23 responses

  1. Roaidz
    November 29, 2012

    Of course brain sizes didn’t tell us
    sure capabilities. Past experiements
    shows that small brains surpasses
    larger brains.

  2. Robert Schreib
    December 2, 2012

    ?? Did anyone ever do MRI scans on the brains of living top mathematicians to see if their cerebral farmations were like Einstein’s?

  3. Andrew Atkin
    Andrew Atkin
    December 9, 2012

    But was Einstein a genius? I doubt it. I think he’s the result of an over-concentrated focus into a highly narrow zone, leading to an eccentric development. A semi idiot-savant? He may have even been below normal intelligence in real, absolute terms.

    I don’t believe in genius because we are all nearly identical, genetically, though we definitely have different collections of strengths and weaknesses. But the “superman” picture is nonsense.

    In large part I think Einstein was just the guy ‘who bothered’. Others, many maybe more intelligent, just didn’t care nearly as much or care in his particular way. I think his development is more unique than superman…but indeed, ‘unique development’ is probably the essence of so-called genius. (school standardises human development, and in my view likewise kills “genius”).

    • poksnee
      April 14, 2013

      Andrew,

      I don’t believe in genius because we are all nearly identical, genetically, though we definitely have different collections of strengths and weaknesses.

      Where did you dream up that crap?

      Paul Oksnee

      • Andrew Atkin
        April 14, 2013
      • poksnee
        April 14, 2013

        OK, I visited your blog. You drive a truck and have an opinion.

        Paul

      • Andrew Atkin
        April 14, 2013

        I have a lot of opinions – I don’t drive a truck.

        You are rude for no understandable reason, and you seem to have nothing constructive to say. Please don’t communicate with me further. You obviously have “issues”.

      • Nate Mullinax
        April 16, 2013

        lol I know right

  4. SA23
    January 14, 2013

    This kind of study is problematic because N = 1. We can’t say with any certainty that the convolutions or the violin playing “caused” or are representative of his genius. Nassim Taleb calls into question these simplistic notions of causality in The Black Swan; the brain and the aggregate total of Einstein’s genomic and environmental variables constitute two interlocking COMPLEX SYSTEMS. Predictability, statistical analysis and causative relationships are hard to sketch with N = 10 x 10^6, much less N=1. Just accept the man’s genius, read his writings and move on. The bastard was wrong about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle anyway… “God does not play dice with the universe.” He said. Worship no man, for they are all imperfect.

    • SA23
      January 14, 2013

      @ Andrew: There is certainly a huge variation in intelligence, or what psychometricians call “g”. And it’s quite static and heritable. Einstein was definitely a genius. But he also acknowledged that his truly Ubermench quality was CURIOSITY.

      • Summer Time
        March 31, 2013

        @SA23 pff pfff “psychometry” is FAR from being a science. Period. The rest is ideology and nonsense. It has not been proven “intelligence” was either static or heritable (static… what a name for the most versatile organ in the human body: let a child in a box an entire life, and yes in this case it is static).

        Kind of bullshit of the 80s or even worse of the 30s… so old, so simplistic, so “oh-I’m-sure-life-is-like-that”. Ignorant.

    • Nate Mullinax
      April 16, 2013

      true

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop