Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 295382" data-attributes="member: 2013">Perhaps the more relevant question is: was Einstein more intelligent than the masses?  If we define intelligence as "the ability to comprehend and process information," the answer is "maybe."  We credit Einstein for "discovering" the theory of relativity.  Never mind that special relativity naturally "falls out" of Maxwell's equations.  I remember fiddling with them in college and actually doing the derivation myself - before I read the derivation in a textbook or had a teacher explain it to me.  It helped that I recognized the result once it "fell out" because I had already been taught that "this is special relativity" but the point is, I managed to derive it myself.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one.  Einstein just happened to be the first one to do it.  Does this make me as smart as Einstein?  I don't think so - I only managed to make one such derivation, he made many more - but with respect to special relativity (only), I felt like I was on his level (at least, the level he was at as a patent clerk).I'm not trying to diminish him - and I'm not trying to put myself on his level across the board - he is a brilliant mind - but there is plenty of credence to the saying that "he who derives Pythagoras' theorum on his own has 'invented it' in the very same sense that Pythagoras did and must therefore be just as brilliant."  What I am saying is that if someone understands what Einstein taught, you can make a good case that he has Einstein's Int score.  Heck, most High School physics students have some concept of relativity.  I should think that all college physics students do.  That means that if we stick with the crude definition of Intelligence as "the ability to process and recall information," all college physics students should be up on a level with Einstein as far as slotting their ability scores into a "standard array."To be honest, I think it is MORE than possible to "limit" human abilities to the 3-18 range.  We just have to realize that in real human experience, this range is too granular - there are millions of levels, not just 16.  IOW, Einstein had an 18 Intelligence.  An average college physics student has a 17.5 Intelligence, which rounds to 18.  I maybe have a "14.4 plus pi" intelligence (just throwing this out here).  That guy over there may have 17.88, the other guy may have 17.93.  As far as the game is concerned, these are all "18's" because they are granular.Also, consider that people specialize in different fields.  Einstein could field physics questions all day - but try asking him a question about something like linguistics or basic economic theory or even the engineering marvel that is a hummingbird's wing.The problem with "3-18" is not the upper and lower limits being a poor way to define the variations among humans - the problem is that the granularity is poor.If you think the scale should be 3-30, why can't I just say, "divide by 5/3 - then you get appx 2-18 and things stay in the normal range")?Also, bear in mind that the 3-18 range is supposed to represent "mature adults" of a species.  Arguing that children may have lower scores or have not reached their potential is a spurious argument because by definition, children are excluded.Also, we have to account for skill ranks, skill focus feats, and so on. ;-)I'm done rambling now, hopefully my point was semi-clear.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification