Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Quotes from Albert Einstein   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

25264 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2003 at 10:58 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

170 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-10-30 01:47:56 AM  
Einstein also supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine but warned in 1955:

"The most important aspect of our policy must be our ever present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst... The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people."

He also said world government was "the only way to control nuclear weapons and eventually abolish war entirely."

Peace in our time - listen to the big man.
2003-10-30 01:49:46 AM  
Methinks 125 is far too generous for Dubya.
2003-10-30 01:49:48 AM  
helix400 writes: I think that IQ test must have had a different scale. If I remember IQ of 100 is average...and an IQ of 130-132 is considered genius.

Two points: First, there are different IQ scales. There's the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler, the Cattell. The one used by Cox was the Stanford-Binet (which is only to be expected, since Lewis Terman was collaborating with her!). And, that scale uses a range of scores to define certain designations:

85 - 114 Average
115 - 124 Above average
125 - 134 Gifted
135 - 144 Highly gifted
145 - 154 Genius
155 - 164 Genius
165 - 179 High genius
180 - 200 Highest genius
>200 "Unmeasurable" genius

Second, the study was a survey of "the most eminent men and women" who lived between 1450 and 1850. These weren't average people, so it's not too strange that those chosen would be of higher than average intelligence.
2003-10-30 01:53:25 AM  
Haalen...First Men Without Hats reference i've seen. Whoooa.
2003-10-30 01:57:53 AM  
FarkinFarker writes: No way that the average statesman has a 159 IQ (see: Dubya) No way that the average musician has a 153 IQ (see: Jessica Simpson, Keith Richards, Ozzy, Avril Lavigne, rappers, etc.)

You should have read more closely. As noted, the average IQ of 159 for statesmen only considers those chosen for study. Dr. Cox made, to my knowledge, no estimate of the profession's general level of intelligence.

Also, Dubya isn't a statesman. He's a politician. And, Jessica Simpson isn't a musician. She's a singer.
2003-10-30 01:58:18 AM  
85 - 114 Average

Thats wrong.

90 or lower and your offically retarded. You'd have to ride the short bus.
If Forrest Gump was a real person he would have an IQ of around 85.

If your child has an IQ in the 90's, don't expect him to be a too bright. An average person should have an IQ in the high 110's without trying hard.
2003-10-30 02:00:22 AM  
There's the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler, the Cattell.
Thats the first time I heard they use different scales.
2003-10-30 02:02:52 AM  
Not to be too harsh but; What bus were you on when you missed the part about there being different scales for IQ tests?
The whole point was that the scale stated was the scale used by that particular study. The scale you read about which puts retards at 90 is probably a different scale.

The one I took put average dead at 100 and allowed for 90-110 as the split. It maxed at 200 and called genius at 130+.
2003-10-30 02:04:37 AM  

statesman - noun

A man who is a leader in national or international affairs.
2003-10-30 02:04:57 AM  
George W. Bush 125
George Washington 118

That had better be the elder Bush, or the whole system should be declared void.
2003-10-30 02:07:35 AM  
I love dead smart people, but if Hume's iq is higher than Kant's, then someone isn't taking their vitamin B.
2003-10-30 02:07:46 AM  
Also, I've had a few beers, and was out for an argument. I'm aware that those averages cannot possibly be a good measure for all musicians, statesmen (politicians), scientists, or otherwise. I thought it seemed fit to single out those few people I mentioned as average musicians and an average statesman.
2003-10-30 02:12:13 AM  
"Just because someone smart said something, doesn't mean what they said was smart"
2003-10-30 02:14:45 AM  
IQ's another myth made up by stupid people.
2003-10-30 02:20:49 AM  
that's the problem-- it's not made up by stupid people. It's made up by clever liars. Statisticians, if you prefer.
2003-10-30 02:29:41 AM  
"There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
2003-10-30 02:31:11 AM  
End your damned quotes you farkin' farker. And name the guy you're quoting as well, dumbass.
2003-10-30 02:31:24 AM  

