind. Steve Jobs wouldn’t be considered by some as a genius or anywhere without a product or idea. He was always trying to make his products minimal and user friendly (sometimes not) like the Mac one click mouse. He was a businessman, who understood artists’ wants and got high to try new things that would blow his mind to think in new ways as a young inventor. But nothing would exist properly if you think da Vinci’s art and design is discredited as being genius, even if some of his work was trial and error. If you keep trying to make your ideas succeed, even after countless failed attempts – but seeking new approaches/methods (similar to a scientific hypothesis/discovery) and eventually figure out the solution, then that good idea its golden and a platform to build off of for the future. You might not like to think of it or agree with me, but Leonardo da Vinci was a true genius as the first industrial designer that inspired so many inventions in his wake, even military inventions and was one of the first to draw through objects and the anatomy of dead people, as they were rotting since their bodies couldn’t be chilled (also look for the fetus sketchbook work). If that isn’t remarkable then you have no clue what is, since that thought process back in the day inspired doctors to understand our insides and 4D baby monitoring that is now considered a new and ingenious invention. The screw is one of the most important inventions since almost everything needs it to be constructed from your IKEA table, house and computer.

      Anyways, a side note: I totally agree that Steven Hawking is overrated and praised to know all secrets of the universe. Thats being naive to rely on this guy, as a lot of people are sheep to latch on to those smarter than them or give off the impression of being intelligent and sophisticated.

  389. lame / Jul 8 2013 2:17 am

    This guy is just unhappy that his favourite geniuses werent as publicized as the above people. Let me clarify someth. First of all Bill Gates is considered a business genius. So it’s unfair to compare him with engineering and science geniuses. Second, just because you took the theory and discoveries made by others and improve and expand on them don’t make you overrated. If thats the case then every genius is overrated because they were educated in school before and guess what, they are absorbing the ideas and theories made by their predecessors and continue to expand and improve on them

  390. Louis / Jul 7 2013 6:26 pm

    I agree with much of the information in this post.

    However, there is no need to condescend these men simply because a pack of idiots put them on a pedestal.

  391. jack bouse / Jul 7 2013 4:07 am

    werent the nazi scientists really smart? i dont know, i saw a show on the nazis and their propuslion jets (i have no clue wtf imtalking about btw, i fell asleep like halfway thru the show). then it said the USA took the Nazi Scientists(after they lost ofc) and made the whole NASA thang with them, and they helped us make the Apollo Rockets? dont call me stupid lol

  392. PFFFT / Jul 6 2013 2:33 pm

    What an obviously biased thread . For e.g. Leornado wasnt considered a genius because of his paintings/inventions/designs or whatnot. he was considered a genius because he was considered by many the most diversely talented person to ever exist. he was a genius polymath. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. You say many of his designs/inventions were impractical. well duh, he imagined the future 500 years later obviously there will be inconsistencies and inaccuracies. But the important point is him being one of the few (maybe the only one) to imagine what engineering technology is going to be like in the far future and conceptually draw out the designs for future studies. in fact he heralded the era of engineering mechanics. his tensile strength test was of utmost significance in engineering. He was the one who started linking art with science with his anatomy works and of course his most famous drawing, the Virtruvian Man. He greatly advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of anatomy, astronomy, civil engineering, optics and hydrodynamics.

    So the question now is, should people only be considered “genius” only when they make unparalleled contributions or theorized/invented something before another being of equal/greater intellect? Are you overrated because your inventions dont work out as expected even when you lived at a age where animal intestines and cloths were being used as condoms?

    The fact is the term genius is used in many ways. In the case of Da Vin Ci, he is called a Universal Genius (Polymath), same with Tesla. Benjamin Franklin was a polymath as well. People like Einstein and Newton who were experts in a single subject are purely just called geniuses. So there you have it, very biased article because the people listed above were considered overrated just because they discovered something later than others or because their inventions were impratical or because your discoveries seem less important and easy than another’s.

  393. / Jul 6 2013 9:33 am

    “I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me.”

    Because HE GENERATED $67 BILLION DOLLARS that’s why!

  394. Werner Heisenberg / Jul 5 2013 10:12 am

    It’s incredible how poorly educated about Einstein most commentators on here are. One would assume that, given his popularity, the masses would take it upon themselves to read Einstein’s definitive biography by Walter Isaacson essentially refuting the myth that Einstein was bad at math/ On the contrary, he EXCELLED at math. In fact, according to original manuscripts from the Zurich Polytechnique Institute and earlier accounts, Einstein MASTERED multi-variable calculus by the age of 13. Let me repeat that for the illiterates on this blog, Einstein MASTERED multi-variable calculus by the time he was 13. Moreover, General Relativity, merely one of Einstein’s MANY accomplishments –also including Special Relativity, Bose-Einstein Condensation, proving and calculating the size of atoms (brownian motion), the photoelectric effect, just to name a few–requires non-euclidean geometry. This is PURE mathematics: Riemann tensors, advanced 4-d topology, all woven within the superstructure of a theory of gravity that most physicists agree is the greatest conception of the human mind. Einstein overrated? Psssh, There’s only scientist that might be ranked above him, Newtown, and his great mathematical discovery was actually invented slightly earlier by a philosopher named Leibniz (calculus).

    Sit down before you chat nonsense.

    • clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right / Nov 17 2013 1:49 am

      This is false. Leibniz discovered the calculus independently, but Newton did it first. Newton did not publish it for many years, but there is no doubt that he had formulated his own version of the calculus about 10 year before Leibniz.

      Be a bit more careful when you accuse someone else of writing nonsense that you have not committed the same offense yourself.

  395. Dr. Leslie Nelson / Jul 4 2013 10:56 am

    I agree with some of the names on your list; I think it is quite clear that the term “genius” is often misused. Albert Einstein I would consider, without question, a genius. While it is true that Special Relativity (SR) was very much “in the air” in the early years of the 20th century and maybe four or five other theorists would have soon published a theory similar to SR, I truly believe, along with many other physicists, that General Relativity was a contribution to knowledge on another level. Einstein was not a great mathematician but he was not a bad one either and along with his great gift of intuition (a quality shared by Feynman and some notable others) he was able to provide a theory that, at the time, was remarkably advanced. Incidently, the research papers that earned him the Nobel Prize are remarkable and would justify the term “genius”.

  396. Dr. Leslie Nelson / Jul 4 2013 10:43 am

    I agree with some of the names on this list but the comments regarding Einstein are misplaced.

  397. Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:41 am

    And out of his mouth comes a torrent of utter literal stupidity.

  398. iq == 169 / Jul 1 2013 4:28 pm

    Not impressed at all, but the troll got us to comment so its a kinda win.

  399. Go / Jun 30 2013 9:13 pm

    The guy, I mean “IDIOT” who wrote this list is just a completely jealous moron.WHAT HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BESIDES YOUR IDIOCY???

    • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:47 am

      Mr author, the biggest problem with your article is not how stupid it is or how lacking in unbiased truth it is, but how incredibly moronically, ignorantly stupid you are. Thank you for your time.

  400. ihateyou / Jun 27 2013 6:12 am

    Einstein is considered as the greatest physicist or genious not only by the the common people but by great mathematicians and physicists. You are a big loser man. No one said bill gates invented computer, he invented windows, if you think the building windows from scratch is not a big thing then why dont you create a new operating system :p

  401. top eleven hack token / Jun 26 2013 7:22 am

    This piece of writing will assist the internet people for building up new weblog or even a
    weblog from start to end.

    • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:39 am

      and lower the average intelligence 300%


  402. anonymus / Jun 23 2013 7:16 am

    you sir, are fucking stupid

  403. Anon / Jun 18 2013 3:05 pm

    I actually find this quite amusing myself, it’s a classic way of persuading people with very little prior knowledge of the topic by giving very little information and using it as an example as to why it is wrong. Assuming, of course, that is what the author is doing. I mean maybe that is truly all he knows about these men! Of course there are some things I agreed with, the reality Thomas Edison got any credit was basically because Nikola Tesla was at first his understudy. That and Nikola Tesla was much too far ahead of his time leaving him broke on the day he passed, very sad one of the smartest men to walk this Earth contributed a lot to this society and died nearly penniless. If this tells you anything Thomas Edison invented the electric chair for the sole reason to destroy AC’s reputation. Just think of a world with nothing but DC? Electrician would definitely have a more difficult job that is for sure. But there is much irony in this. The fact that he is discrediting Da Vinci as being a genius and then trying to help his own case with something Da Vinci said is just comical. Really if you are so angry about whenever people build off of another’s idea you should be mad at every inventor for in a sense building off the wheel, because that ancient man deserves all of the credit. But you complain about the media, if you are that upset with the media for not giving the whole story get used to it, because it is what is contributing majorly to all the negatives about society. You also have to look at how some of these geniuses were ahead of there time, looking foward a few hundred years I would say we will all look pretty stupid. But it was there contributions and ideas and how far into the future it was that hails them of being a great thinker. I can understand Bill Gates and Thomas Edison to the degree they were great thinkers but also very good business men. They did not originate all of their ideas. I cannot, however, take that off of your hands for Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, becuase even if they did not contribute greatly to the world of science that is not so much their role as they are good at eduacating people, which in the end is the goal anyways right? It’s like getting mad at your teacher for telling the Gettysburg Address because Abraham Lincoln himself did not give it to you. I understand you want the people who should be credited to get the respect they deserve but most of these men are very humble I am sure or else they would have had it known anyways. On top of that it is usually the person who perfects something that gets the credit. I’m not sure if you know much about guns but it’s kind of like how there is a caliber called the 30-6, now a company called Winchester perfected a version of this caliber so if you buy that type of bullet it will say 30-6 WIN because they get the credit regardless of who makes the round. It doesn’t matter who started the idea of the caliber or who ended up using it, it is who perfects it that gets to stamp their name on it. And that is the way it is with a lot of the world. It seems like this list is based off of a cold cut, black and white perspective of how a genius should be when in the reality of it it is much more complex and you must look at the aspects of the way they have contributed to the science society, only then may you find it may be a bigger role than what you had thought.

  404. film xxx en streming / Jun 17 2013 7:22 am

    F*ckin tremendous things here. Im very glad to see your
    post. Thanks a lot and i am looking forward to contact you.

    Will you please drop me a e-mail?

  405. siggi / Jun 14 2013 7:21 pm

    this is bullshit, you are just jealous.

  406. Anonymous / Jun 14 2013 2:40 pm

    this is rubbish leonardo da vinci was still pretty smart but one of archemedes best inventions was already being used in plays before he transferred it to war.

  407. Ed / Jun 14 2013 2:12 pm

    I don’t know much about the other people on your list. I know Einstein is not overrated though. Math is no fucking fun to do. That’s why he wasn’t good at math. There is a difference between laziness and mental ability. People like the author are so confused about how the world works all the time.

  408. Anonymous / Jun 13 2013 6:32 am

    What a load of guff.

  409. Anonymous / Jun 10 2013 1:37 pm

    The reality of genius is being part of a community with other great minds and sharing/building your ideas off what other people have come up with. So there’s nothing wrong with perfecting something someone else has done/already thought of.

    Another point is that the most successful people have failed many, many times before they succeeded. Failure is just part of the process for anybody. Having a super high iq wouldn’t necessarily protect you from failure.

    There are other’s not mentioned in the comments section such as Leibniz (iq 205), he independently discovered calculus and was considered to have a higher iq than Newton (iq 190). Also nobody mentioned goethe (iq 210) a hailed universal genius. There are many others not mentioned such as Emanuel Kant, Emanuel Swedenborg, Francis Galton.

    Perhaps the Geniuses mentioned on the list are a bit “overrated” but they are some of the greatest in human history. Just learn to watch what you say and make sure you’re not attacking them because that’s what inspires anger in others. Everyone knows that Einstein was a poor mathematician but in the end genius is all about originality, creativity, and the final product not so much about how you arrived there. So the people who attack Einstein because of his poor mathematical ability are being rather petty!!!

  410. necax / Jun 9 2013 7:07 pm

    There is something very important that you’re forgetting about the DaVinci. Even though his inventions did not work, all bases were correct and allowed others (some cases only 500 years later) to perfected them, as the case of the helicopter and the human proportions. If you still care to see that the church still persecuted men of science and all social barriers that had in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, you are actually dealing with a genial man as ever existed in the world. Not for being the best but because it was the one that opened more doors for modern science. I know that technically, Newton or Copernicus were better. But they didn’t open the doors of science (and art) as DaVinci.

    Pardom my english but it’s not my main language

  411. Anonymous / Jun 8 2013 4:51 am

    When someone else as bored as you compiles a list of the dumbest and most ignorant people who have lived, i’m certain you will place first.

    • itsnobody / Jun 9 2013 8:19 am

      I’m certain that throwing personal attacks at me refutes nothing that I’ve said, which is something that lots of people don’t get.

      In the future once free speech is gone, I’m certain that won’t happen, even if I end up to be a world-changing figure.

      I’ll release a Top 10 list of underrated geniuses or a Top 10 list of just the best geniuses soon…

      • Anon / Jun 18 2013 2:38 pm

        It’s funny how you comment on the person with the poorest argument and is only attacking you personally whenever plenty of people have refuted your points and no comment is found. Well I guess you have to pick your battles, though preying on the weak-minded will make you no smarter.

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 9:35 am

        When you try to design something 100 years ahead of it’s time, and actually do and prove your IQ is above 80 (equal to some gorillas) come back to this article and see if you still think Leonardo da Vinci is an idiot.

        if so, you sir, are as dumb as a rock

    • Anonymous / Jun 15 2013 4:29 pm

      Exactly this kid hopefully is trolling because this is probably the biggest bullshit article I have EVER READ

  412. Anonymous / Jun 7 2013 6:36 am

    Has the writer ever read about the biography of the individuals before making the articles? Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. His works were well-known and established in each field. How many humans in history have achieved that? Try to draw some paintings and see how many people will pay for it. How about inventing something that will become useful? How about mastering 12 fields with significant accomplishments? Leonardo da Vinci is the genius of all time. Anyone can master a field and become a genius in that field, but to master more than 10 fields that is a whole new level.

  413. Anonymous / Jun 3 2013 12:55 am

    The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius.

    Needs the word “are” after geniuses or the sentence makes no sense. You could change geniuses to genius and that would work also.

