>> I find the second-guessing of the probable IQ of well-known >> historical geniuses particularly amusing. Observing a man's >> life and his works in their entirety, and judging his intelligence >> thereby, is quite a different thing than trying to judge someone >> based on a test spanning a couple hours at a particular instant >> in their lives... That sounds 'backwards' to me. ie it sounds (to me with my IQ :-) ) like you are suggesting a 2 hour test is a better way of testing IQ. But, I would have suspected that "Observing a man's life and his works in their entirety, and judging his intelligence thereby" would be a reasonably profitable exercise compared with using a 2 hour test. For instance, with Newton we get the calculus, Principa Mathematica, gravitation and more ("The tyger is known by its stripes') plus Alchemy and other. The latter two account for about 1/3 each of Newton's output. We don't hear much about it today. We also get his general behaviour towrds others, religious persuasions, various occupations (head of the Royal Mint, Fellow of the Royal Society, ...) to get an idea of where and how he fitted into society. Overall it seems that one could fit him quite well into a continuum of high ranking IQ-peers with fine adjustments for whatever "cultural" factors one deemed important. > Yeah I agree. Personally I am similarly amused by attempts to > diagnose > people from the past with certain mental or emotional disorders. I agree that that is harder - but given enough data an expert should have as good a chance as say a vet does now of getting their diagnosis right :-). Few would doubt that Vincent van Gogh had problems, or that experts are liable to be able to identify what they are with reasonable accuracy. Would you doubt that King Saul of David / Goliath / Jonathon fame almost certainly had a debree of "bipolar disorder". RM -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist