No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by WibbleAgain on Dec 10, 2017 2:05:50 PM
Stephen Hawking can't be all that bright, or he'd have written A Very Long History of Time

Having a high IQ is a curse. Look at Donald Trump, whose IQ is through the roof, reportedly.

Research suggests that people with high IQ scores are more likely to have mood disorders, and a higher risk factor of ‘psychological overexcitabilities’ – perhaps that explains the behaviour of the man in the White House

I'm sure that's why we have so many nutters on here. Too clever for our own good.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 14:25:44 (#1 of 53)

The fact that it’s 2017 and we still equate IQ with intelligence is alarming. However, the IQ era may soon be ending. In the last few years, we’ve seen artificial intelligence get exponentially more intelligent. AlphaZero, for example, an AI program created by Google-owned DeepMind, recently taught itself everything there is to know about chess in just four hours. As computers grow more intelligent, it is going to profoundly change how we think about human intelligence. Let’s just hope that one consolation of the robots taking over is that we’ll finally stop hearing insufferable people go on about their very high IQs.

barkis - 10 Dec 2017 14:30:33 (#2 of 53)

One component of IQ is spacial awareness, something computers are bad at. A young child is better at recognising a face than the best software is.

phantlers - 10 Dec 2017 14:36:09 (#3 of 53)

Computers can't think outside the box.

phantlers - 10 Dec 2017 14:38:19 (#4 of 53)

...and being long winded does not necessarily equate with intelligence or even common sense, as this very corner of the internet bears testament.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 14:47:35 (#5 of 53)

It's a Haven thread. Please post accordingly.

thisonehasalittlehat - 10 Dec 2017 15:04:14 (#6 of 53)

Your mum has a high iq

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:07:48 (#7 of 53)

So she did, as a matter of fact. Which was why she was so resentful of her lot.

foghorn - 10 Dec 2017 15:29:33 (#8 of 53)

Every time you think that Dawkings must be clever and writes a heavy book you can´t really understand, he starts going on about how God might exist and aliens being a certainty.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:32:24 (#9 of 53)

Every time you think that Dawkings must be clever and writes a heavy book you can´t really understand, he starts going on about how God might exist and aliens being a certainty.

That's a perfectly logical deduction.

Dawkins is the one who doesn't understand logic.

TinyMcOtter - 10 Dec 2017 15:32:44 (#10 of 53)

The length of time is relative. Also what came before time?

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:33:52 (#11 of 53)

Now that's cleverer than Hawking. Maybe he said that too.

Brunothecat - 10 Dec 2017 15:34:45 (#12 of 53)


There was no "before" since there was yet to be any time.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:35:17 (#13 of 53)

Very profound.

foghorn - 10 Dec 2017 15:35:18 (#14 of 53)

Has anyone actually got through one of his books?

Honest now.

browserbutton - 10 Dec 2017 15:36:23 (#15 of 53)

I got as far as page 6, some clever people boast about getting to page 8.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:36:57 (#16 of 53)

I did read through A Brief History of Time. Can't say I understood more than half of it. Don't ask me what I can remember, as it's all mixed up with all the other popular books on quantum physics and metaphysics stuff I've read.

WibbleAgain - 10 Dec 2017 15:37:56 (#17 of 53)

It's a very short book. Although painful it's possible to plough through it. I was young and stubborn, and could afford to burn a few brain cells then. At least I thought so then.

browserbutton - 10 Dec 2017 15:38:49 (#18 of 53)

I find that having achieved 6 pages, I can dazzle at dinner parties.

Brunothecat - 10 Dec 2017 15:39:31 (#19 of 53)

Time exists at the atomic level, it is measured most accurately (I think) by the movement of subatomic particles. So for time to not exist - or before time as the original question was posed - must be nothing. Absolute nothing, since time starts as soon as an atom comes into being.

foghorn - 10 Dec 2017 15:45:00 (#20 of 53)

I regretted the money I spent on it pretty much immediately.

Check Subscriptions
Home » The Haven