  414. Anonymous / May 30 2013 8:39 am

    Leonardo da Vinci illustrates with the correct perspective, he even masteres human proportions… Are you sure that the people built his inventions in an exact way his mind is thinking? Maybe he has a technique on building his own inventions… We don’t know what he is really thinking… But still, he knows how to illustrate with the correct perspective….

  415. Anonymous / May 30 2013 12:08 am

    Good list. The arguments, clarified by further comments in this section, are impeccable. Just to emphasize the later comments: (1) IQ doesn’t matter significantly, as you clarified. (2) Einstein was a genius par excellence, but so were other physicists who don’t get the same exposure.

    Without a doubt the most ingenious human, in the scientific realm, is Newton. Often I wonder how past scientists would fare today, but I typically conclude that science would be the same – save for one scientist: Newton. I truly wonder what impact he would make if he was here today…

    • Anonymous / Jun 14 2013 12:03 am

      Past scientists, in one regard, had it much easier. (In another, much harder, obviously.)
      I remember my old Organic Chemistry professor having a chat with me over a smoke outside the building one day. He told me that one of his Physical Chemistry end of 1st year questions was derive Schrodinger’s equation. He was asked the exact same question in his finals. Modern science degrees can’t do that: the body of knowledge modern scientists need to assimilate before they can be even remotely useful at the cutting edge is absolutley mind blowing now.

      I still think Newton would cut it somehow. I would personally advance Turing as the greatest blue sky thinker of all time though, with Newton at #2. Cracking Enigma, deriving the mathematical rules governing computing, and sussing out morphogenesis…

      If we want to get into “Ignored by the media” upper echelon genii, how about Linus Pauling? Easily the greatest Chemist of the 20th Century.

  416. ben / May 26 2013 10:47 pm

    I don’t agree with everyone on your list, but I agree that Dr. Kaku is overrated. He works at CCNY which has had nine Nobel Laureates but isn’t even close to ranking in with colleges like Stanford. If he was such a brilliant professor, a more prestigious college would have offered him a professorship. He is famous because he makes science easy to understand which isn’t a bad thing, but it doesn’t make him a genius. It just makes him a great communicator and entertainer. My friends who attended Irvine and became engineers don’t really think much of him.

    • Anonymous / Jun 6 2013 6:15 am

      Kaku may be overrated, but your arguments that he is are rather petty and silly.

      By your reasoning, every professor at a more prestigious college should be more brilliant than he is.

      You also contradict yourself by saying or asking “If he was such a brilliant professor…” and then saying “He is famous because he makes science easy to understand.” That sort of is the definition of understanding and brilliants in the subject.

      Also, it’s really a leap in conclusion to make judgement of a persons brilliants based on where they work. There could be so many reasons for why he is at CUNY – like perhaps he wants to live in New York… or maybe they offered him something he couldn’t refuse.

      “Kaku graduated summa cum laude at Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972” – Wikipedia

      I think that makes what your “engineer” friends “think” about him is sort of irrelevant and I don’t even know why you would need their opinions of him for you to make up your mind.

  417. p. / May 25 2013 10:42 am

    Why are you so obsessed with IQ-tests? They aren’t empiric at all.

  418. Anonymous / May 19 2013 3:46 pm

    How would you define genius?

  419. Anonymous / May 19 2013 2:43 pm

    Dude Nikola ATesla was better than Thomas Edison O.o

    • pablo / May 20 2013 12:43 am

      I agree

  420. radio control / May 11 2013 8:30 pm

    Greetings from Colorado! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the info you present here and can’t
    wait to take a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m
    not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, fantastic blog!

  421. Anonymous / May 11 2013 10:04 am

    I think despite the claims you have made, he was still knew an incredible amount of breadth in such a wide array of topic areas, plus he was very original, he saw the world with a different vision, id say his IQ would have to be at least 150+ and 200 is not too generous. There’s not many people in the world today who could simultaneously study art and law and at the same time be a painter and inventor, Da Vinci was exceptional and there is no doubt about that.

  422. Hüseyin / May 11 2013 5:30 am

    You know nothing about da vinci. He could use his brain 100 times than you. He is a great genius.

  423. AAK / May 10 2013 9:17 am

    You yourself is overrated person!

  424. Anonymous / May 8 2013 6:26 pm

    You said ” ignored by the media” so many time that i believe it ma stem from a personal realization. Also, who are you to judge which geniuses are or aren’t overrated when you obviously have no existing genius qualities. You, sir, are just an average poser who is trying to be smart using false clams. In my opinion the only overrated thing here is you.

    • TK / May 9 2013 5:53 pm

      In truth, the author of this list is an underrated genius. In truth, he is ignored by the media. In truth, he is a literary genius who uses a variety of phrases to drive his points home. In truth, Da Vinci really was just a stupid seventh grader who was bored in a geography lesson and ended up sketching the basis for several of the most important inventions used today. In truth, “Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.” The irony in this statement strikes me as very amusing. In truth, this whole comment was another overrated statement from the media against the true genius that is… (what do 10 year olds like? Oh yeah…) socks.

      Since it’s highly likely that a 5th grader posted this, I feel obliged to tell you (as an older 8th grader myself) that that was sarcasm. Please, do mention if this post was sarcastic or serious (and if serious, were you sober when you posted it?) You can’t honestly be saying that the ten people on that list haven’t contributed much to science. For god’s sake, Einstein came up with relativity! Michio Kaku is making science accessible to people with a pocket of pennies and a curious mind (enter moi) everywhere! Da Vinci… who do you think gave us the basis for the aeroplane? The tank? The machine gun?
      Hawking’s a proven mathematical genius. And James Watson was pushing it. Just a simple observation? The next time you see a person who survived a genetic disorder living their life happily, remember that man, James Watson and his partner, Francis Crick, remember the men who’s work they used and then think about what they observed and what it has done for humanity.

      Yes, humankind has had more geniuses than we could ever count or compile into a list, but the ten men on this particular list aren’t overrated. They are some of the finest humanity has to offer.

      • Anonymous / Jun 1 2013 9:36 pm

        You sir, just made my day.

      • Salil / Aug 6 2013 2:53 pm

        Fantastic response

  425. Johnw1104 / May 4 2013 9:07 pm

    Am I the only one who felt like he was reading a 5th grader’s homework assignment? Lord, I’ve never seen one word repeated so many times… May I never hear the phrase “ignored by the media” again.

    The only one I agreed with was Pythagoras, and even there you seemed to be relying on assumption and common perception rather than proper research.

    Forgive me, but I was expecting a little more from an author who deemed himself worthy of belittling the intellects and contributions of some of history’s greatest minds.

  426. Anonymous / May 4 2013 7:54 pm


  427. Anonymous / Apr 29 2013 8:00 pm

    Considering that half of your arguments for non-genius are that their achievements were independently rediscovered or non-original, how about Newton’s seminal achievement being independently (and much more cleanly) stated IN HIS OWN DAY by Leibniz?

    Not to mention the man believed that alchemy was possible,

    I still consider Newton to be a genius though; if you do as well, then most of your arguments against people on this list are void.

  428. Anonymous / Apr 26 2013 4:54 pm

    Obviously the author of this is just trying to make profite by using the names of popular persons doing rediculous and provovating statements.

    The best thing to do would be to just ignore this stinking bullshit and just don’t react on it anymore by adding no more futher comments.

    Unfortunatally this will probably not happend as one can see by my comment (shit again).

  429. Anonymous / Apr 26 2013 10:54 am

    Shoot yourself, einstein overrated? Physics as we know it is much based on Albert Einsteins equations. Where do you even get this from ?

  430. Bullshit / Apr 26 2013 1:04 am

    the genius of human kind is isaac newton

    his mathematics still useful even 400 years after. Not even einstein or da vinci can be matched with him.

    • Anon / May 3 2013 8:09 pm

      soo ignorant. Attacking brilliant people as idiots because we admire their achievements. And theres nothing wrong with drawing from other peoples ideas? As newton said “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

  431. JK / Apr 25 2013 9:29 pm

    All of these people have achieved something great, which might not make them genius per say, but it sure does make them something. Even if Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, the concepts that had to be grasped in order to even think of such ideas in his time would absolutely make him a genius, if nothing else. Clearly, you’re just an ignorant snob that’s just jealous of these people’s achievements because you’ve never accomplished anything even close to comparing with these great minds.

    • Walking toad / May 6 2013 2:48 pm

      Couldn’t have put it in better words myself.

    • WTFFTW / May 30 2013 7:28 pm

      I know Right? I mean, damn, Leonardo couldn’t couldn’t get his inventions to work half the time, but look at the time he was in! The fact that he could draw the stuff he did was amazing, let alone build a working version of it… I mean, armored tanks, machine guns and diving suits, lets see you guys go back to the 1500’s and make a machine gun, He is a genius in his own right and you are a lowlife who thinks its cool to dispute real genius.

  432. Anonymous / Apr 24 2013 8:50 pm

    Da Vinci is the greatest mind in history. I would want to point out that other genius’s agree with me. You’re a annoying brat that thinks that if you point out flaws in other people you will be smarter than them. My 8 year old brother is smarter than you. All of the genius’s on this list made contributions to history. Some of them even helped make this computer you are typing on.

    • [citation needed] / Apr 26 2013 12:47 pm

      Who were the geniuses who said that and on what merit?

    • Anonymous / Jun 1 2013 1:46 pm

      i agree leonardo da vinci is the greatest mind in history. i think that you are just stupid and in order to make yourself feel better you insult others.

  433. Anonymous / Apr 22 2013 10:01 pm

    Ignorance is bliss, it seems. You are a blind, and foolish. Open your eyes, child. Clarity and an open mind will turn a child into a man. Maybe then, we shall debate, for I do not argue with children, the same way I will not tolerate a blind man insulting the genius of those who he cannot see.

  434. vvasss / Apr 22 2013 4:51 pm

    you suck!

  435. Anonymous / Apr 22 2013 2:49 am

    This guy is really stupid

  436. Sean / Apr 22 2013 12:18 am

    A list compiled, obviously, by someone who would not compose a pimple on the backside of any of these men.

  437. Anonymous / Apr 21 2013 2:34 pm

    You’re a complete idiot! Einstein was a great mathematician! You fucking tool. Doy uo even study maths you retard?

    • Me? / Apr 26 2013 1:00 am

      einstein did not contribuited in mathematics

      • kd / Apr 29 2013 3:33 pm

        well,as for Einstein he is overrated..but that is justified…but I agree on the other point..about neglecting other equally great minds like Euler,Gauss of past and misha Gromov,ed witten of our time.

  438. Anonymous / Apr 21 2013 12:33 pm

    One thing is for sure, I cannot overrate the stupidity of this list.

  439. Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:29 pm

    lol this blog is so wrong are you saying that weinberg invented the electroweak theory, HELL NO it was abdus salam and edward witten probably is wrong since there’s no evidence for strings in nature.

    The rank is Newton > Schrodinger > Heisenberg > Dirac and Einstein by numbers of scientific constribuitions.

  440. kuhloysqnrfc / Apr 16 2013 12:14 pm


  441. Ralph / Apr 16 2013 5:05 am

    You are ignorant. IQ is based on percentage. To have an IQ of 100 would mean that you were 100% as smart as the average human so an IQ of 200+ is 100% possible. to have an IQ of 200 just means that you are 200% as smart as the average person. Please do not make any other web pages displaying your “knowledge.” You have sufficiently shown that you do not know what you are talking about and infecting the world with your ignorance is tantamount to illegal activity.

    • Anonymous / Apr 18 2013 8:31 am

      That is not how bell curves work.

      • Anonymous / Apr 18 2013 7:06 pm

        Bell curves are absolutely based on percentages. Area under the curve = 1 or 100% That said the IQ scale is not based on a bell curve. You can take the results and use a bell curve to determine how a result compares with others.

    • Anonymous / Jul 9 2013 3:04 am

      Barring the fact that IQ is mostly irrelevant (too many definitions and measures), this comment is extremely retarded. IQ of 200 is not 2 times as smart as the person with 100.

      First, why IQ is irrelevant: you would need a test that is capable of assigning points to such a discriminating degree that it separates average people from very smart from geniuses from once in a generation geniuses of geniuses. In other words, even if we had said utopic test, what this test’s results mean (score relative to other’s scores) is ONLY that let’s say 0.000000001% of the population is capable of answering most of the questions. Said questions could be about obscure specific knowledge, could be about having luck in choosing a correct answer, could involve mindless calculations over an extremely long period of time… and we are ignoring all external factors like cohort (extremely important for comparing historically).

      Second, IQ scores are NOT linear: Now, supposing we had an uberutopic test that placed scores for geniuses, lets say da vinci got 300, einstein 200, and you 100, it DOES NOT mean that da vinci is 3 times smarter that you or that einstein is twice as smart as you. IQ tests are based on a gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and standard deviation, lets say for the arguments sake of 15. What this means is that a person with an IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above you (100 means you score above 50% of the population, 115 means above ~68% of the population, 130 means above ~95% of the population, 145 above ~99.7% of the population). In other words, if we assigned scores based on the rank people get from the test, 130 IQ would mean many times smarter than 100. The same can be said of 145: it is many times smarter than 130. This means each extra IQ point scales exponentially.

      TLDR: Dont flatter yourself: you are not half as smart as einstein (luckily for the world’s sake)

  442. Anonymous / Apr 12 2013 11:52 pm

    da vinci is still one of the top ten geniuses, regardless of his iq, which was likely lower than people think. I would estimate 145-160. thomas edison was also one of the top ten. they are both overrated, that is true, but lets not underrate them like how your article does, just because they are overrated. albert einstein was not a genius at all. in order to be a genius you have to generate, there has to be genesis. albert einstein made a bunch of theories and one lame law that doesnt do anything. Issaac Newton created fundamental rules that are productive and true, and still hold today, among a league of other accomplishments. He was a real genius.

    Bill Gates and Stephen hawking are not geniuses at all, and are extremely overrated, so that you got correct.


    • John Eldrick / Apr 17 2013 9:39 am

      You are among the prime examples of infinite stupidity Einstein spoke of.
      Those “lame laws and theories” are one out of two pillars of modern science, while the foundations of the other one are largely Einstein’s doing as well. Furthermore, the most profound implication of quantum mechanics (non-locality) is idea of Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky.
      Even comparing Da Vinchi, an artist/polymath with wide range of interests and ambitions but ultimately no revolutionary success in any of scientific fields he was involved with, with geniuses like Einstein who singlehandedly reconstructed our entire understanding of reality is the absolute blasphemy.
      This is not a matter of opinion, it’s an objective consideration of facts.

