Measure This

There's the old saw about man only using 10% of the computational power of his mind... Seems that explains a lot about nature vs nurture plus random probability, however it does not offer why some ethnotypes are not able to comprehend abstract reasoning or have such a low time binding capability at all.

Leaving out sociological aspects, there are some definite personality traits associated with different levels of cognizance. The “absent minded professor” stereotype is very true, I've met a few. To my chagrin (and heavy financial loss), one was quite competent, had an engaging if rather disconnected personality, and was a true sociopath. This was so strange in a person so pleasant, successful, quite competent at being able to merge theoretical with practical aspects of problems, and just a all-round seemingly decent person. [1]

The “absent minded professor” appears again in a fellow that used to be an electronic engineering professor beginning in the 1930's and regularly visited my lab. He and I met through amateur radio, found out that each was interested in the “how” of physical laws to the extent that, at age 78, he had an almost child-like glee in learning something new! He also always walked into the sliding glass door when leaving. Always.....

Then there was Richard Feynman. His I.Q. was measured at only 126, however he was one of the greatest mathematical geniuses of all time. Why was that? Did he miss out on measured aspects?

Here's a little clip that I enjoyed:

He married a second time in June 1952, to Mary Louise Bell of Neodesha, Kansas; this marriage was unsuccessful:

“He begins working calculus problems in his head as soon as he awakens. He did calculus while driving in his car, while sitting in the living room, and while lying in bed at night.”

—Mary Louise Bell divorce complaint

Could it be he just needed the extra processing power? ...or could it be just a way to drown her out?! My money is on the second! Calculus to a mathematician is fun but lying in bed?

I highly recommend reading “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman” as one of the most revealing semi-biographical, non-technical books about this non-genius genius. A good read.

Then there was Christina Hwong, a British/Chinese lady my age (35 then) who worked at Sandia Nat'l Labs as a mathematician. Ever-so nice, professional at work, and a pleasure to know. She helped me quite a bit in the understanding of vector calculus (one of my miseries) and also threw dinner parties and outings for new-hires. Just a all-around good person. Her mate was a pearl.

Then she committed suicide. Stabbed herself repeatedly. Absolutely nothing obvious wrong in her life.

She had an I.Q. Of 187. Go figure.

Hit Counter