The dictionary game is almost always a stupid one. This instance is no exception. George Bush is not a statesman in the sense used by Dr. Cox (one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship, Webster) any more than Jessica Simpson is a musician.
2003-10-30 02:37:01 AM  
Funny, they left my fave Einstein quote off the list, and it's a popular one:

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
2003-10-30 02:37:13 AM  
That's funny, but I still say he's a statesman. Jessica is also a musician. Neither are very good in their respective fields. I'm going to bed.
2003-10-30 02:39:26 AM  
I'm tied with Hitler. Yikes.
2003-10-30 02:43:15 AM  

"Just because someone smart said something, doesn't mean what they said was smart"

True, but you've got a much better chance of what they said being worthwhile than you have with the utterances of a fool.
2003-10-30 02:45:21 AM  

But it's the wise man who knows he can learn from a fool. :-)
2003-10-30 02:49:14 AM  
"Al Gore 134"

i demand a recount
2003-10-30 02:58:21 AM  
The man who controls the definitions in the dictionary controls all of our lives!!!!!

2003-10-30 03:04:43 AM  
A person's IQ is over-rated. What matters more than anything is the pertinence of said person's contributions to society, otherwise that person's just another butcher who happens to be in MENSA.
2003-10-30 03:06:14 AM  
"Common sense: the ability to look at the earth and see that it is obviously flat." - Mark Twain
2003-10-30 03:20:43 AM  
Wasn't he that guy who said "Ican't believe its not butter" ?
2003-10-30 03:47:49 AM  
Casper, I guess you never took psychology in school, or at least didn't pay attention when the teacher explained IQ tests. The first IQ test was a ratio, or quotient (hence Intelligence Quotient), of a person's mental age over their chronological age times 100 (MA / CA) * 100. So if I'm 10 years old, but I comprehend as a 15 year old, my IQ is 150; however, this test runs into problems in the higher age groups, because 40 year olds and 45 year olds have less of a gap in comprehension than 10 year olds to 15 year olds (112.5 vs 150 respectively). Subsequently, different tests were created to deal with this problem.

Now on to the range of numbers, the traditional IQ test works on a bell curve. It would be easier to explain with illustrations, but I'm too lazy to do that. The divisions of the bell curve are in 15 point increments. .1% of the population are less than 55 points, 55 - 70 is 2%, 70 - 85 is 14%, 85 - 100 is 34%, 100 - 115 is 34%, 115 - 130 is 14%, 130 - 145 is 2%, and 145+ is .1%. Because 100 is the average IQ (same mental and physical age), 15 points up or down is normal, thus 85 points is normal.

I don't want to come across as an ass, which I probably already did, but I have taken a couple psychology classes in the last few years, and I felt the need to educate.
2003-10-30 05:07:55 AM  
Personally, I don't think that IQ tests mean anything. Whoopie, I have x value for my IQ. Does it help me in my relationships with others? no. Does it assist my future emotional well being? no. Besides, those tests are always too easy. Apart from that pattern recognition. I suck at patterns.

Still got 133 though, still got no friends.
2003-10-30 05:29:37 AM  
IQ measures one's ability to discern patterns and predict linear progressions. It's a narrow range of actual intelligence.