      • John Eldrick / Apr 17 2013 10:08 am

        *Da Vinci

  443. Ab / Apr 11 2013 3:30 am

    I like that you belive in Charles Darwin’s geniuse!

  444. Cialis for order / Apr 10 2013 12:07 am

    fdgxkjutopcpez, Viagra, Qmfzbxf, [url=]Viagra for women[/url], yIspuRr, Viagra for women, fzNveVJ, Warning generic tadalafil, mLaObTs, [url=]Zenegra tadalafil vs sildenafil citrate[/url], AuRYVJR, Www tadalafil softtabs com, zUtmtPe, The Host Monster, ZFoYTxG, [url=]The host cgi monster effects[/url], nuXJHpr, Host monster photography, dgUGFhx, Dapoxetine, AylcWtI, [url=]Dapoxetine reviews[/url], ZomIkex, Dapoxetine europe, cAgyadx, Reverse Phone Lookup, SiHERAw, [url=]Reverse Phone[/url], zsjiWtM, Free reverse phone number search reports, EocXauM, Cialis hearing loss, loRALGb, [url=]Daily cialis pill[/url], kTzwqOp, Cialis, OvLyRVd.

  445. Europe online sale viagra / Apr 9 2013 11:47 pm

    ciczbjutopcpez, Free viagra sample, zVkwUDV, [url=]Viagra[/url], HvqNLQd, Cialis vs viagra, zRyEDbA, Vigrx plus avis, LRUACds, [url=]VigRX[/url], cfZAavA, Vigrx results, QOdRAiD, Viagra uk cheap purchase buy, rLCFeoU, [url=]Jamaica blog negril sex viagra[/url], ETxtrtU, Viagra online shop in uk, HPDVbDJ, Vigrx scam, ltNmrqn, [url=]Vigrx side effects[/url], SDkyZkH, VigRX, znujPJP, Provigil for depression, MSywoxQ, [url=]Provigil vs nuvigil[/url], ZDhOurN, Does provigil interact with diflucan, iPphirE, Xanax dosage, EcpxBMF, [url=]Cheap generic xanax[/url], lTfzLgN, xanax, AVwDbgK.

  446. mario / Apr 5 2013 8:19 pm

    que nos deja de conclucion este trabajo, sencillo no se necesita tener un gran IQ para destacar en un ámbito como la ciencia, simplemente la pasión por encontrar una respuesta, que al final de del dia sera mas importante que un numero ( el cual esta de igual forma sobre valorado ) no nos interesa el ser reconocidos como grandes genios si no como personas que por su curiosidad buscaron una respuesta:)

  447. Anonymous / Apr 4 2013 10:42 pm

    Well I believe you’ve done an adequate job here itsnobody, the rather obvious true intended purpose of this article was not to supply an objective overview of the actual prowess of the public’s perception of history’s genius, nor to supply a subjective one, nor even to spark up a spirited scientific debate (you’ve done an adequate job of thwarting that too). The real ( and far more juvenile) purpose of this article was in fact to draw attention to yourself, to showcase what you perceive to be your superior intellect, and to attract a crowd who would perhaps be inflamed enough to listen to your drivel. In that respect I would like to congratulate you, your ‘brilliant’ scheme worked, perhaps the ruckus you have drummed up would be sufficient to quell what must be an exceptionally juvenile, insecure, and overall hugely inflamed ego. My only regret is that by posting this I play right into your hands, i would suggest that you move on, and instead express your intellect in a more reputable, respectable, and honorable manner, but I doubt you will listen. I hope you find this EXCEEDINGLY ad hominem. Thanks for the read.:)

  448. Anonymous / Apr 4 2013 9:44 pm

    I find it interesting that the author didn’t bother to mention the fact that Thomas Edison stole the design (and patent) for the copper filaments in “his” light bulbs from his assistant, Lewis Latimer

  449. BoB / Apr 3 2013 8:57 am

    Yet, all of them are smarter than you, little man.

  450. gaia / Apr 2 2013 7:23 pm

    Hey…if your gonna attack Michio Kaku you’ve gotta attack Brian Cox (he is the British equivalent)….although they are great presenters….

  451. anonymous / Apr 2 2013 9:24 am

    Of course, Bill gates is no scientist. He is not shown in the media as having been one,rather he is famous for managerial skills. But regarding hawking and feynman i do agree with you. They are/were geniuses and first rate scientists but certainly not the greatest of their generation as being broadcasted by the media. Kaku is not even a first rate scientist. AGREED. Don’t know about edison, but yeah IQ does not define genius so agreed about sidis too. Butt einstein HELL no. He is one of the greatest scientists to have been ever born on earth. That mistake of yours clearly indicates you are a high school kid. Pythagoras again was a genius as was leonardo da vinci. And franklin as well as watson have also been credited with great discoveries. A layman wouldn’t even have come close.

  452. Marchcool / Apr 2 2013 4:37 am

    Clearly the person who wrote this article has a very little knowledge about physics or science. Physicists for instance, don’t deny the genius in Weinberg or Witten. It’s rather the writer of this pitiful “article” who does it.
    Saying that Einstein was not original and implying that Weinberg or Witten are even more, is a thing that only a person with a two-digit IQ would say.

  453. Sandrow / Apr 1 2013 11:32 pm

    Well I honestly agree to most degree, whoever wrote this was actually quite informed.

  454. Adelio Noriega / Apr 1 2013 3:27 pm

    Calling any of these men on the list overrated is a bit crappy. These men are considered geniuses not for the literal sense of intelligence but rather for the legacy they left behind,legacies that have changed man kind.Few people can do that,if you don’t believe me, trying changing the world through their fields the way they did,see if you can.

  455. et / Apr 1 2013 6:13 am


  456. Anonymous / Mar 30 2013 6:45 pm

    I would like you to try and think of the universe and express yourself while your are in an electrically moving chair and you can barely move your fingers.
    Then you will understand how “overestimated Hawking is…..and for christ sake a man who cannot move has proved that black holes exist(in physics).And i think that his IQ is about 160 which makes him a genious…

  457. John Eldrick / Mar 30 2013 12:50 pm

    Labeling Da Vinci as the “greatest genius in history” is idiocy on all possible levels, especially in regards to his blatantly made up IQ of 200+. That much I can agree on.
    However, In terms of the overall contribution to science, Einstein, Tesla and Newton indisputably reign at the very top as the Greatest Geniuses.
    When it comes to IQ on the other hand, Kim Ung-yong is the all-time record holder.

  458. Anonymous / Mar 29 2013 8:35 pm

    Einstein overrated?!????? Many of the others i agree with you. But not stephen hawking not Einstein, specially Einstein, you cannot be serious there.

  459. Nyaneshvar / Mar 28 2013 4:03 am

    TO be honest , i understand the lack of evidence about Sidis (the press etc) Precocious is different from genius, wheras there is a correlation.

    Sidis works werent understood by his peers at the moment and like a vicious circle he decided to abondon sciences. It was also reported that his mind was so powerful that even him couldn contorl himself and stop him of thinking (he was a chain worker)

  460. Steve / Mar 27 2013 7:55 am

    So much negativity to this but it is so true.
    Can someone tell me what great invention Da Vinci created that contributed to the World and set off the Industrial Revolution?I have looked at Da Vinci’s work and all he has is unworkable contraptions.He was a good painter but that is just a skill nothing to do with originality or the discovery of unknown secrets.Einstein never invented anything and his ideas are the work of his wife who was a brillant mathematician who was unable to sign as her work due to how women were treated in those times.
    I agree with this list but idiots are obviously brainwashed who think remembering or having some kind of skill is genius.
    Genius is someone who can problem solve ,who has knowledge about many things and who can use that knowledge to create something original that is not of this world.
    To me someone like Nikola Tesla is a pure genius because no matter what modern gadget you pick up you can be sure that a part of Tesla is in there somewhere.

    • Anonymous / Jul 25 2013 8:06 am

      Boil your head. Please. I love that you define painting as just a skill. “Just a skill.” Ponder that phrase. Then when realisation dawns, boil your head.

  461. steve / Mar 25 2013 5:14 am

    you can’t tell someone they’re not a smart person for not having a high IQ, you couldfind some kid who remembers hundred of formulas and gets 100% on their tests but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to problem solve, it’d be like asking a computer a problem that hasn’t got a solution yet, although it would know more then a person it can;t problem solve like that person, all these people are problem solvers and solved the problem they face

  462. Anonymous / Mar 24 2013 8:42 pm

    Einstein wasn’t a great mathematician?! He beat David Hilbert (WHAT OF THE GREATEST MATHEMATICIANS OF AL TIME) to the mathematics describing general relativity. He single handedly created an entire branch of physics with that theory by the way. E=mc^2 is an incredible accomplishment. He discovered/proved wave-particle duality etc etc etc. And stop mentioning Witten like you know something about string theory.

    • Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:25 pm

      actually david hilbert invented the mathematics for General Relativity as well the first introduction of Hilbert Space that is used in quantum mechanics

      DH > AE

      • John Eldrick / May 2 2013 5:43 pm

        Uh what? No, he did not. Pre-Einsteinian development of General Relativity is mostly due to Lorenz and Poincaré. Einstein ingeniously extended their work into his new aether-free, relativistic framework governed by non-euclidean geometry. Neither Lorentz nor Hilbert denied Einstein’s priority over the subject nor did the rest of his contemporaries. He is, all things considered, the greatest mind of 20th century.

  463. Anonymous / Mar 23 2013 11:07 am

    The blogger is such an idiot and I would obviously say that he/she is a rebel. There can be two ways why the blogger has written such idiotic stuffs :
    #1 Either he/she must be jealous of them being geniuses
    #2 Or the blogger must have wanted the readers to believe that he/she is great at judging things and ultimately would have wanted the readers to take him/her for a genius(this has got to be the ultimate reason!).

  464. El faraon volatil / Mar 23 2013 12:49 am

    jajaja …yeah!: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt. What makes me laugh was the time you expend to write all this lies. look: genious are serial producers: michio kaku produces tv series as if he goes to take 1 slide of cake, their mind is extremaly revolutioned, much more than you even could understand, because average people goes sloooower! than them, how can they judge what they are uncapable to reach in THEIR WHOLE LIFE. It is just like, oh! i don`t believe this hill is taller than me, so, you as hole, goes to the top of the hill and you say: oh see? -to every body- i`m taller than the hill!!… The only thing you do is to show up how small you realy feel of yourself. That`s it. Period.

  465. 4tesseract / Mar 20 2013 11:23 am

    “I wonder how controversial my claims will become.”

    They have become very controversial indeed.

  466. Anonymous / Mar 18 2013 6:06 pm

    Bull crap Leanardo Da Vinci built the tank and aqua gear and the projector and helicopter and bicycle! He is not an idiot! You are

  467. ironage / Mar 12 2013 10:18 am

    This whole article reads like an 8th grader wrote it.

  468. wetham / Mar 7 2013 7:06 am
    Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Italian pronunciation: [leoˈnardo da ˈvintʃi] pronunciation (help·info)) (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519, Old Style) was an Italian Renaissance polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. His genius, perhaps more than that of any other figure, epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal. Leonardo has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance Man, a man of “unquenchable curiosity” and “feverishly inventive imagination”.[1] He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived.[2] According to art historian Helen Gardner, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent and “his mind and personality seem to us superhuman, the man himself mysterious and remote”.[1] Marco Rosci states that while there is much speculation about Leonardo, his vision of the world is essentially logical rather than mysterious, and that the empirical methods he employed were unusual for his time.[3] Born out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman, Caterina, at Vinci in the region of Florence, Leonardo was educated in the studio of the renowned Florentine painter, Verrocchio. Much of his earlier working life was spent in the service of Ludovico il Moro in Milan. He later worked in Rome, Bologna and Venice, and he spent his last years in France at the home awarded him by Francis I. Leonardo was and is renowned[2] primarily as a painter. Among his works, the Mona Lisa is the most famous and most parodied portrait[4] and The Last Supper the most reproduced religious painting of all time, with their fame approached only by Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam.[1] Leonardo’s drawing of the Vitruvian Man is also regarded as a cultural icon,[5] being reproduced on items as varied as the euro, textbooks, and T-shirts. Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number because of his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques, and his chronic procrastination.[nb 2] Nevertheless, these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, compose a contribution to later generations of artists rivalled only by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo. Leonardo is revered[2] for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator,[6] and the double hull, and he outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime,[nb 3] but some of his smaller inventions, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded.[nb 4] He made important discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, but he did not publish his findings and they had no direct influence on later science.[7] Contents [hide] 1 Life 1.1 Childhood, 1452–66 1.2 Verrocchio’s workshop, 1466–76 1.3 Professional life, 1476–1513 1.4 Old age, 1513–19 2 Relationships and influences 2.1 Florence: Leonardo’s artistic and social background 2.2 Personal life 2.3 Assistants and pupils 3 Painting 3.1 Early works 3.2 Paintings of the 1480s 3.3 Paintings of the 1490s 3.4 Paintings of the 1500s 3.5 Drawings 4 Observation and invention 4.1 Journals and notes 4.2 Scientific studies 4.3 Anatomy 4.4 Engineering and inventions 5 Fame and reputation 6 See also 7 Footnotes 8 References 9 Bibliography 10 External links Life See also: Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life Childhood, 1452–66 Leonardo’s childhood home in Anchiano Leonardo’s earliest known drawing, the Arno Valley (1473), Uffizi Leonardo was born on April 15, 1452 (Old Style), “at the third hour of the night”[nb 5] in the Tuscan hill town of Vinci, in the lower valley of the Arno River in the territory of the Medici-ruled Republic of Florence.[9] He was the out-of-wedlock son of the wealthy Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci, a Florentine legal notary, and Caterina, a peasant.[8][10][nb 6] Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, “da Vinci” simply meaning “of Vinci”: his full birth name was “Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci”, meaning “Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci”.[9] The inclusion of the title “ser” indicated that Leonardo’s father was a gentleman. Little is known about Leonardo’s early life. He spent his first five years in the hamlet of Anchiano in the home of his mother, then from 1457 he lived in the household of his father, grandparents and uncle, Francesco, in the small town of Vinci. His father had married a sixteen-year-old girl named Albiera, who loved Leonardo but died young.[11] When Leonardo was sixteen his father married again, to twenty-year-old Francesca Lanfredini. It was not until his third and fourth marriages that Ser Piero produced legitimate heirs.[12] Leonardo received an informal education in Latin, geometry and mathematics. In later life, Leonardo recorded only two childhood incidents. One, which he regarded as an omen, was when a kite dropped from the sky and hovered over his cradle, its tail feathers brushing his face.[13] The second occurred while exploring in the mountains. He discovered a cave and was both terrified that some great monster might lurk there and driven by curiosity to find out what was inside.[11] Leonardo’s early life has been the subject of historical conjecture.[14] Vasari, the 16th-century biographer of Renaissance painters, tells of how a local peasant made himself a round shield and requested that Ser Piero have it painted for him. Leonardo responded with a painting of a monster spitting fire which was so terrifying that Ser Piero sold it to a Florentine art dealer, who sold it to the Duke of Milan. Meanwhile, having made a profit, Ser Piero bought a shield decorated with a heart pierced by an arrow, which he gave to the peasant.[15] The Baptism of Christ (1472–1475)—Uffizi, by Verrocchio and Leonardo Verrocchio’s workshop, 1466–76 In 1466, at the age of fourteen, Leonardo was apprenticed to the artist Andrea di Cione, known as Verrocchio, whose workshop was “one of the finest in Florence”.[16] Other famous painters apprenticed or associated with the workshop include Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Botticelli, and Lorenzo di Credi.[11][17] Leonardo would have been exposed to both theoretical training and a vast range of technical skills[18] including drafting, chemistry, metallurgy, metal working, plaster casting, leather working, mechanics and carpentry as well as the artistic skills of drawing, painting, sculpting and modelling.[19][nb 7] Much of the painted production of Verrocchio’s workshop was done by his employees. According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his The Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master’s that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again.[20] On close examination, the painting reveals much that has been painted or touched up over the tempera using the new technique of oil paint, with the landscape, the rocks that can be seen through the brown mountain stream and much of the figure of Jesus bearing witness to the hand of Leonardo.[21] Leonardo may have been the model for two works by Verrocchio: the bronze statue of David in the Bargello and the Archangel Raphael in Tobias and the Angel.[10] By 1472, at the age of twenty, Leonardo qualified as a master in the Guild of St Luke, the guild of artists and doctors of medicine,[nb 8] but even after his father set him up in his own workshop, his attachment to Verrocchio was such that he continued to collaborate with him.[11] Leonardo’s earliest known dated work is a drawing in pen and ink of the Arno valley, drawn on August 5, 1473.[nb 9][17] Professional life, 1476–1513 The Adoration of the Magi, (1481)—Uffizi Florentine court records of 1476 show that Leonardo and three other young men were charged with sodomy and acquitted.[10][nb 10] From that date until 1478 there is no record of his work or even of his whereabouts.[22] In 1478 he left Verrocchio’s studio and was no longer resident at his father’s house. One writer, the “Anonimo” Gaddiano claims that in 1480 he was living with the Medici and working in the Garden of the Piazza San Marco in Florence, a Neo-Platonic academy of artists, poets and philosophers that the Medici had established.[10] In January 1478, he received his first of two independent commissions: to paint an altarpiece for the Chapel of St. Bernard in the Palazzo Vecchio and, in March 1481, The Adoration of the Magi for the monks of San Donato a Scopeto.[23] Neither commission was completed, the second being interrupted when Leonardo went to Milan. In 1482 Leonardo, who according to Vasari was a most talented musician,[24] created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse’s head. Lorenzo de’ Medici sent Leonardo to Milan, bearing the lyre as a gift, to secure peace with Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan.[25] At this time Leonardo wrote an often-quoted letter describing the many marvellous and diverse things that he could achieve in the field of engineering and informing Ludovico that he could also paint.[17][26] Leonardo worked in Milan from 1482 until 1499. He was commissioned to paint the Virgin of the Rocks for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception and The Last Supper for the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie.[27] Between 1493 and 1495 Leonardo listed a woman called Caterina among his dependents in his taxation documents. When she died in 1495, the list of funeral expenditures suggests that she was his mother.[28] Study of horse from Leonardo’s journals – Royal Library, Windsor Castle Leonardo was employed on many different projects for Ludovico, including the preparation of floats and pageants for special occasions, designs for a dome for Milan Cathedral and a model for a huge equestrian monument to Francesco Sforza, Ludovico’s predecessor. Seventy tons of bronze were set aside for casting it. The monument remained unfinished for several years, which was not unusual for Leonardo. In 1492 the clay model of the horse was completed. It surpassed in size the only two large equestrian statues of the Renaissance, Donatello’s Gattemelata in Padua and Verrocchio’s Bartolomeo Colleoni in Venice, and became known as the “Gran Cavallo”.[17][nb 11] Leonardo began making detailed plans for its casting;[17] however, Michelangelo insulted Leonardo by implying that he was unable to cast it.[11] In November 1494 Ludovico gave the bronze to be used for cannon to defend the city from invasion by Charles VIII.[17] At the start of the Second Italian War in 1499, the invading French troops used the life-size clay model for the “Gran Cavallo” for target practice. With Ludovico Sforza overthrown, Leonardo, with his assistant Salai and friend, the mathematician Luca Pacioli, fled Milan for Venice[29] where he was employed as a military architect and engineer, devising methods to defend the city from naval attack.[11] On his return to Florence in 1500, he and his household were guests of the Servite monks at the monastery of Santissima Annunziata and were provided with a workshop where, according to Vasari, Leonardo created the cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist, a work that won such admiration that “men and women, young and old” flocked to see it “as if they were attending a great festival”.[30][nb 12] Leonardo da Vinci’s very accurate map of Imola, created for Cesare Borgia In Cesena, in 1502 Leonardo entered the service of Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI, acting as a military architect and engineer and travelling throughout Italy with his patron.[29] Leonardo created a map of Cesare Borgia’s stronghold, a town plan of Imola in order to win his patronage. Maps were extremely rare at the time and it would have seemed like a new concept; upon seeing it, Cesare hired Leonardo as his chief military engineer and architect. Later in the year, Leonardo produced another map for his patron, one of Chiana Valley, Tuscany so as to give his patron a better overlay of the land and greater strategic position. He created this map in conjunction with his other project of constructing a dam from the sea to Florence in order to allow a supply of water to sustain the canal during all seasons. Leonardo returned to Florence where he rejoined the Guild of St Luke on October 18, 1503, and spent two years designing and painting a mural of The Battle of Anghiari for the Signoria,[29] with Michelangelo designing its companion piece, The Battle of Cascina.[nb 13] In Florence in 1504, he was part of a committee formed to relocate, against the artist’s will, Michelangelo’s statue of David.[34] In 1506 Leonardo returned to Milan. Many of his most prominent pupils or followers in painting either knew or worked with him in Milan,[11] including Bernardino Luini, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio and Marco d’Oggione.[nb 14] However, he did not stay in Milan for long because his father had died in 1504, and in 1507 he was back in Florence trying to sort out problems with his brothers over his father’s estate. By 1508 Leonardo was back in Milan, living in his own house in Porta Orientale in the parish of Santa Babila.[35] Old age, 1513–19 From September 1513 to 1516, Leonardo spent much of his time living in the Belvedere in the Vatican in Rome, where Raphael and Michelangelo were both active at the time.[35] In October 1515, Francis I of France recaptured Milan.[23] On December 19, Leonardo was present at the meeting of Francis I and Pope Leo X, which took place in Bologna.[11][36][37] Leonardo was commissioned to make for Francis a mechanical lion which could walk forward, then open its chest to reveal a cluster of lilies.[38][nb 15] In 1516, he entered François’ service, being given the use of the manor house Clos Lucé[nb 16] near the king’s residence at the royal Château d’Amboise. It was here that he spent the last three years of his life, accompanied by his friend and apprentice, Count Francesco Melzi, and supported by a pension totalling 10,000 scudi.[35] Clos Lucé in France, where Leonardo died in 1519 Leonardo died at Clos Lucé, on May 2, 1519. Francis I had become a close friend. Vasari records that the king held Leonardo’s head in his arms as he died, although this story, beloved by the French and portrayed in romantic paintings by Ingres, Ménageot and other French artists, as well as by Angelica Kauffmann, may be legend rather than fact.[nb 17] Vasari states that in his last days, Leonardo sent for a priest to make his confession and to receive the Holy Sacrament.[40] In accordance with his will, sixty beggars followed his casket.[nb 18] Melzi was the principal heir and executor, receiving as well as money, Leonardo’s paintings, tools, library and personal effects. Leonardo also remembered his other long-time pupil and companion, Salai and his servant Battista di Vilussis, who each received half of Leonardo’s vineyards, his brothers who received land, and his serving woman who received a black cloak “of good stuff” with a fur edge.[nb 19][41] Leonardo da Vinci was buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in Château d’Amboise, in France. Some 20 years after Leonardo’s death, Francis was reported by the goldsmith and sculptor Benevenuto Cellini as saying: “There had never been another man born in the world who knew as much as Leonardo, not so much about painting, sculpture and architecture, as that he was a very great philosopher.”[42] Relationships and influences Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise, (1425–1452) were a source of communal pride. Many artists assisted in their creation. Florence: Leonardo’s artistic and social background Florence, at the time of Leonardo’s youth, was the centre of Christian Humanist thought and culture.[16] Leonardo commenced his apprenticeship with Verrocchio in 1466, the year that Verrocchio’s master, the great sculptor Donatello, died. The painter Uccello, whose early experiments with perspective were to influence the development of landscape painting, was a very old man. The painters Piero della Francesca and Fra Filippo Lippi, sculptor Luca della Robbia, and architect and writer Leon Battista Alberti were in their sixties. The successful artists of the next generation were Leonardo’s teacher Verrocchio, Antonio Pollaiuolo and the portrait sculptor, Mino da Fiesole whose lifelike busts give the most reliable likenesses of Lorenzo Medici’s father Piero and uncle Giovanni.[43][44][45][46] Leonardo’s youth was spent in a Florence that was ornamented by the works of these artists and by Donatello’s contemporaries, Masaccio, whose figurative frescoes were imbued with realism and emotion and Ghiberti whose Gates of Paradise, gleaming with gold leaf, displayed the art of combining complex figure compositions with detailed architectural backgrounds. Piero della Francesca had made a detailed study of perspective,[47] and was the first painter to make a scientific study of light. These studies and Alberti’s Treatise[48] were to have a profound effect on younger artists and in particular on Leonardo’s own observations and artworks.[43][45][46] Massaccio’s “The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden” depicting the naked and distraught Adam and Eve created a powerfully expressive image of the human form, cast into three dimensions by the use of light and shade which was to be developed in the works of Leonardo in a way that was to be influential in the course of painting. The humanist influence of Donatello’s “David” can be seen in Leonardo’s late paintings, particularly John the Baptist.[43][44] Small devotional picture by Verrocchio, c. 1470 A prevalent tradition in Florence was the small altarpiece of the Virgin and Child. Many of these were created in tempera or glazed terracotta by the workshops of Filippo Lippi, Verrocchio and the prolific della Robbia family.[43] Leonardo’s early Madonnas such as The Madonna with a carnation and The Benois Madonna followed this tradition while showing idiosyncratic departures, particularly in the case of the Benois Madonna in which the Virgin is set at an oblique angle to the picture space with the Christ Child at the opposite angle. This compositional theme was to emerge in Leonardo’s later paintings such as The Virgin and Child with St. Anne.[11] Leonardo was a contemporary of Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Perugino, who were all slightly older than he was.[44] He would have met them at the workshop of Verrocchio, with whom they had associations, and at the Academy of the Medici.[11] Botticelli was a particular favourite of the Medici family, and thus his success as a painter was assured. Ghirlandaio and Perugino were both prolific and ran large workshops. They competently delivered commissions to well-satisfied patrons who appreciated Ghirlandaio’s ability to portray the wealthy citizens of Florence within large religious frescoes, and Perugino’s ability to deliver a multitude of saints and angels of unfailing sweetness and innocence.[43] The Portinari Altarpiece, by Hugo van der Goes for a Florentine family These three were among those commissioned to paint the walls of the Sistine Chapel, the work commencing with Perugino’s employment in 1479. Leonardo was not part of this prestigious commission. His first significant commission, The Adoration of the Magi for the Monks of Scopeto, was never completed.[11] In 1476, during the time of Leonardo’s association with Verrocchio’s workshop, the Portinari Altarpiece by Hugo van der Goes arrived in Florence, bringing new painterly techniques from Northern Europe which were to profoundly affect Leonardo, Ghirlandaio, Perugino and others.[44] In 1479, the Sicilian painter Antonello da Messina, who worked exclusively in oils, traveled north on his way to Venice, where the leading painter Giovanni Bellini adopted the technique of oil painting, quickly making it the preferred method in Venice. Leonardo was also later to visit Venice.[44][46] Like the two contemporary architects Bramante and Antonio da Sangallo the Elder Leonardo experimented with designs for centrally planned churches, a number of which appear in his journals, as both plans and views, although none was ever realised.[44][49] Lorenzo de’ Medici between Antonio Pucci and Francesco Sassetti, with Giulio de’ Medici, fresco by Ghirlandaio Leonardo’s political contemporaries were Lorenzo Medici (il Magnifico), who was three years older, and his younger brother Giuliano who was slain in the Pazzi Conspiracy in 1478. Ludovico il Moro who ruled Milan between 1479–1499 and to whom Leonardo was sent as ambassador from the Medici court, was also of Leonardo’s age.[44] With Alberti, Leonardo visited the home of the Medici and through them came to know the older Humanist philosophers of whom Marsiglio Ficino, proponent of Neo Platonism; Cristoforo Landino, writer of commentaries on Classical writings, and John Argyropoulos, teacher of Greek and translator of Aristotle were the foremost. Also associated with the Academy of the Medici was Leonardo’s contemporary, the brilliant young poet and philosopher Pico della Mirandola.