It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

In fairness, I said everyone has the same capacity for learning. Whether they are willing to learn is another story.

It has been my experience that the capacity for learning varies widely across the human race. Some because of environment and the rest due to heredity.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

In fairness, I said everyone has the same capacity for learning. Whether they are willing to learn is another story.

It has been my experience that the capacity for learning varies widely across the human race. Some because of environment and the rest due to heredity.

That suggests different teaching methods need to be used as not all people are the same. But the capacity is still the same.

Why do people bring up examples of people who lived in the past.

Because we can now better judge their greatness and contributions to the modern age. If you think that because undergraduates can now learn calculus that therefore Sir Isaac Newton was not one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, then you can go to the back of the room and not waste any more electrons with you biases.

---

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

In fairness, I said everyone has the same capacity for learning. Whether they are willing to learn is another story.

It has been my experience that the capacity for learning varies widely across the human race. Some because of environment and the rest due to heredity.

That suggests different teaching methods need to be used as not all people are the same. But the capacity is still the same.

I would say not. I doubt whatever method is used that a homeless drug addict can be taught m-brane theory or the requisite mathematics to describe it.

Now if you mean being potty trained ...

---

Why do people bring up examples of people who lived in the past.

Because we can now better judge their greatness and contributions to the modern age. If you think that because undergraduates can now learn calculus that therefore Sir Isaac Newton was not one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, then you can go to the back of the room and not waste any more electrons with you biases.

You just don't understand, do you. Because of his greatness and the discoveries he made, he realised that he was undermining the beliefs and teaching of the Roman Catholic church that had been steeped in all his life and therefore believed in unwaveringly. And you probably don't know, that in his time graduates of Cambridge were required to be ordained as priests, how Newton managed to avoid this is unclear AFAIK.

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

In fairness, I said everyone has the same capacity for learning. Whether they are willing to learn is another story.

It has been my experience that the capacity for learning varies widely across the human race. Some because of environment and the rest due to heredity.

That suggests different teaching methods need to be used as not all people are the same. But the capacity is still the same.

I would say not. I doubt whatever method is used that a homeless drug addict can be taught m-brane theory or the requisite mathematics to describe it.

Now if you mean being potty trained ...

Even a homeless drug addict can be taught m-theory. It depends on the person teaching and the willingness of the pupil, but that homeless drug addict still possesses the same capacity for learning that all humans do.

I think the problem is that you're equating capacity with willingness, and Bob is equating capacity with ability. Neither are the correct application of capacity.

Why do people bring up examples of people who lived in the past.

Because we can now better judge their greatness and contributions to the modern age. If you think that because undergraduates can now learn calculus that therefore Sir Isaac Newton was not one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, then you can go to the back of the room and not waste any more electrons with you biases.

...and their contributions to science are directly related to their personal beliefs?

...and actually, Sir Isaac Newton wasn't alive when the original IQ test was developed by Stanford-Binet in 1905, but Albert Einstein was alive during this time and his score was 159. There are currently several people whose IQs are much higher, including the youngest full professor at UCLA, Terrence Tao, has an IQ of 230. Christopher Hirata was working for NASA by age 16 and was tested with an IQ of 225. I think these people are doing a little more than calculus.

This isn't to take away from Einstein or Newton - they laid some very important groundwork, but to suggest that they are the "greatest geniuses" who ever lived... well, talk about wasting electrons with biases.

...and their contributions to science are directly related to their personal beliefs?

Perhaps you think so in asserting that the smartest don't believe. That was not what I said however.

...and actually, Sir Isaac Newton wasn't alive when the original IQ test was developed by Stanford-Binet in 1905, but Albert Einstein was alive during this time and his score was 159. There are currently several people whose IQs are much higher, including the youngest full professor at UCLA, Terrence Tao, has an IQ of 230. Christopher Hirata was working for NASA by age 16 and was tested with an IQ of 225. I think these people are doing a little more than calculus.

This isn't to take away from Einstein or Newton - they laid some very important groundwork, but to suggest that they are the "greatest geniuses" who ever lived... well, talk about wasting electrons with biases.

You have proved my point. Your correlation of IQ tests to the results you want to achieve bears no relation to the actual achievements of some of the greatest thinkers who ever lived.

---

I think the problem is that you're equating capacity with willingness, and Bob is equating capacity with ability. Neither are the correct application of capacity.

So by capacity you mean number of neurons and the number of connections each can make? I don't think that correlates with learning. Never mind that there appears to be some variability in those neuron counts between individuals.

---

Interesting ...
http://mostextreme.org/highest_iq.php

---

...and their contributions to science are directly related to their personal beliefs?

Perhaps you think so in asserting that the smartest don't believe. That was not what I said however.

Can you point out where I've asserted such a thing? Also, you didn't actually answer the questions so I can ascertain what you are asserting with your original statement, which was:

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

So again, are you asserting that those whom you label as the greatest scientists of all time were great because of their belief in a deity? And are you suggesting that the scientists who performed the study lack:

the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

even though the study was a meta-analysis taken from studies performed by other scientists whom were believers as well? Or are you casting all scientists into the Atheist category and therefore will never achieve the greatness of those you believe were the greatest?

