Richard Dawkins's IQ

[GoodListener]

James Sidis on the other hand had an IQ score of about 250-300 but he didn't accomplished much in his life.

According to what I've read, William James Sidis was massively pressured by his father, who sent him to Harvard when he was aged 11 (they wouldn't take him at 9!), so he became rather "burned out" by the time he reached 20. That must have been an awful experience. He also got in trouble for his socialist views, was a conscientious objector to the WWI draft, and was an atheist. He did do a lot of writing during the years when he worked at menial tasks, though. It's quite an interesting story.

My point exactly. It is not IQ scores that are interesting but the underlying stories.I am glad you took some time to find out yourself the troubled story of this man. I believe in his case the label "genius" was a huge burden put on his shoulders by society, while his family behavior was inhuman and that's why he couldn't accomplish (or wasn't motivated to accomplish) as much as expected by such an intelligent person (although I believe our high expectations from high intelligent people are not so justified as they seem).
There are other examples like Christopher Langan, who also had a troubled childhood and he was a construction worker and a bouncer for years. Yet he managed to use his free time to educate himself and started to develop some theories (I think they are not accepted by the academic community though).
In conclusion high IQ is a valuable attribute but it should be in synergy with a large number of other attributes in order for a person to achieve excellence (Although one can always prefer not to use his/her attributes in order to pursuit excellence but just live a happy life!)

PS: I am glad that by a strange coincidence I share the same location with Lisa

[MotherLodeBeth]

For a dozen years I was director for the Association Gifted Creative Children. Gifted for many years denoted high scores in math and science. Whereas a person can be extremely brilliant in the arts. How would you test someone like Michelangelo whose giftedness was on par with someone like an Einstein. What about someone like a Shakespeare? Had a boy whose family was involved with our association who could at age 15 take an engine from a car, old or new, apart and put it back together in a day.

Professor Temple Grandin has Aspergers and notes in her writings that we would not have the high tech industry without high functioning AS folks who often test poor on social skills but do well in other areas.

~Beth~

[DeepFritz]

It's not just the score that you get in an IQ test (which just measures how well you go at doing IQ tests). It's what you do with what you have been given in the genetic lottery for mine. Some people have little natural talent yet work hard, whilst others with all the talent in the world, acomplish very little. There are people who try to do several things with their lives and don't do as well in one single field as somebody who manages to focus their talents on a specific area.

Richard's most brilliant insight of his scientific career was to take the theory of evolution and take it to it's smallest possible unit (the gene). Most scientists don't ever get the chance to discover or postulate a theory like that. Certainly the most wonderful thing about it is it's elegent simplicity - having read his works you wonder, how could it have been thought to have been any other way?

I don't think that achievement requires a Newton, Einstein, Hawkins or Schrodinger brain for mathematics, but it does require years of devotion to learning and a logical thought process to postulate, well if going to the smallest possible unit is how we find out the fundamentals for Particles, gravity, etc. Could that same principle be true for life? It's an insight that is straight forward in comparison to Quantum theory, but one that required a great volume of research as there isn't the readily available mathematical proof available to prove the hypothosis.

However, I believe that his greatest gift for humanity would be his ability to relate a great story and pass on his passion for science. His best writing in the GSOE for mine relate to explaining and glorifying the wonderful work of fellow scientists who have spent years doing painstaking research. The best examples being the stories of the Guppy fish and the E-Coli bacterial samples. Where he can understand and most importantly acknowledge the work of other scientists and relay the fascinating tales of the history of life.

I am not sure wether he was born a great speaker/writer, I get a feeling he has a rather natural flair for this, however he has been fortunate enough to have spent considerable time with Douglas Adams and Lalla Ward. You would have to suggest that such exposure would have to improve your story telling and public speaking over time. Certainly I think that the quality of his writing has evolved over time, also his presentations have improved over time. I certainly would like to think that if you spend enough time working with such people, that some influence would rub off over time, similar to learning from scientists around you, that you would gain some of their knowledge over time. Certainly he takes great care with choosing his words and provides careful thought when answering questions.

So in response to the original question. I would say it isn't just Richard's natural intelligence that make him brilliant, it's also his passion for learning and questioning and passing on that knowledge that will be his greatest legacy.

[MotherLodeBeth]

Try being a high functioning Aspergers with a 130 IQ who has rough around the edges social skills. This is where IQ gets interesting. Just because one has a higher than norm IQ doesnt make it a shoe in that they will work well with others. ~Beth~

[DeepFritz]

Try being a high functioning Aspergers with a 130 IQ who has rough around the edges social skills. This is where IQ gets interesting. Just because one has a higher than norm IQ doesnt make it a shoe in that they will work well with others. ~Beth~

I am guessing that sometimes you have problems with people who JUST CAN'T SEE THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS!!!
I find trying to carry a large collection of smiles for the world can work wonders

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Richard's most brilliant insight of his scientific career was to take the theory of evolution and take it to it's smallest possible unit (the gene). Most scientists don't ever get the chance to discover or postulate a theory like that. Certainly the most wonderful thing about it is it's elegent simplicity - having read his works you wonder, how could it have been thought to have been any other way?

However, I believe that his greatest gift for humanity would be his ability to relate a great story and pass on his passion for science. His best writing in the GSOE for mine relate to explaining and glorifying the wonderful work of fellow scientists who have spent years doing painstaking research. The best examples being the stories of the Guppy fish and the E-Coli bacterial samples. Where he can understand and most importantly acknowledge the work of other scientists and relay the fascinating tales of the history of life.

So in response to the original question. I would say it isn't just Richard's natural intelligence that make him brilliant, it's also his passion for learning and questioning and passing on that knowledge that will be his greatest legacy.

I hear that. Richard's passion for life and for science is inspiring and contagious, and his writing is so powerful that you can't help but fall in love with science, even if just in an appreciative way (in my case) as opposed to it making you want to be a scientist. I always liked science, but I like it more and certainly appreciate it more now. It's good when somebody can present material and make you see it in a whole new light. History, for example, is my worst subject. It was never of great interest to me, and for the most part the way it was presented in class made it all about rote memorization... and after all, why shouldn't history be told in a story form, especially since it is a story! Richard manages to do that with science! Why can't a history teacher? Fortunately, I did have one history teacher in college who managed to do that for us. His class always had a waiting list, because word about him spread quickly. One of my friends said that going to his class felt like going to story hour, not to a class. I felt the same way. I loved his class! At the end of the semester, I told him that he was one of the few teachers I ever had who actually made history interesting for me.

Now while this teacher didn't make me go out and start buying history books (probably because I wasn't very interested in history to begin with, whereas I was always somewhat interested in science... and it probably helps also that I got more interested in science through books-- Richard Dawkins's-- as opposed to through a class) he definitely made me appreciate history more.

Julie