[44][46][50] Leonardo later wrote in the margin of a journal “The Medici made me and the Medici destroyed me.” While it was through the action of Lorenzo that Leonardo received his employment at the court of Milan, it is not known exactly what Leonardo meant by this cryptic comment.[11] Although usually named together as the three giants of the High Renaissance, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael were not of the same generation. Leonardo was twenty-three when Michelangelo was born and thirty-one when Raphael was born.[44] Raphael only lived until the age of 37 and died in 1520, the year after Leonardo, but Michelangelo went on creating for another 45 years.[45][46] Study for a portrait of Isabella d’Este (1500) Louvre Personal life Main article: Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life Within Leonardo’s lifetime, his extraordinary powers of invention, his “outstanding physical beauty”, “infinite grace”, “great strength and generosity”, “regal spirit and tremendous breadth of mind” as described by Vasari,[51] as well as all other aspects of his life, attracted the curiosity of others. One such aspect is his respect for life evidenced by his vegetarianism and his habit, according to Vasari, of purchasing caged birds and releasing them.[52][53] Leonardo had many friends who are now renowned either in their fields or for their historical significance. They included the mathematician Luca Pacioli,[54] with whom he collaborated on a book in the 1490s, as well as Franchinus Gaffurius and Isabella d’Este.[citation needed] Leonardo appears to have had no close relationships with women except for his friendship with the two Este sisters, Beatrice and Isabella.[55] He drew a portrait of Isabella while on a journey which took him through Mantua, and which appears to have been used to create a painted portrait, now lost.[11] Beyond friendship, Leonardo kept his private life secret. His sexuality has been the subject of satire, analysis, and speculation. This trend began in the mid-16th century and was revived in the 19th and 20th centuries, most notably by Sigmund Freud.[56] Leonardo’s most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi, writing to inform Leonardo’s brothers of his death, described Leonardo’s feelings for his pupils as both loving and passionate. It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of a sexual or erotic nature. Court records of 1476, when he was aged twenty-four, show that Leonardo and three other young men were charged with sodomy in an incident involving a well-known male prostitute. The charges were dismissed for lack of evidence, and there is speculation that since one of the accused, Lionardo de Tornabuoni, was related to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the family exerted its influence to secure the dismissal.[57] Since that date much has been written about his presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus and more explicitly in a number of erotic drawings.[58] John the Baptist. Salai is thought to have been the model.[59] (c. 1514)—Louvre. Assistants and pupils Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, nicknamed Salai or Il Salaino (“The Little Unclean One” i.e., the devil), entered Leonardo’s household in 1490. After only a year, Leonardo made a list of his misdemeanours, calling him “a thief, a liar, stubborn, and a glutton”, after he had made off with money and valuables on at least five occasions and spent a fortune on clothes.[60] Nevertheless, Leonardo treated him with great indulgence, and he remained in Leonardo’s household for the next thirty years.[61] Salai executed a number of paintings under the name of Andrea Salai, but although Vasari claims that Leonardo “taught him a great deal about painting”,[38] his work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo’s pupils, such as Marco d’Oggione and Boltraffio. In 1515, he painted a nude version of the Mona Lisa, known as Monna Vanna.[62] Salai owned the Mona Lisa at the time of his death in 1525, and in his will it was assessed at 505 lire, an exceptionally high valuation for a small panel portrait.[63] In 1506, Leonardo took on another pupil, Count Francesco Melzi, the son of a Lombard aristocrat, who is considered to have been his favourite student. He travelled to France with Leonardo and remained with him until Leonardo’s death.[11] Melzi inherited the artistic and scientific works, manuscripts, and collections of Leonardo and administered the estate. Painting See also: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci Annunciation (1475–1480)—Uffizi, is thought to be Leonardo’s earliest complete work. Despite the recent awareness and admiration of Leonardo as a scientist and inventor, for the better part of four hundred years his fame rested on his achievements as a painter and on a handful of works, either authenticated or attributed to him that have been regarded as among the masterpieces.[64] These paintings are famous for a variety of qualities which have been much imitated by students and discussed at great length by connoisseurs and critics. Among the qualities that make Leonardo’s work unique are the innovative techniques that he used in laying on the paint, his detailed knowledge of anatomy, light, botany and geology, his interest in physiognomy and the way in which humans register emotion in expression and gesture, his innovative use of the human form in figurative composition, and his use of the subtle gradation of tone. All these qualities come together in his most famous painted works, the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper and the Virgin of the Rocks.[65] Unfinished painting of St. Jerome in the Wilderness, (c. 1480), Vatican. Early works Leonardo’s early works begin with the Baptism of Christ painted in conjunction with Verrocchio. Two other paintings appear to date from his time at the workshop, both of which are Annunciations. One is small, 59 centimetres (23 in) long and 14 centimetres (5.5 in) high. It is a “predella” to go at the base of a larger composition, in this case a painting by Lorenzo di Credi from which it has become separated. The other is a much larger work, 217 centimetres (85 in) long.[66] In both these Annunciations, Leonardo used a formal arrangement, such as in Fra Angelico’s two well-known pictures of the same subject, of the Virgin Mary sitting or kneeling to the right of the picture, approached from the left by an angel in profile with rich flowing garment, raised wings and bearing a lily. Although previously attributed to Ghirlandaio, the larger work is now generally attributed to Leonardo.[67] In the smaller picture Mary averts her eyes and folds her hands in a gesture that symbolised submission to God’s will. In the larger picture, however, Mary is not submissive. The girl, interrupted in her reading by this unexpected messenger, puts a finger in her bible to mark the place and raises her hand in a formal gesture of greeting or surprise.[43] This calm young woman appears to accept her role as the Mother of God not with resignation but with confidence. In this painting the young Leonardo presents the humanist face of the Virgin Mary, recognising humanity’s role in God’s incarnation.[nb 20] Paintings of the 1480s Virgin of the Rocks, Louvre, demonstrates Leonardo’s interest in nature. In the 1480s Leonardo received two very important commissions and commenced another work which was also of ground-breaking importance in terms of composition. Two of the three were never finished, and the third took so long that it was subject to lengthy negotiations over completion and payment. One of these paintings is that of St. Jerome in the Wilderness. Bortolon associates this picture with a difficult period of Leonardo’s life, as evidenced in his diary: “I thought I was learning to live; I was only learning to die.”[11] Although the painting is barely begun, the composition can be seen and it is very unusual.[nb 21] Jerome, as a penitent, occupies the middle of the picture, set on a slight diagonal and viewed somewhat from above. His kneeling form takes on a trapezoid shape, with one arm stretched to the outer edge of the painting and his gaze looking in the opposite direction. J. Wasserman points out the link between this painting and Leonardo’s anatomical studies.[69] Across the foreground sprawls his symbol, a great lion whose body and tail make a double spiral across the base of the picture space. The other remarkable feature is the sketchy landscape of craggy rocks against which the figure is silhouetted. The daring display of figure composition, the landscape elements and personal drama also appear in the great unfinished masterpiece, the Adoration of the Magi, a commission from the Monks of San Donato a Scopeto. It is a complex composition, of about 250 x 250 centimetres. Leonardo did numerous drawings and preparatory studies, including a detailed one in linear perspective of the ruined classical architecture which makes part of the backdrop to the scene. But in 1482 Leonardo went off to Milan at the behest of Lorenzo de’ Medici in order to win favour with Ludovico il Moro, and the painting was abandoned.[10][67] The third important work of this period is the Virgin of the Rocks which was commissioned in Milan for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception. The painting, to be done with the assistance of the de Predis brothers, was to fill a large complex altarpiece, already constructed.[70] Leonardo chose to paint an apocryphal moment of the infancy of Christ when the infant John the Baptist, in protection of an angel, met the Holy Family on the road to Egypt. In this scene, as painted by Leonardo, John recognizes and worships Jesus as the Christ. The painting demonstrates an eerie beauty as the graceful figures kneel in adoration around the infant Christ in a wild landscape of tumbling rock and whirling water.[71] While the painting is quite large, about 200 × 120 centimetres, it is not nearly as complex as the painting ordered by the monks of St Donato, having only four figures rather than about fifty and a rocky landscape rather than architectural details. The painting was eventually finished; in fact, two versions of the painting were finished, one which remained at the chapel of the Confraternity and the other which Leonardo carried away to France. But the Brothers did not get their painting, or the de Predis their payment, until the next century.[17][29] The Last Supper (1498)—Convent of Sta. Maria delle Grazie, Milan, Italy Paintings of the 1490s Leonardo’s most famous painting of the 1490s is The Last Supper, painted for the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan. The painting represents the last meal shared by Jesus with his disciples before his capture and death. It shows specifically the moment when Jesus has just said “one of you will betray me”. Leonardo tells the story of the consternation that this statement caused to the twelve followers of Jesus.[17] The novelist Matteo Bandello observed Leonardo at work and wrote that some days he would paint from dawn till dusk without stopping to eat and then not paint for three or four days at a time.[72] This was beyond the comprehension of the prior of the convent, who hounded him until Leonardo asked Ludovico to intervene. Vasari describes how Leonardo, troubled over his ability to adequately depict the faces of Christ and the traitor Judas, told the Duke that he might be obliged to use the prior as his model.[73] When finished, the painting was acclaimed as a masterpiece of design and characterisation,[74] but it deteriorated rapidly, so that within a hundred years it was described by one viewer as “completely ruined”.[75] Leonardo, instead of using the reliable technique of fresco, had used tempera over a ground that was mainly gesso, resulting in a surface which was subject to mold and to flaking.[76] Despite this, the painting has remained one of the most reproduced works of art, countless copies being made in every medium from carpets to cameos. Paintings of the 1500s Mona Lisa or La Gioconda (1503–1505/1507)—Louvre, Paris, France Among the works created by Leonardo in the 16th century is the small portrait known as the Mona Lisa or “la Gioconda”, the laughing one. In the present era it is arguably the most famous painting in the world. Its fame rests, in particular, on the elusive smile on the woman’s face, its mysterious quality brought about perhaps by the fact that the artist has subtly shadowed the corners of the mouth and eyes so that the exact nature of the smile cannot be determined. The shadowy quality for which the work is renowned came to be called “sfumato” or Leonardo’s smoke. Vasari, who is generally thought to have known the painting only by repute, said that “the smile was so pleasing that it seemed divine rather than human; and those who saw it were amazed to find that it was as alive as the original”.[77][nb 22] Other characteristics found in this work are the unadorned dress, in which the eyes and hands have no competition from other details, the dramatic landscape background in which the world seems to be in a state of flux, the subdued colouring and the extremely smooth nature of the painterly technique, employing oils, but laid on much like tempera and blended on the surface so that the brushstrokes are indistinguishable.[nb 23] Vasari expressed the opinion that the manner of painting would make even “the most confident master … despair and lose heart.”[80] The perfect state of preservation and the fact that there is no sign of repair or overpainting is rare in a panel painting of this date.[81] In the painting Virgin and Child with St. Anne the composition again picks up the theme of figures in a landscape which Wasserman describes as “breathtakingly beautiful”[82] and harkens back to the St Jerome picture with the figure set at an oblique angle. What makes this painting unusual is that there are two obliquely set figures superimposed. Mary is seated on the knee of her mother, St Anne. She leans forward to restrain the Christ Child as he plays roughly with a lamb, the sign of his own impending sacrifice.[17] This painting, which was copied many times, influenced Michelangelo, Raphael, and Andrea del Sarto,[83] and through them Pontormo and Correggio. The trends in composition were adopted in particular by the Venetian painters Tintoretto and Veronese. The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, (c. 1510)-Louvre Museum The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist (c. 1499–1500)—National Gallery, London Drawings Leonardo was not a prolific painter, but he was a most prolific draftsman, keeping journals full of small sketches and detailed drawings recording all manner of things that took his attention. As well as the journals there exist many studies for paintings, some of which can be identified as preparatory to particular works such as The Adoration of the Magi, The Virgin of the Rocks and The Last Supper.[84] His earliest dated drawing is a Landscape of the Arno Valley, 1473, which shows the river, the mountains, Montelupo Castle and the farmlands beyond it in great detail.[11][84] Among his famous drawings are the Vitruvian Man, a study of the proportions of the human body, the Head of an Angel, for The Virgin of the Rocks in the Louvre, a botanical study of Star of Bethlehem and a large drawing (160×100 cm) in black chalk on coloured paper of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist in the National Gallery, London.[84] This drawing employs the subtle sfumato technique of shading, in the manner of the Mona Lisa. It is thought that Leonardo never made a painting from it, the closest similarity being to The Virgin and Child with St. Anne in the Louvre.[85] Other drawings of interest include numerous studies generally referred to as “caricatures” because, although exaggerated, they appear to be based upon observation of live models. Vasari relates that if Leonardo saw a person with an interesting face he would follow them around all day observing them.[86] There are numerous studies of beautiful young men, often associated with Salai, with the rare and much admired facial feature, the so-called “Grecian profile”.[nb 24] These faces are often contrasted with that of a warrior.[84] Salai is often depicted in fancy-dress costume. Leonardo is known to have designed sets for pageants with which these may be associated. Other, often meticulous, drawings show studies of drapery. A marked development in Leonardo’s ability to draw drapery occurred in his early works. Another often-reproduced drawing is a macabre sketch that was done by Leonardo in Florence in 1479 showing the body of Bernardo Baroncelli, hanged in connection with the murder of Giuliano, brother of Lorenzo de’ Medici, in the Pazzi Conspiracy.[84] With dispassionate integrity Leonardo has registered in neat mirror writing the colours of the robes that Baroncelli was wearing when he died. Observation and invention Main article: Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci The Vitruvian Man (c. 1485) Accademia, Venice Journals and notes See also: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Manuscripts Renaissance humanism recognized no mutually exclusive polarities between the sciences and the arts, and Leonardo’s studies in science and engineering are as impressive and innovative as his artistic work.[17] These studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the forerunner of modern science), made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo’s life and travels, as he made continual observations of the world around him.[17] Leonardo’s writings are mostly in mirror-image cursive. The reason may have been more a practical expediency than for reasons of secrecy as is often suggested. Since Leonardo wrote with his left hand, it is probable that it was easier for him to write from right to left.[nb 25] A page showing Leonardo’s study of a foetus in the womb (c. 1510) Royal Library, Windsor Castle His notes and drawings display an enormous range of interests and preoccupations, some as mundane as lists of groceries and people who owed him money and some as intriguing as designs for wings and shoes for walking on water. There are compositions for paintings, studies of details and drapery, studies of faces and emotions, of animals, babies, dissections, plant studies, rock formations, whirlpools, war machines, helicopters and architecture.[17] These notebooks—originally loose papers of different types and sizes, distributed by friends after his death—have found their way into major collections such as the Royal Library at Windsor Castle, the Louvre, the Biblioteca Nacional de España, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan which holds the twelve-volume Codex Atlanticus, and British Library in London which has put a selection from the Codex Arundel (BL Arundel MS 263) online.[87] The Codex Leicester is the only major scientific work of Leonardo’s in private hands. It is owned by Bill Gates and is displayed once a year in different cities around the world. Leonardo’s notes appear to have been intended for publication because many of the sheets have a form and order that would facilitate this. In many cases a single topic, for example, the heart or the human fetus, is covered in detail in both words and pictures on a single sheet.[88][nb 26] Why they were not published within Leonardo’s lifetime is unknown.[17] Scientific studies Rhombicuboctahedron as published in Pacioli’s De Divina Proportione Leonardo’s approach to science was an observational one: he tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation. Since he lacked formal education in Latin and mathematics, contemporary scholars mostly ignored Leonardo the scientist, although he did teach himself Latin. In the 1490s he studied mathematics under Luca Pacioli and prepared a series of drawings of regular solids in a skeletal form to be engraved as plates for Pacioli’s book De Divina Proportione, published in 1509.[17] It appears that from the content of his journals he was planning a series of treatises to be published on a variety of subjects. A coherent treatise on anatomy was said to have been observed during a visit by Cardinal Louis ‘D’ Aragon’s secretary in 1517.[89] Aspects of his work on the studies of anatomy, light and the landscape were assembled for publication by his pupil Francesco Melzi and eventually published as Treatise on Painting by Leonardo da Vinci in France and Italy in 1651 and Germany in 1724,[90] with engravings based upon drawings by the Classical painter Nicholas Poussin.[citation needed] According to Arasse, the treatise, which in France went into sixty two editions in fifty years, caused Leonardo to be seen as “the precursor of French academic thought on art”.[17] While Leonardo’s experimentation followed clear scientific methods, a recent and exhaustive analysis of Leonardo as scientist by Frtijof Capra argues that Leonardo was a fundamentally different kind of scientist from Galileo, Newton and other scientists who followed him in that, as a Renaissance Man, his theorising and hypothesising integrated the arts and particularly painting.