Personality and temperament can certainly overshadow natural intelligence.
2003-10-30 05:37:07 AM  
I ran away from this post for a while, sorry. I recieved several comments in regards to my pecking order of intellectuality. Here are my response to all critiques: I said "general" pecking order, not "ultimate" pecking order. Except for one critique (which I will get to in a sec) all of the remarks pointed out the inherent problems with my system. I agree. It isn't very good. Generalities do not require absolute consistency, or even close to it. So when you point out counter-examples (such as historic figures, or yourselves, you pompous bastards), I will harp on a main hallmark of standardized debate: Anectdotal evidence does not disprove generalities . In other words, if I say: "People from Ethiopa are generally less wealthy than people from the United States," one could esaily point to a few individuals from Ethiopa who are richer than a few US citizens. I don't think, however, that many would argue with the general truth of the statement.
So my point is, if you disagree with the GENERALITY, good, please explain why. I don't really believe in my own pecking order anyway, I actually wanted to see what OTHER people thought the order was.
Okay last point. Someone pointed out I missed musicians (again, everybody acted like I had made a "definitive" list that they needed to critique, rather than to express their own opinions, as I had hoped. It's an interesting testament to human psychology, don't ya think?). You're right, I did, they totally deserve a spot. I might put them between novelists and poets maybe. Or above novelists. One of the two, it's tough. I am, btw, speaking mainly of classical composers and african and asiatic musicians of older times: their music was far more technically complex than today's music, which relies more on lyrics than symphonic or instrumental harmony. I believe the instrumental kind requires more finesse. Again -- generally, not specifically. So you can either bump doctors and lawyers off the list, or just add novelists on. I think I added doctors and lawyers in the first place to show where I think "traditional" professions begin and more theoretical-brilliant-thinker jobs leave off. K, it's probably too late to expect more replies to this new post, but I'd love it if someone picked this up again.
2003-10-30 05:50:44 AM  
As for the IQ test discussion, I'll add my thoughts in. A few people gave brief but accurate descriptions of the history of the IQ test, but there are a couple important trivia bits to add in: first of all, the original creator of the IQ meant it to identify the mentally disturbed and retarded. He stated specifically that he believed it could not be used to distinguish among normally functoning individuals -- a later psychiatrist came along and (attempted) to adapt it to that use. Secondly, even today when the IQ test is used more broadly, psychiatrists state that it really isn't a measurement of INTELLIGENCE (they agree that's too tough to pinpoint), rather, it's a highly accurate estimate of someone's professional success in life. I.e. high level IQs succeed in the world with markedly more consistency than low level IQs. This all relates back to Einstein, actually: what most psychiatrists agree the IQ test does NOT quantify, however, is whatever GENIUS is: in other words, super high IQers become doctors, lawyers, and computer nerds. It is not a very good test for creativity or, as Einstein puts it, intuition.

Last few points about IQ, sorry:
1) For those of you who don't believe that depression is a real psychological disorder, that its afflicted are just whiny and are making the disease up, know this: depressed and anxious patients show a marked inability to prioritize and think clearly on intelligence tests. In fact, their answers and prioritizing abilities parallel (but are not nearly as severe as) those of schizophrenic patients. And when those people become un-depressed, their scores pop right back to normal. Amazing.
2) This is the most amazing fact of all to me: did you all know that average IQ in America has risen almost 70 points in the last century? Meaning, the AVERAGE person today would have been a GENIUS in 1900. Sounds crazy, I know, but look on the internet. The most famous study is done by a psychiatrist named Howe, and all the reports I've read seem to agree that his evidence is VERY sound and convincing. Also amazing.
2003-10-30 06:26:28 AM  
This is definitely cool, but could someone please put up a list of Nikola Tesla quotes? I would love to know some of what he said.
2003-10-30 06:38:28 AM  
Budhisatva, I wouldn't argue a bit that the average IQ would rise over this past century. They say kids these days are lazy and whatnot. Sure many of us do some really stupid things, but, it was available to do. Older people probably would have in their youth as well if they could. Everything takes more intelligence these days. Here is my case.

100 years ago, an average kid growing up would go to school to learn how to read, write, and do some basic math. They would leave to get a job that was more physical than anything. Be it a farm, factory, service, whatever. Very little required much thinking then. True there were more educated then than in 1803, but you still had a lot of the commonfolk whos living relied on their backs rather than their brains. Today, kids will know the basics of writing and math by the time they are eight years old, and they will still have ten more years of school. Playing with friends involve more than climbing trees and whatnot. Videogames, for all their criticism, improve hand-eye coordination and quick thinking. Even the blue coller labor jobs require a lot more thought than what they might have back then, for the most part. Hell, even farmers, who many think of as inbread hicks, have to be fairly intelligent people to do all that is required of them. No matter what you do in life these days, you are going to be expected to use your brain.

