Frightening Genius

[Frank]

It's a good day when I'm made to feel both stupid and worthless by a 12 year old boy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...develops-theory-relativity.html#ixzz1HYceBp6u

 

[Jiarn]

Is really all I can feel to this.

 

[Ravenpoe]

While this is impressive, and the kid has every right to be proud, he's not the super world changing genius that the article is trying to paint him as. And an IQ of 175 doesn't immediately mean he'll uncover some profound theory and change the world of science. At the age of 12, an IQ of 175 would mean he has the mental age of a 21 year old.

Also, working on an expanded theory of relativity doesn't mean he'll actually achieve anything from it. That would have to remain to be seen.

All said, still impressive. But not a superpowered brain mutant.

 

[Krisken]

Where is my drooling idiot emote. I needs it now.

 

[Mathias]

While this is impressive, and the kid has every right to be proud, he's not the super world changing genius that the article is trying to paint him as. And an IQ of 175 doesn't immediately mean he'll uncover some profound theory and change the world of science. At the age of 12, an IQ of 175 would mean he has the mental age of a 21 year old.

Also, working on an expanded theory of relativity doesn't mean he'll actually achieve anything from it. That would have to remain to be seen.

All said, still impressive. But not a superpowered brain mutant.

The kid is 12 and is solving relativistic physics problems on his own; not many 21 year olds can do that. I don't think the article painted him out to be more than he is. He is a prodigy. Period.

 

[HCGLNS]

Gotta love how when he couldn't sleep he didn't watch tv or have a snack, he disproved the big bang theory.

 

[Chad Sexington]

When I can't sleep, I usually write, but it sure doesn't put Shakespeare to shame. Geniuses! Hmph. Making the rest of insomniacs look like slackers.

 

[Jiarn]

Let's hope he doesn't end up like Andrew Haliburton.

 

[fade]

I was thinking about prodigies the other day. How many go on to actually do something spectacular? You hear about them when they're kids, but then, poof.

 

[MindDetective]

I was thinking about prodigies the other day. How many go on to actually do something spectacular? You hear about them when they're kids, but then, poof.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an entire book centered on that question. He concluded that child prodigies generally do not predict great contributors to art and science as adults. Take it with a grain of salt, though, since we are talking about Malcolm Gladwell here.

 

[fade]

I'm guessing a prodigy is a good healthy mix of natural proclivity and internal or external drive (i.e. from zealous parenting). Maybe that's wrong, but when the drive goes away, intelligence is no longer enough.

 

[MindDetective]

The kid is 12 and is solving relativistic physics problems on his own; not many 21 year olds can do that. I don't think the article painted him out to be more than he is. He is a prodigy. Period.

Also, Intelligent Quotient is "Mental Age"/"Chronological Age" x 100, so having an I.Q. higher than 100 means that your mental age is higher than your chronological age. Ravenpoe is correct in the way he interpreted the I.Q., although it starts to break down in adults. It was originally intended to measure children. I imagine he was measured using the WISC IV or something, which is designed for kids up to about the age of 16. It is hard to assign a value to what 170 I.Q. means in this case beyond "smarter than the average bear".
Added at: 09:08

I'm guessing a prodigy is a good healthy mix of natural proclivity and internal or external drive (i.e. from zealous parenting). Maybe that's wrong, but when the drive goes away, intelligence is no longer enough.

One of the central tenets of Gladwell's thesis is that child prodigies lose interest in what they are good at and move on to other things they are less good at, making them more or less equal to others in their new area of interest.