[91] Anatomical study of the arm, (c. 1510) Anatomy Leonardo’s formal training in the anatomy of the human body began with his apprenticeship to Andrea del Verrocchio, who insisted that all his pupils learn anatomy. As an artist, he quickly became master of topographic anatomy, drawing many studies of muscles, tendons and other visible anatomical features. As a successful artist, he was given permission to dissect human corpses at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence and later at hospitals in Milan and Rome. From 1510 to 1511 he collaborated in his studies with the doctor Marcantonio della Torre. Leonardo made over 200 pages of drawings and many pages of notes towards a treatise on anatomy. These papers were left to his heir, Francesco Melzi, for publication, a task of overwhelming difficulty because of its scope and Leonardo’s idiosyncratic writing.[92] It was left incomplete at the time of Melzi’s death more than fifty years later, with only a small amount of the material on anatomy included in Leonardo’s Treatise on painting, published in France in 1632.[17][92] During the time that Melzi was ordering the material into chapters for publication, they were examined by a number of anatomists and artists, including Vasari, Cellini and Albrecht Dürer who made a number of drawings from them.[92] Leonardo drew many studies of the human skeleton and its parts, as well as muscles and sinews. He studied the mechanical functions of the skeleton and the muscular forces that are applied to it in a manner that prefigured the modern science of biomechanics.[93] He drew the heart and vascular system, the sex organs and other internal organs, making one of the first scientific drawings of a fetus in utero.[84] As an artist, Leonardo closely observed and recorded the effects of age and of human emotion on the physiology, studying in particular the effects of rage. He also drew many figures who had significant facial deformities or signs of illness.[17][84] Leonardo also studied and drew the anatomy of many animals, dissecting cows, birds, monkeys, bears, and frogs, and comparing in his drawings their anatomical structure with that of humans. He also made a number of studies of horses. Engineering and inventions A design for a flying machine, (c. 1488) Institut de France, Paris During his lifetime Leonardo was valued as an engineer. In a letter to Ludovico il Moro he claimed to be able to create all sorts of machines both for the protection of a city and for siege. When he fled to Venice in 1499 he found employment as an engineer and devised a system of moveable barricades to protect the city from attack. He also had a scheme for diverting the flow of the Arno River, a project on which Niccolò Machiavelli also worked.[94][95] Leonardo’s journals include a vast number of inventions, both practical and impractical. They include musical instruments, hydraulic pumps, reversible crank mechanisms, finned mortar shells, and a steam cannon.[11][17] In 1502, Leonardo produced a drawing of a single span 720-foot (220 m) bridge as part of a civil engineering project for Ottoman Sultan Beyazid II of Constantinople. The bridge was intended to span an inlet at the mouth of the Bosporus known as the Golden Horn. Beyazid did not pursue the project because he believed that such a construction was impossible. Leonardo’s vision was resurrected in 2001 when a smaller bridge based on his design was constructed in Norway.[96][97] For much of his life, Leonardo was fascinated by the phenomenon of flight, producing many studies of the flight of birds, including his c. 1505 Codex on the Flight of Birds, as well as plans for several flying machines, including a light hang glider and a machine resembling a helicopter.[17] The British television station Channel Four commissioned a documentary Leonardo’s Dream Machines, for broadcast in 2003. Leonardo’s machines were built and tested according to his original designs.[98] Some of those designs proved a success, whilst others fared less well when practically tested. Fame and reputation Main article: Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci Francis I of France receiving the last breath of Leonardo da Vinci, by Ingres, 1818 Within Leonardo’s own lifetime his fame was such that the King of France carried him away like a trophy and was claimed to have supported him in his old age and held him in his arms as he died. Interest in Leonardo has never diminished. The crowds still queue to see his most famous artworks, T-shirts bear his most famous drawing, and writers continue to marvel at his genius and speculate about his private life and, particularly, about what one so intelligent actually believed in.[17] Giorgio Vasari, in the enlarged edition of Lives of the Artists, 1568,[99] introduced his chapter on Leonardo da Vinci with the following words: In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease. —Giorgio Vasari The continued admiration that Leonardo commanded from painters, critics and historians is reflected in many other written tributes. Baldassare Castiglione, author of Il Cortegiano (“The Courtier”), wrote in 1528: “… Another of the greatest painters in this world looks down on this art in which he is unequalled …”[100] while the biographer known as “Anonimo Gaddiano” wrote, c. 1540: “His genius was so rare and universal that it can be said that nature worked a miracle on his behalf …”.[101] Statue of Leonardo in Amboise The 19th century brought a particular admiration for Leonardo’s genius, causing Henry Fuseli to write in 1801: “Such was the dawn of modern art, when Leonardo da Vinci broke forth with a splendour that distanced former excellence: made up of all the elements that constitute the essence of genius …”[102] This is echoed by A. E. Rio who wrote in 1861: “He towered above all other artists through the strength and the nobility of his talents.”[103] By the 19th century, the scope of Leonardo’s notebooks was known, as well as his paintings. Hippolyte Taine wrote in 1866: “There may not be in the world an example of another genius so universal, so incapable of fulfilment, so full of yearning for the infinite, so naturally refined, so far ahead of his own century and the following centuries.”[104] Art historian Bernard Berenson wrote in 1896: “Leonardo is the one artist of whom it may be said with perfect literalness: Nothing that he touched but turned into a thing of eternal beauty. Whether it be the cross section of a skull, the structure of a weed, or a study of muscles, he, with his feeling for line and for light and shade, forever transmuted it into life-communicating values.”[105] The interest in Leonardo’s genius has continued unabated; experts study and translate his writings, analyse his paintings using scientific techniques, argue over attributions and search for works which have been recorded but never found.[106] Liana Bortolon, writing in 1967, said: “Because of the multiplicity of interests that spurred him to pursue every field of knowledge … Leonardo can be considered, quite rightly, to have been the universal genius par excellence, and with all the disquieting overtones inherent in that term. Man is as uncomfortable today, faced with a genius, as he was in the 16th century. Five centuries have passed, yet we still view Leonardo with awe.”[11] See also Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Leonardo da Vinci Book: Leonardo da Vinci Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci List of works by Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo da Vinci’s personal life Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo da Vinci, A Memory of His Childhood Aerial perspective Italian Renaissance painting List of Italian painters List of vegetarians Medical Renaissance Renaissance technology Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia “Leonardo da Vinci” Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport Footnotes ^ This drawing in red chalk is widely (though not universally) accepted as an original self-portrait. The main reason for hesitation in accepting it as a portrait of Leonardo is that, to modern eyes, the subject appears to be of a greater age than Leonardo ever achieved. It is possible that Leonardo drew this picture of himself deliberately aged, specifically for Raphael’s portrait of him in The School of Athens. ^ There are 15 significant artworks which are ascribed, either in whole or in large part, to Leonardo by most art historians. This number is made up principally of paintings on panel but includes a mural, a large drawing on paper and two works which are in the early stages of preparation. There are a number of other works that have also been variously attributed to Leonardo. ^ Modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance. ^ A number of Leonardo’s most practical inventions are displayed as working models at the Museum of Vinci. ^ His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956): “A grandson of mine was born April 15, Saturday, three hours into the night”. The date was recorded in the Julian calendar; as it was Florentine time and sunset was 6:40 pm, three hours after sunset would be sometime around 9:40 pm which was still April 14 by modern reckoning. The conversion to the New Style calendar adds nine days; hence Leonardo was born April 23 according to the modern calendar.[8] ^ It has been suggested that Caterina may have been a slave from the Middle East “or at least, from the Mediterranean”. According to Alessandro Vezzosi, head of the Leonardo Museum in Vinci, there is evidence that Piero owned a Middle Eastern slave called Caterina. That Leonardo had Middle Eastern blood is claimed to be supported by the reconstruction of a fingerprint as reported by Falconi, Marta (December 12, 2006) [2006-12-1]. “Experts Reconstruct Leonardo Fingerprint”. Associated Press (News ed.). USA: Fox. Retrieved 2010-01-06.. The evidence, as stated in the article, is that 60% of people of Middle Eastern origin share the pattern of whirls found on the reconstructed fingerprint. The article also states that the claim is refuted by Simon Cole, associate professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California at Irvine: “You can’t predict one person’s race from these kinds of incidences, especially if looking at only one finger.” ^ The “diverse arts” and technical skills of Medieval and Renaissance workshops are described in detail in the 12th century text On Divers Arts by Theophilus Presbyter and in the early 15th century text Il Libro Dell’arte O Trattato Della Pittui by Cennino Cennini. ^ That Leonardo joined the guild before this time is deduced from the record of payment made to the Compagnia di San Luca in the company’s register, Libro Rosso A, 1472–1520, Accademia di Belle Arti.[10] ^ This work is now in the collection of the Uffizi, Drawing No. 8P. ^ Homosexual acts were illegal in Renaissance Florence. ^ Verrocchio’s statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni was not cast until 1488, after his death, and after Leonardo had already begun work on the statue for Ludovico. ^ In 2005, the studio was rediscovered during the restoration of part of a building occupied for 100 years by the Department of Military Geography.[31] ^ Both works are lost. While the entire composition of Michelangelo’s painting is known from a copy by Aristotole da Sangallo, 1542.[32] Leonardo’s painting is only known from preparatory sketches and several copies of the centre section, of which the best known, and probably least accurate, is by Peter Paul Rubens.[33] ^ D’Oggione is known in part for his contemporary copies of the Last Supper. ^ It is unknown for what occasion the mechanical lion was made but it is believed to have greeted the king at his entry into Lyon and perhaps was used for the peace talks between the French king and Pope Leo X in Bologna. A conjectural recreation of the lion has been made and is on display in the Museum of Bologna.[39] ^ Clos Lucé, also called Cloux, is now a public museum. ^ On the day of Leonardo’s death, a royal edict was issued by the king at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, a two-day journey from Clos Lucé. This has been taken as evidence that King François cannot have been present at Leonardo’s deathbed. However, White in Leonardo: The First Scientist points out that the edict was not signed by the king. ^ This was a charitable legacy as each of the sixty paupers would have been awarded an established mourner’s fee in the terms of Leonardo’s will. ^ The black cloak, of good quality material, was a ready-made item from a clothier, with the fur trim being an additional luxury. The possession of this garment meant that Leonardo’s house keeper could attend his funeral “respectably” attired at no expense to herself. ^ Michael Baxandall lists 5 “laudable conditions” or reactions of Mary to the presence and announcement of the angel. These are: Disquiet, Reflection, Inquiry, Submission and Merit. In this painting Mary’s attitude does not comply with any of the accepted traditions.[68] ^ The painting, which in the 18th century belonged to Angelica Kauffmann, was later cut up. The two main sections were found in a junk shop and cobbler’s shop and were reunited.[69] It is probable that outer parts of the composition are missing. ^ Whether or not Vasari had seen the Mona Lisa is the subject of debate. The opinion that he had not seen the painting is based mainly on the fact that he describes the Mona Lisa as having eyebrows. Daniel Arasse in Leonardo da Vinci discusses the possibility that Leonardo may have painted the figure with eyebrows which were subsequently removed. (They were not fashionable in the mid-16th century.)[17] The analysis of high resolution scans made by Pascal Cotte has revealed that the Mona Lisa had eyebrows and eyelashes which have been subsequently removed.[78] ^ Jack Wasserman writes of “the inimitable treatment of the surfaces” of this painting.[79] ^ The “Grecian profile” has a continuous straight line from forehead to nose-tip, the bridge of the nose being exceptionally high. It is a feature of many Classical Greek statues. ^ Left-handed writers using a split nib or quill pen experience difficulty pushing the pen from left to right across the page. ^ This method of organisation minimises of loss of data in the case of pages being mixed up or destroyed. References ^ a b c Gardner, Helen (1970). Art through the Ages. pp. 450–456. ^ a b c Vasari, Boltraffio, Castiglione, “Anonimo” Gaddiano, Berensen, Taine, Fuseli, Rio, Bortolon. ^ Rosci, Marco (1977). Leonardo. p. 8. ^ John Lichfield, The Moving of the Mona Lisa, The Independent, 2005-04-02 (accessed 2012-03-09) ^ Vitruvian Man is referred to as “iconic” at the following websites and many others:Vitruvian Man, Fine Art Classics, Key Images in the History of Science; Curiosity and difference; The Guardian: The Real da Vinci Code ^ “The Controversial Replica of Leonardo’s Adding Machine”. Retrieved 2010-12-22. ^ Capra, pp.5–6 ^ a b Vezzosi, Alessandro (1997). Leonardo da Vinci: Renaissance Man. ^ a b His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, p. 83 ^ a b c d e f della Chiesa, Angela Ottino (1967). The Complete Paintings of Leonardo da Vinci. p. 83. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Bortolon, Liana (1967). The Life and Times of Leonardo. London: Paul Hamlyn. ^ Rosci, p. 20. ^ Rosci, p. 21. ^ Brigstoke, Hugh (2001). The Oxford Companion the Western Art. Oxford, ENG, UK. ^ Vasari, Giorgio (1568). Lives of the Artists. Penguin Classics. pp. 258–9. ^ a b Rosci, p.13 ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Arasse, Daniel (1998). Leonardo da Vinci. ^ Rosci, p.27 ^ Martindale, Andrew (1972). The Rise of the Artist. ^ Vasari, p.258 ^ della Chiesa, p.88 ^ Priwer, Shana; Phillips, Cynthia (2006). The Everything Da Vinci Book. p. 245. ^ a b Wasserman, Jack (1975). Leonardo da Vinci. pp. 77–78. ^ Winternitz, Emanuel (1982). Leonardo Da Vinci As a Musician. ^ Rossi, Paolo (2001). The Birth of Modern Science. p. 33. ^ “Leonardo’s Letter to Ludovico Sforza”. Leonardo-History. Retrieved 2010-01-05. ^ Kemp, Martin (2004). Leonardo. ^ Codex II, 95 r, Victoria and Albert Museum, as cited by della Chiesa p. 85 ^ a b c d della Chiesa, p.85 ^ Vasari, p.256 ^ Owen, Richard (2005-01-12). “Found: the studio where Leonardo met Mona Lisa”. London: The Times. Retrieved 2010-01-05. ^ Goldscheider, Ludwig (1967). Michelangelo: paintings, sculptures, architecture. Phaidon Press. ISBN 978-0-7148-1314-1. ^ della Chiesa, pp.106–107 ^ Gaetano Milanesi, Epistolario Buonarroti, Florence (1875), as cited by della Chiesa. ^ a b c della Chiesa, p.86 ^ Georges Goyau, François I, Transcribed by Gerald Rossi. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved on 2007-10-04 ^ Miranda, Salvador (1998–2007). “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church: Antoine du Prat”. Retrieved 2007-10-04. ^ a b Vasari, p.265 ^ “Reconstruction of Leonardo’s walking lion” (in Italian). Retrieved 2010-01-05. ^ Vasari, p.270 ^ “Leonardo’s will”. Leonardo-history. Retrieved 2007-09-28. ^ Mario Lucertini, Ana Millan Gasca, Fernando Nicolo (2004). Technological Concepts and Mathematical Models in the Evolution of Modern Engineering Systems. Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3-7643-6940-8. Retrieved 2007-10-03. ^ a b c d e f Hartt, Frederich (1970). A History of Italian Renaissance Art. pp. 127–333. ^ a b c d e f g h i Rosci, Leonardo, chapter 1, the historical setting, pp.9–20 ^ a b c Brucker, Gene A. (1969). Renaissance Florence. ^ a b c d e Rachum, Ilan (1979). The Renaissance, an Illustrated Encyclopedia. ^ Piero della Francesca, On Perspective for Painting (De Prospectiva Pingendi) ^ Leon Battista Alberti, De Pictura, 1435. On Painting, in English, De Pictura, in Latin[dead link] ^ Hartt, pp.391–2 ^ Williamson, Hugh Ross (1974). Lorenzo the Magnificent. ^ Vasari, p.253 ^ Vasari, p.257 ^ Eugene Muntz, Leonardo da Vinci Artist, Thinker, and Man of Science (1898), quoted at Leonardo da Vinci’s Ethical Vegetarianism ^ Bambach, Carmen (2003). “Leonardo, Left-Handed Draftsman and Writer”. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Archived from the original on November 10, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-18. ^ Cartwright Ady, Julia. Beatrice d’Este, Duchess of Milan, 1475–1497. Publisher: J.M. Dent, 1899; Cartwright Ady, Julia. Isabella D’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, 1474–1539. Publisher; J.M. Dent, 1903. ^ Sigmund Freud, Eine Kindheitserinnerung des Leonardo da Vinci, (1910) ^ “How do we know Leonardo was gay?”. 2001-05-03. Retrieved 2011-10-29. ^ Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 ^ Rizzo, Alessandra (Feb. 2, 2011). “Art Historian Silvano Vinceti Claims Male Model Behind Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa”. Associated Press. Retrieved November 16, 2011. ^ Leonardo, Codex C. 15v, Institut of France. Trans. Richter ^ della Chiesa, p.84 ^ Gross, Tom. “Mona Lisa Goes Topless”. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. Retrieved 2007-09-27. ^ Rossiter, Nick (2003-07-04). “Could this be the secret of her smile?”. London: Retrieved 2007-10-03. ^ By the 1490s Leonardo had already been described as a “Divine” painter. His fame is discussed by Daniel Arasse in Leonardo da Vinci, pp.11–15 ^ These qualities of Leonardo’s works are discussed by Frederick Hartt in A History of Italian Renaissance Art, pp.387–411. ^ della Chiesa, pp. 88, 90 ^ a b Berti, Luciano (1971). The Uffizi. pp. 59–62. ^ Baxandall, Michael (1974). Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. pp. 49–56. ^ a b Wasserman, pp.104–6 ^ Wasserman, p.108 ^ “The Mysterious Virgin”. National Gallery, London. Retrieved 2007-09-27. ^ Wasserman, p.124 ^ Vasari, p.263 ^ Vasari, p.262 ^ della Chiesa, p.97 ^ della Chiesa, p.98 ^ Vasari, p.267 ^ “The Mona Lisa had brows and lashes”. BBC News. October 22, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-22. ^ Wasserman, p.144 ^ Vasari, p.266 ^ della Chiesa, p.103 ^ Wasserman, p.150 ^ della Chiesa, p.109 ^ a b c d e f g Popham, A.E. (1946). The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. ^ della Chiesa, p.102 ^ Vasari, p.261 ^ “Sketches by Leonardo”. Turning the Pages. British Library. Retrieved 2007-09-27. ^ Windsor Castle, Royal Library, sheets RL 19073v-19074v and RL 19102 respectively. ^ O’Malley; Saunders (1982). Leonardo on the Human Body. New York: Dover Publications. ^ della Chiesa, p.117 ^ Capra, Fritjof. The Science of Leonardo; Inside the Mind of the Genius of the Renaissance. (New York, Doubleday, 2007) ^ a b c Kenneth D. Keele, Leonardo da Vinci’s Influence on Renaissance Anatomy, (1964)[1] ^ Mason, Stephen F. (1962). A History of the Sciences. New York, NY: Collier Books. p. 550. ^ Roger Masters (1996). Machiavelli, Leonardo and the Science of Power. ^ Roger Masters (1998). Fortune is a River: Leonardo Da Vinci and Niccolò Machiavelli’s Magnificent Dream to Change the Course of Florentine History. ^ “The Leonardo Bridge Project”. Retrieved 2011-10-29. ^ Levy, Daniel S. (October 4, 1999). “Dream of the Master”. Time magazine. Archived from the original on 2007-09-12. Retrieved 2007-09-27. ^ Leonardo’s Dream Machines ^ Vasari, p.255 ^ Castiglione, Baldassare (1528). Il Cortegiano. ^ “Anonimo Gaddiani”, elaborating on Libro di Antonio Billi, 1537–1542 ^ Fuseli, Henry (1801). Lectures. II. ^ Rio, A.E. (1861). L’art chrétien. ^ Taine, Hippolyte (1866). Voyag
    • Amadeus / Apr 18 2013 12:26 pm