...and actually, Sir Isaac Newton wasn't alive when the original IQ test was developed by Stanford-Binet in 1905, but Albert Einstein was alive during this time and his score was 159. There are currently several people whose IQs are much higher, including the youngest full professor at UCLA, Terrence Tao, has an IQ of 230. Christopher Hirata was working for NASA by age 16 and was tested with an IQ of 225. I think these people are doing a little more than calculus.

This isn't to take away from Einstein or Newton - they laid some very important groundwork, but to suggest that they are the "greatest geniuses" who ever lived... well, talk about wasting electrons with biases.

You have proved my point. Your correlation of IQ tests to the results you want to achieve bears no relation to the actual achievements of some of the greatest thinkers who ever lived.

No more than your correlation that the "greatest thinkers" were great because of their belief in a deity, hmm?

The only point I was making was to show that there are smarter people than the ones you label as the "greatest" of all time. Any correlation to IQ and whatever result it is you thought I was attempting to prove was an assumption on your part. Your suggestion that because Newton and Einstein were the greatest is to dismiss the work of all other scientists who have built upon their foundation. There are scientists who, while abiding by the initial observations of those two, have demonstrated a greater understanding of the subject matter those two ever did. Suggesting that they were the greatest simply because they were the first is akin to suggesting President Washington was the greatest president of the U.S.

Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, are they?

How much of their discoveries affects your daily life?

Why not include or nominate Micheal Faraday? Surely he should be mentioned, without his initial work on electric motors and generators modern life would be totally impossible.

And if you think we could have modern life powered by batteries using chemical reaction, then you are not thinking.

I think the problem is that you're equating capacity with willingness, and Bob is equating capacity with ability. Neither are the correct application of capacity.

So by capacity you mean number of neurons and the number of connections each can make? I don't think that correlates with learning. Never mind that there appears to be some variability in those neuron counts between individuals.

No, by capacity I mean the ability to absorb information if given a a manner which is fitting to their style of learning and notwithstanding their willingness to learn the material.

A Religious SellSword split The Atheist Maester's Skull Open. SellSword Alive, Brainiac Dead.

Higher Education in Swordsmanship Good. Higher Education in All Sciences Bad.

Send A Raven to the Citadel for A New Maester.

Bound FO "IT" IT.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Interesting ...
http://mostextreme.org/highest_iq.php

Clearly this site isn't an authoritative site on IQs:

Theoretically speaking, 200 is the maximum IQ possible. All the preposterous stories about people with IQs of well over 200 are impossible. In fact, no one has probably ever reached an adult IQ of 200.

Sounds pretty sure of themselves with the "impossible" word, but then they lose their confidence at the word "probably" in the next sentence.

The most popular IQ test, the Stanford-Binet I linked to earlier, doesn't have a maximum score that I'm aware of. The IQs I posted have been confirmed by many higher learning organizations and Mensa.

I am lead to believe the highest IQ score possible is 170.

And any scores over that are probably due to use of out of date methods and incorrect extrapolation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/08/cerys-cooksammy-parnell-higher-iq-einstein-mensa_n_3724189.html

http://news.stv.tv/tayside/216824-schoolboy-scores-higher-than-einstein-and-hawking-in-mensa-iq-test/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22804204

Its important to note that the test given for youth is different than the one given to adults. I'm still not so sure about the maximum.

Its important to note that the test given for youth is different than the one given to adults. I'm still not so sure about the maximum.

Monkey Wrench: How can you design an IQ test to show an IQ significantly higher than the IQ of the designer(s) of the test?

Second Monkey Wrench: There has been no standardization until recently in what an IQ point means.

Third Monkey Wrench: There are dozens of different IQ tests and they measure some of more than a dozen different cognitive abilities. The same person can be a moron on one of these abilities and a genius on another.

Fourth Monkey Wrench: The average IQ has been going up for a long time.



As to scientists, John Dalton should be in that list.

---

I think the problem is that you're equating capacity with willingness, and Bob is equating capacity with ability. Neither are the correct application of capacity.

So by capacity you mean number of neurons and the number of connections each can make? I don't think that correlates with learning. Never mind that there appears to be some variability in those neuron counts between individuals.

No, by capacity I mean the ability to absorb information if given a a manner which is fitting to their style of learning and notwithstanding their willingness to learn the material.

So what you are describing is photographic memory. There is a big difference between absorption and understanding and more still to application.

Can anyone be taught how to fly an airplane to the precision necessary for an acerobatic flight demonstration team like the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds? Can you teach anyone to do brain surgery? You do have a limiting factor in that you have to do this before the person you are teaching dies of old age.

Now for a infuriatingly simple thing, can you teach everyone to show up at work on time and ready to work? You have a motivational factor in them wanting to have food an shelter. You would think this an easy task. Try it some time.

---

As to scientists, John Dalton should be in that list.

Agreed and probably Dmitri Mendeleev as well, to complete a jigsaw with so many pieces missing and to describe those missing pieces, was truly inspired.