Skip to content
January 29, 2013 / itsnobody

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.

Now onto why contributions are more important than super-high IQ or prodigious talents:

Scenario: It’s WWIII and the US National Defense is trying to come up with new advanced weapons and technology to win the war.

Which person is more useful:
– Someone who comes up and develops new efficient national defense weapons
– Someone has an IQ above 200, but can’t come up with anything

Scenario:  A country has a Food Crisis problem and there isn’t enough food to feed 50% of the population.

Which person is more useful:
– Someone who comes up with new agricultural methods that solves the Food Crisis problem
– Someone who has an IQ above 200 and a 4.0 GPA, but can’t come up with any solutions to this problem

Scenario: A deadly unknown virus has spread and has infected 20% of the population already.

Which person is more useful:
– Someone who finds a new ground-breaking cure or treatment that stops the virus
– Someone who’s a great prodigy and has an IQ above 200, but cannot find a new cure or treatment

Scenario: A software company is running into issues with their database speed and efficiency.

Which person is more useful:
– Someone who invents a ground-breaking new data structure that solves their database problems
– An IQ 200+ prodigy who has a high GPA at a prestigious University, but cannot solve the problem

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.

In conclusion:
– 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

Advertisements

15 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Dec 7 2016 9:18 pm

    This looks like something someone would write after discovering that they have a low IQ.

  2. tixsnrdxz@gmail.com / Dec 12 2014 10:50 am

    Buy cheap boys nike elite basketball socks from china with the fast free shipping and 60-Day return policy.

  3. Madhusudan Singh / Oct 19 2014 11:15 am

    your idea “Before if you wanted to prove that you were super-smart you really had to come up with contributions to demonstrate how smart you are”. is correct .einstein was not considered as genius before his contribution of general relativity. this contribution game him fame of genius even he never took that fucking iq test .why he didn’t he took the test ? because he unsterstood the concept of contribution than being smarter.

  4. Madhusudan Singh / Oct 19 2014 11:11 am

    Your idea “Before if you wanted to prove that you were super-smart you really had to come up with contributions to demonstrate how smart you are ” is correct because before einstein contribution of general theory of relativity ,no one considered him genius .it was his contribution that gave him fame of genius even he he
    never took any iq test.

  5. Ahmed / Apr 23 2014 2:20 am

    I totally get and agree with your point of “If you can’t use your intelligence to make contributions then how intelligent are you really ?”
    What I don’t get however is the part of Atheists in all this. How are they responsible again ? From the get go, you start bashing atheists for being responsible for “contributions have been severely devalued”. I don’t understand this leap of reasoning and it will be useful if you explain further for your fellow believer in God. Thanks

  6. itsnobody / Feb 23 2014 5:00 pm

    The bottom line is: The main block to human progress always has been the atheists and atheist population.

    No other group of people have severely de-valued the significance of contributions as much as the atheists have.

    IQ is just a made up test, who cares, on the other hand contributions really exist, it’s something real.

    Since IQ is made up I’m guessing there would be lots of ways to artificially raise your IQ, but who cares.

    Before the atheists took over people thought “Who really cares what your IQ is, it doesn’t matter if you have no Nobel-prize worthy contributions”

    But not anymore, it’s the opposite.

    Now it’s “Who cares what you contributed, it doesn’t mean that you’re smart unless you have a high IQ”.

    So the atheists have already ruined the world.

    Atheists are the nastiest people in the world, and have set back the progress of mankind so far.

    We would’ve probably been in a Utopia-type age by now if people really cared a lot about contributions.

    • Madhusudan Singh / Oct 19 2014 11:04 am

      you have thought deeply ,but it doesn’t mean you have a high iq instead you have contributed a true and deep idea.

  7. Claudiu / Oct 19 2013 12:46 pm

    I don’t understand, you refer to atheists in a religious way, i mean people who don’t believe in God? Otherwise, i don’t see the connection between being an atheist and mathematics.

  8. Chris R / Feb 2 2013 11:36 pm

    You are writing total gibberish again. I have a load of patents and am an atheist. The religious clowns spend to long at church and in prayer to stand a chance of keeping up with reality. Wasting their learning time and believing that God will help them. usually their science knowledge sucks too.

    • Anonymous / Feb 5 2013 5:04 am

      I think the main point of the article was more to do with people with High IQ’s not contributing anything significant rather than atheists not contributing anything significant. I think what the author said about atheists is that they are celebrating people with high IQ’s when the only thing they can do is do well in a IQ test and contribute nothing revolutionary. And on your point about having patents, anyone can have a patent, but it is not really worth anything if it is useless, what matters is the impact the invention will have on everyone’s life. Perhaps you can give an example of what you have invented?

      • itsnobody / Oct 16 2013 11:10 pm

        He hasn’t invented anything worthwhile.

        I really wish it could go back to the old days (prior to atheists taking over in the late 1960s and early 1970s).

        Before if you wanted to prove that you were super-smart you really had to come up with contributions to demonstrate how smart you are.

        Now if you want to prove that you’re super-smart all you have to do is score high on an IQ test, it wouldn’t matter if you contributed nothing at all it would be all over the internet and media, you would become a celebrated figure.

        If only it could go back to the old days, we could’ve had all types of real good contributions by now, but no one’s encouraged to make any.

        What a shame.

      • Anonymous / Aug 25 2014 2:52 pm

        Is this guy fucking joking this is the biggest pile of gibberish i have ever read. You call yourself educated…. Why in god’s name do you blame Atheists for devaluing science your totally fucking delusional. You sound like some sort of religious fanatic that just blames all the worlds problems on Atheists. Are you fucking serious!! Atheists are just as smart and in a lot of way contribute more to science because they don’t believe FUCKING MADE UP FAIRY TALES. WHAT YOUR SAYING IS FUCKING PREJUDICE AND YOU SHOULD STOP. But hey your religion is known for spreading prejudice and hate among people. How many innocent people have been torured and beheaded and burned and crucified because of your god. Hey Hitler was a devout catholic I’msure your proud of that.

