<p>
Wow, you must know an awful lot of stuff right now 
Do you ever think during a phase that you’re truly interested in it and want study it for life? During election season I got really into politics, and even thought of changing my major from econ to politics. After November, I suddenly realized I didn’t care as much anymore and that politics is bs 
But with your mentality you probably learn a bit about everything. </p>
<p>Ronnie, go back to analzying squiggles, gosh :D</p>
<p>@applicannot</p>
<p>Philosophically, I think it is impossible to measure another person’s intelligence. I can only completely know my own thoughts and reasons. There are too many variables to take into account. What is intelligence? Is it someone’s current IQ score (would an old, senile professor still be intelligent)? Is it someone’s average intelligence over their lifetimes? If it their maximum IQ? Is it reflected by what they have accomplished?</p>
<p>I think human beings in general are very intelligent. Many do not reach their potential, many never have had opportunities, and many are told by society that they should be stupid so they act that way. At the juvenile detention center, I met many kids who have huge potential, but have never had the chance to express it. Last Saturday I taught a complete newbie how to play chess- and he whooped me the second game. I play to win too- I was truly amazed.</p>
<p>There are so called “geniuses” out there- but we can only judge them by the symptoms (they accomplish astounding feats) and not by what is truly going on in their heads. Maybe these prodigies have brains that are designed to be superior in one aspect: logical reasoning. Like how a ferrari is extremely good at racing (and scoring chicks), but it would make a terrible construction vehicle. The biggest “genius” I know is Sho Yano (wikipedia him!), who learned how to play piano merely by observing his mother… when he was 3. He is now attending medical school… at age 17. You could be correct, but my current interpretation is that the brain is too complicated to be “rated.” How can we even try to judge one’s intelligence when we barely understand how memory works?</p>
<p>TL;DR: I think we don’t have enough evidence to classify human mental performance. These are some alternative models to explain prodigies other than “you are what you are born as”</p>
<p>The brain is algorithm based: “One subject never excelled as a child in mathematics, but he taught himself algorithms and tricks for calculatory speed, becoming capable of extremely complex mental math. His brain, compared to six other controls, was studied using the PET scan, revealing separate areas of his brain that he manipulated to solve the complex problems. Some of the areas that he and presumably prodigies use are brain sectors dealing in visual and spatial memory, as well as visual mental imagery. Other areas of the brain showed use by the subject, including a sector of the brain generally related to childlike “finger counting,” probably used in his mind to relate numbers to the visual cortex.”</p>
<p>Nurture in the Nature vs. Nurture debate: “Some researchers believe that prodigious talent tends to arise as a result of the innate talent of the child, the energetic and emotional investment that the child ventures, and the personal characteristics of the individual. Others believe that the environment plays the dominant role, many times in obvious ways. For example, Laszlo Polgar set out to raise his children to be chess players, and all three of his daughters went on to become world class players (two of whom are grandmasters), emphasizing the potency an environment has in determining the area toward which a child’s energy will be directed, and showing that an incredible amount of skill can be developed through suitable training. It is noteworthy, however, that Laszlo Polgar himself was a renowned chess player, and so his children could may have also inherited their prodigious mental abilities from their father.”</p>
<p>And here’s a counter to the “prodigy” model: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_bloomer[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_bloomer</a></p>
<p>Why is everbody expressing their own ideas??? </p>
<p>You’re all treating this like it’s an open forum or something…</p>
<p>late bloomer theory is meant to give unexceptional people the illusion that maybe one day they will become expecial, out of the blue.</p>
<p>^ That’s ok, pmvd. I’m sure you’ll be exceptional to somebody, some day.</p>
<p>i’m a gifted learner.</p>
<p>I literally just laughed for five minutes at the notion of a “late bloomer.”</p>
<p>Is that a serious term?</p>
<p>Yeah, I used to be dumb, but then I hit intelligencepuberty and now I’m smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m definitely a mile wide and an inch deep. Politics has never really been a “phase” for me, it’s always been there. It’s definitely something I want my major to involve. There are different phases of politics that I get into (this past year I was interested in campaign finance and management), but politics is always there. It has been since my third grade teacher told to the joke, “If you got $100,000, would you renovate your kitchen or your kid’s room?” to another (female) teacher. Depending on the answer, he would classify her as democrat or republican.</p>
<p>@lollybo</p>
<p>Okay. Like I said, it isn’t my area of expertise. I disagree with some parts of what you said, but not most by any means. Bright vs. gifted is a classification, not a measurement of intelligence. For example, in the world of digital cameras, there are point-and-shoots (“bright” for our sake) and DSLRs (“gifted” for our sake). Classifying a camera (a person) as one or the other tells you very little, but you do know that the two are different, right? A point-and-shoot might take a better picture than DSLR, but the vice versa is just as likely to be true. A dog and a wolf might be related, and classifying an animal as one or the other doesn’t tell you much - but it does tell you SOMETHING (in this case, bright vs. gifted tells you a particular person’s personality’s attitude/demeanor an capacity toward learning).</p>
<p>Last minute studying are not fun.</p>
<p>To answer the OP’s question, no. I agree with AstonMartin that if you can slack off and get A’s without pulling all nighters, then you’re pretty smart.</p>
<p>As a sidenote, I chuckled at the origin of the “bright vs. gifted” link in post #5. I know a student who graduated from that school district. Man, if you ever wondered whether the conservative criticisms of our society’s educational culture had any basis in reality, you need look no further than that guy. To be fair, I’m pretty sure it’s more a case of really bad parenting than a hyper-liberal school district, but still, I would not send my kids to any school in that area. <em>shudders</em></p>
<p>“Late bloomer” theory makes sense if you don’t believe that all genes are expressed from the time of birth.</p>