I hope that medical science will allow me to live to be 100 years old, and still be fully alert mentally. I would love to see what the new generation of that time will be capable of. Who knows? Trig in 4th grade? Why not.. we've never tried to teach our children at earlier ages.

Sorry for the long rambling post. It's 6:30 in the morning here, I'm very tired and my thoughts don't flow very well. Keep that trig in mind... I tought myself addition when I was three.
2003-10-30 06:49:15 AM  
I.Q. tests can't be weighted accurately to reflect anything of worth beyond a median result. Reality is too complex and multifacted, different people have different ways of interpreting it. Some more usefully than others, but what "smart" is has to be a subjective thing in the end. Smart people make mistakes and do dumb things, dumb people can occasionally do/say something brilliant. Trying to measure that ability is pointless.

I don't tell people my I.Q.. There's no point; it will either confirm their suspicions and give them an imaginary (and probably silly) bar in which to judge you against, or they will expend undue effort in proving you're not perfect (which is likewise irrelevant).
2003-10-30 06:50:48 AM  
Where do mathematicians appear in the pecking order? I have always assumed that they trump physisists on the egghead scale.
2003-10-30 06:52:55 AM  
I have always been under the impression that mathematicians and physisists are pretty much interrelated these days. I may be wrong.
2003-10-30 06:53:44 AM  
I'm willing to bet that at least 25% of these quotes aren't actually Einstein's.
2003-10-30 07:23:04 AM  

I'm a theoretical mathmetician. I'd put "us" at or with physicists, as you suggested... but I just couldn't do it. Don't be fooled though, I'm one arrogant bastard.
2003-10-30 07:24:33 AM  

You raise an interesting point that I was afraid was too esoteric to discuss: as a mathmetician, I think physics IS math. Here is my syllogism: Physics is a subsection of mathematics. Specifically, it is the section of mathematics that is applied and gives order to the real world.
2003-10-30 07:24:43 AM  
Take the IQ test at (requires flash). 134 to beat me.
2003-10-30 07:41:02 AM  
Physicists > Chemists = Biologists > Computer Geeks / Tech Innovators = Political/Moral Philosophers > Novelists/Play write > Poets > Doctors = Lawyer

Another thought on this scale, it's very much a modern scale where the best minds seem to gravitate towards the sciences or making money. This is a very modern attitude. Averaging out over the history of human endevour, I would rearrange it thus.

Political/Moral Philosophers (+Theologians) = Mathematician > Novelists/Play write = Lawyer > Doctor = Biologist = Chemist > Physisist > Tech Innovator

This in no way invalidates your pecking order which I broadly agree with.
2003-10-30 07:44:01 AM  

Got one in english?
2003-10-30 07:50:59 AM  
Heh.. click 'Test din IQ' if you haven't figured that out already. You won't need to know Danish to take it..
2003-10-30 08:47:07 AM  
2003-10-30 02:37:13 AM FarkinFarker
... but I still say he's a statesman.

A statesman is a dead politician. This world needs more statesmen.
2003-10-30 08:47:17 AM  

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, scince for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose
purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human
frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
[Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic
organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and
everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation
in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to
any attempt to organize peace on this planet."
[ letter, 1954]

2003-10-30 08:56:09 AM  
My fav quote attributed to Einstein is:

" The tragedy of life is not that man dies, it's what dies inside man while he's still alive".

who knows if he actually said it, but i still like it.
2003-10-30 09:11:41 AM  
My favorite Einstein "quote":

"As a young man, my fondest dream was to become a geographer. However, while working in the customs office I thought deeply about the matter and concluded it was too difficult a subject. With some reluctance I then turned to physics as a substitute."

has geography degree
2003-10-30 09:37:01 AM  
Sir Chevron,

Wow, so you know better than Einstein? I'd like to respond to that with another quote of his:

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.