What's is Magnus Carlsen's IQ?

So?

Anyone can get the wrong end of the stick about something. Einstein, Da Vinci, Carlsen, Hooke etc. all got the wrong end of the stick about something on multiple occasions.

Being smart doesn't mean you're infallible.

Of course not. Even so, your mind is following rather odd paths, rather than the information it's been given. By the way, you may've been confusing Michelangelo with Leonardo. Leonardo was a brilliant polymath, wasn't he?

My point was that the fact he forgot it is perhaps and indication he initially got the wrong end of the stick. People tend to forget information when they know it is wrong.

What I do know is there was no-one saying publicly that they have measured Einstein's IQ, there's only some dodgy newspaper reports. There seems to be more evidence pointing against Einstein's IQ being tested than towards it.

Most people of note in the Renaissance were a polymath of some kind. They didn't really distinguish much between subjects at the time. Da Vinci is distinct from e.g. Einstein because he was an artist and Einstein wasn't; which was why I mentioned it.

Psychologists, please! Cognitive scientists are people who design gears for bicycles!

In 2015 my dad had cancer and was 90, which is probably the reason for forgetting a conversation with a 4 year old child in 1955. Having said that, around that time I saw him complete a Suduko Puzzle at the very highest, most difficult level, in 20 minutes. Maybe a couple of years before.

Being a four year old and there being so much talk around 1955 about Einstein (because he had died) the conversation was very interesting to me. It was one of my first ventures into a more adult world of ideas and memories, perhaps. I recall the conversation quite clearly but I can't remember where I actually was at the time it occurred. A bit unusual for me. I'd noticed some nuances in the conversation between my mother and dad, about Einstein, so when my mother left the room, I asked my dad whether the people he used to know, back around 1949, had liked Einstein. He told me that they definitely didn't like him, which was quite surprising for me.

So I asked him why and he wouldn't tell me. Completely refused to go any further. So when the internet came along, back in the 1990s where all the info people had put on the web was freely available (very little is available now .... it's almost all been blocked by different methods) I made it my business to learn about Einstein and I immediately understood why he had been so disliked. That is, in reality and by the people who knew him rather than those who had consumed the publicity about him and had believed it.

I had imagined it might have been due to jealousy of his success, since many other scientists, who had contributed just as much if not more, had been nearly forgotten. It wasn't that at all. It was something that my father would definitely have found upsetting and very distasteful. That's why he would have buried it and forgotten it.

Most famous people in history were disliked by somebody. Not everyone liked Alan Turing, for example. A minor chess-related item in his case is that he owned a chess set at Bletchley, where he was engaged in cracking German codes, and it was stolen. Maybe it was motivated by personal animosity, maybe not everyone there was on the up and up. Who knows? He ended up making a new one for himself from some wood for the board, and he fashioned chessmen from clay and heated them in a kiln to harden them.

I think that was an understatement, since Turing was gay, which at that time was actually illegal .... and also because he openly challenged the status quo and almost single-handedly caused the computer age to exist, which gave the Allies something like a three year strategic advantage regarding coding and code-breaking. Actually I know someone who taught code-breaking at St Andrews University, where my son did his physics PhD. I really need to ask him what was the consensus about Turing's contribition, which I assume was absolutely tremendous. Almost as if that was the purpose for his life. John may not be with us for much longer .... I need to ask him. A few years older than me and has Long Covid and permanent breathing difficulties. He tells me he's been given two years. Think I'll phone him today.

While it was illegal, most of Britain's intelligentsia went to single-sex public schools and some kind of encounter with homosexuality was very common, whether or not that set the pattern of their sex lives. He was unlikely to be the only homosexual in his environment. The 1952 circumstances of his arrest suggest that like a lot of intellectually brilliant people, he was somewhat unworldly. An associate of a homosexual pick-up burgled his house, assuming he would not contact the police in case his private life was revealed as a result. Turing did contact the police and indeed they started investigating him. Mainly because of the oddness of his associations - the brilliant academic was unlikely to know people like Arnold Murray, the pick-up, unless it was about homosexuality.

And he didn't even work it out that such criminal gangs could operate like that? Even though he had so much more to lose than they did.

Me too.

And he didn't even work it out that such criminal gangs could operate like that? Even though he had so much more to lose than they did.