      nice spam

  469. wetham / Mar 7 2013 7:04 am

    Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the German Empire on 14 March 1879.[10] His father was Hermann Einstein, a salesman and engineer. His mother was Pauline Einstein (née Koch). In 1880, the family moved to Munich, where his father and his uncle founded Elektrotechnische Fabrik J. Einstein & Cie, a company that manufactured electrical equipment based on direct current.[10]
    The Einsteins were non-observant Jews. Albert attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five for three years. At the age of eight, he was transferred to the Luitpold Gymnasium where he received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left Germany seven years later.[11] Although it has been thought that Einstein had early speech difficulties, this is disputed by the Albert Einstein Archives, and he excelled at the first school that he attended.[12] He was right handed;[12][13] there appears to be no evidence for the widespread popular belief[14] that he was left handed.
    His father once showed him a pocket compass; Einstein realized that there must be something causing the needle to move, despite the apparent “empty space”.[15] As he grew, Einstein built models and mechanical devices for fun and began to show a talent for mathematics.[10] When Einstein was ten years old, Max Talmud (later changed to Max Talmey), a poor Jewish medical student from Poland, was introduced to the Einstein family by his brother, and during weekly visits over the next five years, he gave the boy popular books on science, mathematical texts and philosophical writings. These included Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Euclid’s Elements (which Einstein called the “holy little geometry book”).[16][17][fn 1]
    In 1894, his father’s company failed: direct current (DC) lost the War of Currents to alternating current (AC). In search of business, the Einstein family moved to Italy, first to Milan and then, a few months later, to Pavia. When the family moved to Pavia, Einstein stayed in Munich to finish his studies at the Luitpold Gymnasium. His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering, but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school’s regimen and teaching method. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning. At the end of December 1894, he travelled to Italy to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor’s note.[19] It was during his time in Italy that he wrote a short essay with the title “On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field.”[20][21]
    In late summer 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zurich (later the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule). He failed to reach the required standard in several subjects, but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.[22] On the advice of the Principal of the Polytechnic, he attended the Aargau Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, in 1895-96 to complete his secondary schooling. While lodging with the family of Professor Jost Winteler, he fell in love with Winteler’s daughter, Marie. (Albert’s sister Maja later married Wintelers’ son Paul.)[23] In January 1896, with his father’s approval, he renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom of Württemberg to avoid military service.[24] (He acquired Swiss citizenship five years later, in February 1901.)[25] In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades (including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6),[26] and, though only seventeen, enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the ETH Zurich. Marie Winteler moved to Olsberg, Switzerland for a teaching post.
    Einstein’s future wife, Mileva Marić, also enrolled at the Polytechnic that same year, the only woman among the six students in the mathematics and physics section of the teaching diploma course. Over the next few years, Einstein and Marić’s friendship developed into romance, and they read books together on extra-curricular physics in which Einstein was taking an increasing interest. In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zurich Polytechnic teaching diploma, but Marić failed the examination with a poor grade in the mathematics component, theory of functions.[27] There have been claims that Marić collaborated with Einstein on his celebrated 1905 papers,[28][29] but historians of physics who have studied the issue find no evidence that she made any substantive contributions.[30][31][32][33]
    Marriages and children
    In early 1902, Einstein and Marić had a daughter they named Lieserl, born in Novi Sad where Marić was staying with her parents. Her fate is unknown, but the contents of a letter Einstein wrote to Marić in September 1903 suggest that she was either adopted or died of scarlet fever in infancy.[34][35]
    Einstein and Marić married in January 1903. In May 1904, the couple’s first son, Hans Albert Einstein, was born in Bern, Switzerland. Their second son, Eduard, was born in Zurich in July 1910. In 1914, Einstein moved to Berlin, while his wife remained in Zurich with their sons. They divorced on 14 February 1919, having lived apart for five years.
    Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal on 2 June 1919, after having had a relationship with her since 1912. She was his first cousin maternally and his second cousin paternally. In 1933, they emigrated to the United States. In 1935, Elsa Einstein was diagnosed with heart and kidney problems and died in December 1936.[36]
    Patent office

    Left to right: Conrad Habicht, Maurice Solovine and Einstein, who founded the Olympia Academy
    After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, but Marcel Grossmann’s father helped him secure a job in Bern,[37] at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.[38] He evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein’s position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he “fully mastered machine technology”.[39]
    Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time.[40]
    With a few friends he met in Bern, Einstein started a small discussion group, self-mockingly named “The Olympia Academy”, which met regularly to discuss science and philosophy. Their readings included the works of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, which influenced his scientific and philosophical outlook.
    Academic career

    Einstein’s official 1921 portrait after receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics.
    In 1901, his paper “Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen” (“Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena”) was published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik.[41][42] On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich. His dissertation was entitled “A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions”.[43][44] That same year, which has been called Einstein’s annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world.
    By 1908, he was recognized as a leading scientist, and he was appointed lecturer at the University of Bern. The following year, he quit the patent office and the lectureship to take the position of physics docent[45] at the University of Zurich. He became a full professor at Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague in 1911. In 1914, he returned to Germany after being appointed director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics (1914–1932)[46] and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, with a special clause in his contract that freed him from most teaching obligations. He became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society (1916–1918).[47][48]
    During 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun’s gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. International media reports of this made Einstein world famous. On 7 November 1919, the leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: “Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown”.[49] Much later, questions were raised whether the measurements had been accurate enough to support Einstein’s theory. In 1980 historians John Earman and Clark Glymour published an analysis suggesting that Eddington had suppressed unfavorable results.[50] The two reviewers found possible flaws in Eddington’s selection of data, but their doubts, although widely quoted and, indeed, now with a “mythical” status almost equivalent to the status of the original observations, have not been confirmed.[51][52] Eddington’s selection from the data seems valid and his team indeed made astronomical measurements verifying the theory.[53]
    In 1921, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, as relativity was considered still somewhat controversial. He also received the Copley Medal from the Royal Society in 1925.
    Travels abroad
    Einstein visited New York City for the first time on 2 April 1921, where he received an official welcome by the Mayor, followed by three weeks of lectures and receptions. He went on to deliver several lectures at Columbia University and Princeton University, and in Washington he accompanied representatives of the National Academy of Science on a visit to the White House. On his return to Europe he was the guest of the British statesman and philosopher Viscount Haldane in London, where he met several renowned scientific, intellectual and political figures, and delivered a lecture at King’s College.[54]
    In 1922, he traveled throughout Asia and later to Palestine, as part of a six-month excursion and speaking tour. His travels included Singapore, Ceylon, and Japan, where he gave a series of lectures to thousands of Japanese. His first lecture in Tokyo lasted four hours, after which he met the emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace where thousands came to watch. Einstein later gave his impressions of the Japanese in a letter to his sons:[55]:307 “Of all the people I have met, I like the Japanese most, as they are modest, intelligent, considerate, and have a feel for art.”[55]:308
    On his return voyage, he also visited Palestine for 12 days in what would become his only visit to that region. “He was greeted with great British pomp, as if he were a head of state rather than a theoretical physicist”, writes Isaacson. This included a cannon salute upon his arrival at the residence of the British high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. During one reception given to him, the building was “stormed by throngs who wanted to hear him”. In Einstein’s talk to the audience, he expressed his happiness over the event:
    I consider this the greatest day of my life. Before, I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people. Today, I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world.[56]:308
    Emigration to U.S. in 1933

