Why Contributions are more important than Super-High IQ and Prodigious talents
There once was a time when the world valued contributions as the highest achievement, these days are over thanks to the atheists.
Now that the atheists have taken over science, contributions have been severely de-valued to such an extent that people don’t even mention significant contributors anymore.
People who win Nobel Prizes or make Nobel Prize winning contributions aren’t really considered as much of a genius as 200 IQ+ people who contributes nothing.
What’s valued highly in modern times is just super-high IQ or prodigious talents alone. That’s what’s celebrated in the media and everywhere now, not people who make contributions that require lots of intelligence.
Since contributions have been de-valued by atheists, people as a whole are now discouraged from contributing, and since contributions are what advance science and technology, people are discouraged from advancing science and technology.
I’ve asked atheists why they’ve de-valued contributions (that require lots of intelligence), but no atheist has answered this question.
What people are encouraged to do is simply score high on an IQ test, not contribute.
Prior to the fools (atheists) taking over if you wanted to be known as super-smart you would have to come up with contributions that require lots of intelligence to demonstrate your super-smart level of intelligence, not simply score high on an IQ test alone.
Since nearly 100% of IQ 200+ prodigies don’t go on to contribute anything significant (in the Nobel Prize winning range) this tells me that once IQ goes up to a certain point IQ is actually “Learning Speed Quota”, not “Intelligence Quota”.
This “Learning Speed Quota” hypothesis of mine matches basically all of the data. So super-high IQ prodigies would be people who can learn academic material quickly. This would also explain all known links to IQ, why self-discipline predicts GPA better than IQ, why some people with low or below average GPAs have high SAT scores, and why the vast majority of IQ 200+ prodigies don’t turn out to be Nobel Prize winners or the ones who make the most significant contributions.
Once computers become faster it should be relatively easy to get machines to learn material quickly, score above 200 on IQ tests, and do everything that super-high IQ prodigies can do, but it would probably be extremely difficult to get computers to come up with contributions that do not rely upon learning already existing material.
So in other words, once computers become faster high IQ (non-contributing) prodigies will become useless just as how calculators have replaced mental arithmetic champions.
The world needs contributions to solve all world problems and change the world, not simply people who can learn academic material quickly (super-high IQ).
So why don’t the vast majority of IQ 200+ people go on to win Nobel Prizes or make ground-breaking contributions?
Take for instance Abdesselam Jelloul, the person who allegedly has the highest adult IQ in the world. He hasn’t contributed anything in the Nobel Prize winning range or even close to coming close to. Why is this?
The other person who has a tested adult IQ above 190 is Christopher Langan, who also hasn’t contributed anything in the Nobel prize winning range.
My hypothesis is that “Contributing Power = IQ and some X relationship to Originality” or something similar to this.
With this hypothesis we would conclude that:
– Someone who has an IQ above 200 with no originality would be able to contribute nothing significant
– Low IQ people with lots of originality would also not able to contribute
– Someone who has an IQ in the 90s with lots of originality would be able to contribute lots in certain areas
– The highest contributing power would be the individual with the highest IQ and the highest originality
– In order to be able to contribute in certain areas (like mathematics or physics) you would need a certain minimum IQ or Learning Speed Quota.
The main problem with this hypothesis is that originality is not objectively measurable, but this hypothesis seems to fit the data nonetheless.
By focusing on Contributing Power rather than IQ alone we can encourage both high IQ and contributions, and also find and predict the people who will make ground-breaking contributions.
We need to come up with a reliable Contributing Power test since IQ tests are merely Learning Speed Quota tests.
The worst thing that ever happened to society was the rise in the atheist population, no other group of people have severely de-valued contributions as much as the atheists have.
If we had encouraged people to have a high Contributing Power we would be encouraging high IQ and contributions as well. So it’s really a win/win situation if we value up Contributing Power.
– IQ tests are merely “Learning Speed Quota” tests, this hypothesis matches all of the data (if anyone has a counterargument to this hypothesis please post it)
– My hypothesis is that “Contributing Power = IQ and some relationship to Originality”
– Society as a whole should go back to valuing contributions more than IQ, since it’s what the world needs