Well, as I have indicated, he was in some ways unworldly. He may have been angered by the break-in to the point that he forgot he could be the one who was most in trouble if he reported it. He appears to have believed the law on homosexuality was on the way to being reformed - which did happen in Britain, but only more than a decade after his death. A whole sub-set of the criminal world preyed on homosexuals, particularly middle-class ones who had some money. Blackmail was fairly common. The Dirk Bogarde film Victim, made in the early 1960s, examines this. Perhaps Turing was worried about blackmail attempts and thought going to the police would fend this off - which it may have done, but out of the frying pan into the fire.

Your lame joke.only exposes your own ignorance. According to Johns Hopkins University "cognitive scientists share the central goal of characterizing the structure of human intellectual functioning." Their Cognitive Sciences Department consists of, among other disciplines, linguists, computer scientists, anthropologists, neurobiologists, AI researchers, and psychologists. There are even philosophy PhDs involved.

Will you be explaining to us how one of the world's premier medical and research institutions is full of bull because they disagree with your limiting categorization?

I liked it. I was sort of waiting for you to make that comment.

Cognitive science is the new way they try to vamp up psychology. Actually I would say that it's too inter-disciplinary and that makes cognitive scientists less than and not more than psychologists, because it consists of a thin sprinkling of various disciplines.

You sound very angry though. How's your blood pressure? Please be careful. I won't say any more until you've become calmer.

As I suspected, you think you know better than a whole collection of eminent scientists from a variety of disciplines and one of the world's leading medical institutes.

At least this joke is funnier than the previous attempt.

Yes, he behaved as though he was very wet behind the ears. Probably thought that his superb contribution to the war effort would save him, while forgetting that it was secret and probably still classified. I believe I saw the Dirk Bogart film and of course he was gay. In general, a lot of the greatest British actors have been. I do think Dirk Bogart was a great actor but also less known, supporting role actors. And, I think, the glorious Fenella Fielding, too.

You're under a misapprehension. You claim a high IQ. don't you. I remember you quoting it a bit back. Yet you don't seem to be able to do simple logic because it would involve you making judgements which might seem to you to be subjective.

There is a lot of scientists, right? They don't all hold the same views and there are cases where their views are opposed. In some circumstances, it may well be that there's a disagreement which is spilt fairly well down the middle.

Now, this is where I need to check my facts. Is it correct that you think that I'm not allowed to disagree with any scientists at all, since the word "scientist" actually carries the unseen warning "this scientist is always correct when disagreeing with a layperson but may not be correct if disagreeing with another scientist"? If so then I agree that I'm doomed to losing the argument which comes with the description on the scientist, although if there were different brands of scientist, the proprietors of one brand may say that it'd be ok for laypeople to disagree with scientists of the other brand.

If, however, the scientists disagree with one-another and I happen to hold a view which agrees with one group of them and disagrees with another, what then? How will your magnificent intellect deal with the complexities caused by such a morally repugnant situation?

Then again, I know very well I'm more intelligent than you are. You prove it over and over.

Yes, he behaved as though he was very wet behind the ears. Probably thought that his superb contribution to the war effort would save him, while forgetting that it was secret and probably still classified. I believe I saw the Dirk Bogart film and of course he was gay. In general, a lot of the greatest British actors have been. I do think Dirk Bogart was a great actor but also less known, supporting role actors. And, I think, the glorious Fenella Fielding, too.

I don't think he thought that - at war's end a colleague at Bletchley said to him that now the war was over everything they had done in code-breaking could be made public, and Turing's response was along the lines of "don't be daft!" However, Turing may not have fully realised that he was expendable. The Jack Copeland biography of him discusses his death and does not rule out it being murder - after Burgess and Maclean defected, there was a certain amount of paranoia about homosexuality. Turing's conviction did not cost him his university job but did cost him his security clearance, and he had a lot of knowledge of the secret world, which might have supplied a motive to kill him. Copeland notes the odd detail that his shoes were left outside the door at the death scene, something Turing did not do in life.

That is possible. Maybe remotely so but possible. A likely scenario is that it is as I mentioned. There would be a lot of conflict in his mind and that would lead to part of him thinking that he was in an alternative reality which is the ideal one where he would be protected because of his previous work. I won't show this to my wife to verify it and it makes sense to me, which I see as the important part. A sense that he had really got it wrong may have led to feelings of self doubt and lack of self-worth.

Turing did not usually kill himself either, as well as leaving his shoes outside. It's quite possible that he did it deliberately. We shall never know.

Is that a pic of you from back in the day, @Optimissed?