    Cartoon of Einstein, who has shed his “Pacifism” wings, standing next to a pillar labeled “World Peace.” He is rolling up his sleeves and holding a sword labeled “Preparedness” (circa 1933).
    In February 1933 while on a visit to the United States, Einstein decided not to return to Germany due to the rise to power of the Nazis under Germany’s new chancellor.[57][58] He visited American universities in early 1933 where he undertook his third two-month visiting professorship at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He and his wife Elsa returned by ship to Belgium at the end of March. During the voyage they were informed that their cottage was raided by the Nazis and his personal sailboat had been confiscated. Upon landing in Antwerp on 28 March, he immediately went to the German consulate where he turned in his passport and formally renounced his German citizenship.[56]
    In early April, he learned that the new German government had passed laws barring Jews from holding any official positions, including teaching at universities.[56] A month later, Einstein’s works were among those targeted by Nazi book burnings, and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels proclaimed, “Jewish intellectualism is dead.”[56] Einstein also learned that his name was on a list of assassination targets, with a “$5,000 bounty on his head.”[56] One German magazine included him in a list of enemies of the German regime with the phrase, “not yet hanged”.[56]
    He resided in Belgium for some months, before temporarily living in England.[59][60] In a letter to his friend, physicist Max Born, who also emigrated from Germany and lived in England, Einstein wrote, “. . . I must confess that the degree of their brutality and cowardice came as something of a surprise.”[56]

    Portrait taken in 1935 at Princeton
    In October 1933 he returned to the U.S. and took up a position at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey, that required his presence for six months each year.[61][62] He was still undecided on his future (he had offers from European universities, including Oxford), but in 1935 he arrived at the decision to remain permanently in the United States and apply for citizenship.[63][64]
    His affiliation with the Institute for Advance Studies would last until his death in 1955.[65] He was one of the four first selected (two of the others being John von Neumann and Kurt Gödel) at the new Institute, where he soon developed a close friendship with Gödel. The two would take long walks together discussing their work. His last assistant was Bruria Kaufman, who later became a renowned physicist. During this period, Einstein tried to develop a unified field theory and to refute the accepted interpretation of quantum physics, both unsuccessfully.
    Other scientists also fled to America. Among them were Nobel laureates and professors of theoretical physics. With so many other Jewish scientists now forced by circumstances to live in America, often working side by side, Einstein wrote to a friend, “For me the most beautiful thing is to be in contact with a few fine Jews—a few millennia of a civilized past do mean something after all.” In another letter he writes, “In my whole life I have never felt so Jewish as now.”[56]
    World War II and the Manhattan Project
    In 1939, a group of Hungarian scientists that included emigre physicist Leó Szilárd attempted to alert Washington of ongoing Nazi atomic bomb research. The group’s warnings were discounted.[66] Einstein and Szilárd, along with other refugees such as Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, “regarded it as their responsibility to alert Americans to the possibility that German scientists might win the race to build an atomic bomb, and to warn that Hitler would be more than willing to resort to such a weapon.”[55]:630[67] In the summer of 1939, a few months before the beginning of World War II in Europe, Einstein was persuaded to lend his prestige by writing a letter with Szilárd to President Franklin D. Roosevelt to alert him of the possibility. The letter also recommended that the U.S. government pay attention to and become directly involved in uranium research and associated chain reaction research.
    The letter is believed to be “arguably the key stimulus for the U.S. adoption of serious investigations into nuclear weapons on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II”.[68] President Roosevelt could not take the risk of allowing Hitler to possess atomic bombs first. As a result of Einstein’s letter and his meetings with Roosevelt, the U.S. entered the “race” to develop the bomb, drawing on its “immense material, financial, and scientific resources” to initiate the Manhattan Project. It became the only country to successfully develop an atomic bomb during World War II.
    For Einstein, “war was a disease . . . [and] he called for resistance to war.” But in 1933, after Hitler assumed full power in Germany, “he renounced pacifism altogether . . . In fact, he urged the Western powers to prepare themselves against another German onslaught.”[69]:110 In 1954, a year before his death, Einstein said to his old friend, Linus Pauling, “I made one great mistake in my life — when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification — the danger that the Germans would make them…”[70]
    U.S. citizenship

    Einstein accepting U.S. citizenship, 1940
    Einstein became an American citizen in 1940. Not long after settling into his career at Princeton, he expressed his appreciation of the “meritocracy” in American culture when compared to Europe. According to Isaacson, he recognized the “right of individuals to say and think what they pleased”, without social barriers, and as result, the individual was “encouraged” to be more creative, a trait he valued from his own early education. Einstein writes:
    What makes the new arrival devoted to this country is the democratic trait among the people. No one humbles himself before another person or class. . . American youth has the good fortune not to have its outlook troubled by outworn traditions.[56]:432
    As a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at Princeton who campaigned for the civil rights of African Americans, Einstein corresponded with civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, and in 1946 Einstein called racism America’s “worst disease”.[71] He later stated, “Race prejudice has unfortunately become an American tradition which is uncritically handed down from one generation to the next. The only remedies are enlightenment and education”.[72]

    Einstein in 1947
    During the final stage of his life, Einstein transitioned to a vegetarian lifestyle,[73] arguing that “the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind”.[74]
    After the death of Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, in November 1952, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion offered Einstein the position of President of Israel, a mostly ceremonial post.[75] The offer was presented by Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Abba Eban, who explained that the offer “embodies the deepest respect which the Jewish people can repose in any of its sons”.[55]:522 However, Einstein declined, and wrote in his response that he was “deeply moved”, and “at once saddened and ashamed” that he could not accept it:
    All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship with the Jewish people became my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world.[55]:522[75][76]

    The New York World-Telegram announces Einstein’s death on 18 April 1955.
    On 17 April 1955, Albert Einstein experienced internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which had previously been reinforced surgically by Dr. Rudolph Nissen in 1948.[77] He took the draft of a speech he was preparing for a television appearance commemorating the State of Israel’s seventh anniversary with him to the hospital, but he did not live long enough to complete it.[78] Einstein refused surgery, saying: “I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly.”[79] He died in Princeton Hospital early the next morning at the age of 76, having continued to work until near the end.
    During the autopsy, the pathologist of Princeton Hospital, Thomas Stoltz Harvey, removed Einstein’s brain for preservation without the permission of his family, in the hope that the neuroscience of the future would be able to discover what made Einstein so intelligent.[80] Einstein’s remains were cremated and his ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location.[81][82]
    In his lecture at Einstein’s memorial, nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer summarized his impression of him as a person: “He was almost wholly without sophistication and wholly without worldliness . . . There was always with him a wonderful purity at once childlike and profoundly stubborn.”[69]
    Scientific career

    Albert Einstein in 1904

    The photoelectric effect. Incoming photons on the left strike a metal plate (bottom), and eject electrons, depicted as flying off to the right.
    Throughout his life, Einstein published hundreds of books and articles.[8][10] In addition to the work he did by himself he also collaborated with other scientists on additional projects including the Bose–Einstein statistics, the Einstein refrigerator and others.[83]
    1905 – Annus Mirabilis papers
    Main articles: Annus Mirabilis papers, Photoelectric effect, Special theory of relativity, and Mass–energy equivalence
    The Annus Mirabilis papers are four articles pertaining to the photoelectric effect (which gave rise to quantum theory), Brownian motion, the special theory of relativity, and E = mc2 that Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four works contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter. The four papers are:
    Title (translated) Area of focus Received Published Significance
    On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light Photoelectric effect 18 March 9 June Resolved an unsolved puzzle by suggesting that energy is exchanged only in discrete amounts (quanta).[84] This idea was pivotal to the early development of quantum theory.[85]
    On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat Brownian motion 11 May 18 July Explained empirical evidence for the atomic theory, supporting the application of statistical physics.
    On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies Special relativity 30 June 26 September Reconciled Maxwell’s equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light, resulting from analysis based on empirical evidence that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.[86] Discredited the concept of a “luminiferous ether.”[87]
    Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? Matter–energy equivalence 27 September 21 November Equivalence of matter and energy, E = mc2 (and by implication, the ability of gravity to “bend” light), the existence of “rest energy”, and the basis of nuclear energy.
    Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physics
    Main articles: Statistical mechanics, thermal fluctuations, and statistical physics
    Albert Einstein’s first paper[88] submitted in 1900 to Annalen der Physik was on capillary attraction. It was published in 1901 with the title “Folgerungen aus den Kapillarität Erscheinungen,” which translates as “Conclusions from the capillarity phenomena”. Two papers he published in 1902–1903 (thermodynamics) attempted to interpret atomic phenomena from a statistical point of view. These papers were the foundation for the 1905 paper on Brownian motion, which showed that Brownian movement can be construed as firm evidence that molecules exist. His research in 1903 and 1904 was mainly concerned with the effect of finite atomic size on diffusion phenomena.[88]
    General principles
    He articulated the principle of relativity. This was understood by Hermann Minkowski to be a generalization of rotational invariance from space to space-time. Other principles postulated by Einstein and later vindicated are the principle of equivalence and the principle of adiabatic invariance of the quantum number.
    Theory of relativity and E = mc²
    Main article: History of special relativity
    Einstein’s “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”) was received on 30 June 1905 and published 26 September of that same year. It reconciles Maxwell’s equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. This later became known as Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
    Consequences of this include the time-space frame of a moving body appearing to slow down and contract (in the direction of motion) when measured in the frame of the observer. This paper also argued that the idea of a luminiferous aether – one of the leading theoretical entities in physics at the time – was superfluous.[89]
    In his paper on mass–energy equivalence Einstein produced E = mc2 from his special relativity equations.[90] Einstein’s 1905 work on relativity remained controversial for many years, but was accepted by leading physicists, starting with Max Planck.[91][92]
    Photons and energy quanta
    Main articles: Photon and Quantum
    In a 1905 paper,[93] Einstein postulated that light itself consists of localized particles (quanta). Einstein’s light quanta were nearly universally rejected by all physicists, including Max Planck and Niels Bohr. This idea only became universally accepted in 1919, with Robert Millikan’s detailed experiments on the photoelectric effect, and with the measurement of Compton scattering.
    Einstein concluded that each wave of frequency f is associated with a collection of photons with energy hf each, where h is Planck’s constant. He does not say much more, because he is not sure how the particles are related to the wave. But he does suggest that this idea would explain certain experimental results, notably the photoelectric effect.[94]
    Quantized atomic vibrations
    Main article: Einstein solid
    In 1907 Einstein proposed a model of matter where each atom in a lattice structure is an independent harmonic oscillator. In the Einstein model, each atom oscillates independently – a series of equally spaced quantized states for each oscillator. Einstein was aware that getting the frequency of the actual oscillations would be different, but he nevertheless proposed this theory because it was a particularly clear demonstration that quantum mechanics could solve the specific heat problem in classical mechanics. Peter Debye refined this model.[95]
    Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables
    Main article: Old quantum theory
    Throughout the 1910s, quantum mechanics expanded in scope to cover many different systems. After Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus and proposed that electrons orbit like planets, Niels Bohr was able to show that the same quantum mechanical postulates introduced by Planck and developed by Einstein would explain the discrete motion of electrons in atoms, and the periodic table of the elements.
    Einstein contributed to these developments by linking them with the 1898 arguments Wilhelm Wien had made. Wien had shown that the hypothesis of adiabatic invariance of a thermal equilibrium state allows all the blackbody curves at different temperature to be derived from one another by a simple shifting process. Einstein noted in 1911 that the same adiabatic principle shows that the quantity which is quantized in any mechanical motion must be an adiabatic invariant. Arnold Sommerfeld identified this adiabatic invariant as the action variable of classical mechanics. The law that the action variable is quantized was a basic principle of the quantum theory as it was known between 1900 and 1925.[citation needed]
    Wave–particle duality

    Einstein during his visit to the United States
    Main article: Wave–particle duality
    Although the patent office promoted Einstein to Technical Examiner Second Class in 1906, he had not given up on academia. In 1908, he became a privatdozent at the University of Bern.[96] In “über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung” (“The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation”), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck’s energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics.
    Theory of critical opalescence
    Main article: Critical opalescence
    Einstein returned to the problem of thermodynamic fluctuations, giving a treatment of the density variations in a fluid at its critical point. Ordinarily the density fluctuations are controlled by the second derivative of the free energy with respect to the density. At the critical point, this derivative is zero, leading to large fluctuations. The effect of density fluctuations is that light of all wavelengths is scattered, making the fluid look milky white. Einstein relates this to Raleigh scattering, which is what happens when the fluctuation size is much smaller than the wavelength, and which explains why the sky is blue.[97] Einstein quantitatively derived critical opalescence from a treatment of density fluctuations, and demonstrated how both the effect and Rayleigh scattering originate from the atomistic constitution of matter.
    Zero-point energy
    Main article: Zero-point energy
    Einstein’s physical intuition led him to note that Planck’s oscillator energies had an incorrect zero point. He modified Planck’s hypothesis by stating that the lowest energy state of an oscillator is equal to 1⁄2hf, to half the energy spacing between levels. This argument, which was made in 1913 in collaboration with Otto Stern, was based on the thermodynamics of a diatomic molecule which can split apart into two free atoms.
    General relativity and