    • itsnobody / Oct 16 2013 10:42 pm

      As usual you have nothing constructive to say and just show the low intelligence atheists have.

      It’s just the same ad hominem garbage, don’t you get tired of just throwing ad hominems at people or is that all that you’re capable of doing?

      Oh yeah my post didn’t contain any ad hominems, just name-calling because I actually made points, when you make arguments and have insults it’s name-calling.

      If atheists value contributions then how come they don’t show it?

      The point you made about Theists praying or whatever just shows the uneducated garbage atheists believe, the historical consensus is that religion caused science to exist, deal with it. If you have a problem with that then contact historians about it.

      I’m sure you didn’t know because atheists get historical information from cartoon shows, they still believe in the “Dark Ages” myth invented by atheists/anti-science fans, lol.

      The 1st most religious and 2nd most religious Western European countries (Switzerland and Austria) have the 1st and 2nd most scientific Nobel prizes per capita among nations with a population size above 1 million, Estonia, the most atheistic country in the world has 0 Nobel prizes, what’s your response to that?

      Haha, I win every time, Mr.Fool.

      Thanks for continually proving me right, atheists don’t know anything about anything.

  9. Miguel González / Jan 29 2013 9:02 pm

    The most difficult problems in IQ tests require the adoption of unusual points of view, and I consider that to be originality. But tests are usually done in childhood. People with super-high IQ’s use to learn very fast and have original ideas when they are children, but most of them run out of that learning speed and originality as long as they grow up. You can see how dramatic that change can be in the following website:

    http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/childiq.html

    Originality needs a proper source, which most times is experience. If you study the life of the greatest geniuses in the history of mankind, you’ll never see brilliant ideas born from nothing. Maybe Edison was not a super-genius, as you said in another post, but he’s the author of this brilliant sentence: “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration”.

    Regarding computer IQ, you are quite right. In fact, a Swedish computer with an IQ of 150 has been made yet. You can read about it in this article:

    http://www.gizmag.com/swedish-program-150iq/21465/

    In respect to 200+ prodigies, I’m not sure if there are many ones, as you seem to indicate. Firstly, most 200+ people have done the tests as children, not as adults, so their IQ’s are now much lower. Secondly, IQ is not a mesure of absolute intelligence, but relative. It gives you how smart you are in comparison with the rest of the population. This means that you need a certain population to be compared to. Since IQ tests don’t work the same in different cultures, the results won’t be the same in different places of the world. But, even if they did, I’ll show you why a 200+ IQ is very unlikely:

    Each IQ number is associated with a percentile, so you are able to determine how many people share that IQ number in a given population. With the purpose of refuting the idea that there are many 200+ people in the world, let’s consider the whole world as a single population, composed of, to use a round number, 7 billion people. I’ve applied the 15 SD percentiles from the table at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx, and these are the resulting numbers:

    (IQ and number of people in the world who share that IQ).

    160 = 221,802.28
    161 = 167,002.57
    162 = 125,210.12
    163 = 93,478.7
    164 = 69,492.92
    165 = 51,442.44
    166 = 37,918.65
    167 = 27,831.3
    168 = 20,340.53
    169 = 14,802.48
    170 = 10,726.38
    171 = 7,739.48
    172 = 5,560.47
    173 = 3,977.86
    174 = 2,833.52
    175 = 2,009.73
    176 = 1,419.34
    177 = 998.08
    178 = 698.83
    179 = 487.21
    180 = 338.21
    181 = 233.77
    182 = 160.88
    183 = 110.24
    184 = 75.22
    185 = 51.10
    186 = 34.56
    187 = 23.28
    188 = 15.60
    189 = 10.42
    190 = 6.92
    191 = 4.58
    192 = 3.02
    193 = 1.98
    194 = 1.29
    195 = 0.83
    196 = 0.54
    197 = 0.34
    198 = 0.22
    199 = 0.14
    200 = 0.09
    201 = 0.05
    202 = 0.03

    As you can see, people with a 194+ shouldn’t exist except by an evolutive coincidence, since they correspond to less than one out of 7 billion people. People with a 200 are one out of more than 11 times the world population, with 201, one out of 20 times the world population, with 202, one out of more than 33 times the world population, and so on. I let to you to imagine the astronomical number of people required to make the comparison with a 220.

    And, finally, we also have to take into account the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect is the name that receives the fact that each generation is a bit smarter than the previous one, due to several postulated facts like nutrition and early education. By applying the Flynn effect, we’ll see that, from a list taken from Cox’s Study of “300 (301) Eminent Geniuses born from 1450 to 1850” (1926), Goethe, who was assigned a 210, should be assigned today a 188, which means one out of 15,60 people in the whole world (very probably even less), something that is not bad at all and pretty much realistic.

    You can see the whole table in this website:

    http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx

    Best regards.

    • itsnobody / Oct 16 2013 11:34 pm

      Hi,

      You were right about childhood IQ, I updated the article and removed Kim Ung-yong. An adult IQ of 106 is = to a childhood IQ of 170 at age 10! Kim Ung-yong’s adult IQ is supposedly only 170 now.

      The people with the highest tested adult IQs are Abdesselam Jelloul at 198 and Christopher Langan at 195, who have both contributed nothing in the Nobel prize winning range.

      If you can’t use your intelligence to make contributions then how intelligent are you really?

      In my opinion an IQ of 160 is all that’s necessary to make any imaginable contribution.

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: