Subscribe to the newsletter
&Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Does Super-High IQ= Super-Low Common Sense?
We have all heard the term, "Nutty Professor", which brings to mind the highly intelligent, yet socia excelling in the academic world, yet failing miserably in the realm of common sense. Is there an evolutionary explanation for why this phenomenon exists?Bruce Charlton, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses, says "yes". He calls these people 'Clever Sillies' in his article, . He proposes that high IQ is not just a cognitive ability, but also a cognitive disposition. He says,"...my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense."He suggests that a tendency to rely on analytic ability to problem-solve everyday situations results in inappropriate behaviors and ideas. I agree that an over-use of analytical problem-solving in situations that don't require it is inappropriate. He goes on to suggest that the reason for their strange or inappropriate responses and behaviors in these social situations stems from their personality trait of Openness to Experience, one of the Big Five traits of the
defined by Costa and McCrae. Openness is one of the only personality traits that is highly correlated with IQ; it is characterized by a preference for novelty, experiencing new things and ideas, and appreciation for art and aesthetics. He goes on to explain why he feels this trait explains "clever silliness":"Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing withthe many evolutionary novelties to be found in mbut is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychologicalproblems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptivebehaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the rightanswers
this implies that, when it comes tosolving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likelythan those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, andtherefore to believe and behave maladaptively."Initially, this makes some sense. But I feel that while he is touching on a very important issue, he is missing the application of this logic completely. A person with high IQ who overuses analytical ability to problem-solve in social situations is much like the 170 IQ person who can't find their way out of a paper bag, such as I described in my article
. There is definitely a "personality type" that can be found in this range of IQs. However, where I think he misses the point is when he says that Openness is the cause for this phenomenon. He claims that by the high IQ person generating many novel ideas using analytical methods, they appear as foolish and silly to the rest of the population, and thus are maladaptive behaviors. But I only see this as problematic if the person is not only high in the Analytic component of intelligence, but also deficient in another facet of intelligence, the part that correlates with common sense. Openness is characterized by not only novelty-seeking behaviors, but also creative thinking. Not all people who are high IQ are also highly creative, as I already discussed in my previous article. But people who are high IQ, plus high in Openness, and also high in Practical Intelligence, (the third facet of Intelligence described by Sternberg in his Triarchic Theory of Intelligence) are the ones who are able to have many novel, strange ideas, but also be able to appropriately apply them to social situations. The practical application of novel ideas to situations which result in appropriate, beneficial outcomes is the definition of creativity. Just because someone has a novel idea does not mean it will be "strange" or "silly"; it depends on the context and application of those novel ideas, and that is where the person who is high in Practical Intelligence as well as high in Analytical Intelligence differentiates himself from the "Nutty Professor". It is not the presence of novel or seemingly foolish ideas that makes one silly, it is the absence of the ability to appropriately apply those novel ideas to the social situation at hand- what we call using common sense. So while the author of this article was correct in saying that high IQ people do indeed often fall in the category of "Clever Sillies", many others do not. The reason for this socially inept personality type alluded to by Charlton is not the presence of the trait of Openness, but rather the inability see the value of the generated novel ideas and know when and where they are best put to use. So, do all high IQ people lack common sense? No, but the person with high IQ and high common sense, or Practical Intelligence, is definitely a rarer breed of genius.
More Articles
Andrea is a Behavior Therapist and Consultant for children on the autism spectrum, residing in the state of FL; her background is in cognitive...
Related Articles on Science 2.0
Is it possible to disguise IQ-envy with pseudo-scientific theories? Yes, but it isn't disguised very well. I admit to instantaneous distrust of someone who characterizes people whose behavior he disapproves of as "cleven sillies." Who follows that with blanket statements:
"Why the High IQ lack common sense" and "Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense." Followed by a literal-minded interpretation of neoteny, characterizing novelty-seeking as an adolescent refusal to grow up. Since when is the judgement of "the majority of the rest of the population" worth considering in almost any area, much less when it concerns the behavior of those with high IQ? Granted that soaring IQ doesn't protect one from poor judgement outside one's areas of expertise, or from bad or even "silly" behavior. Sometimes it seems that the unfortunate owners of high IQ are placed on pedestals so that people like Charlton can have the pleasure of knocking them off when they act like ordinary human beings. But why go on? You only have to read up to his identifying " 'enlightened' or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism" as traits, never mind the clear disapproval of these "traits," to realize that he's more interested in carrying out an agenda than in scientific exploration. As to that deplorably silly behavior... People who spend a large portion of their waking hours using their minds may not consider social propriety or proper behavior as one of life's necessities. In fact, they may enjoy tweaking it when the opportunity offers itself. And then there are those of us on the autistic spectrum, who in fact do use logic and analysis to figure out the strange social rituals of the "normal" world. The results may seem bizarre and silly, but sometimes they make far more sense.
| 10/04/09 | 22:07 PM
Yes, I agree with much of what you say. I found his reference to political ideology absolutely unnecessary and based in correlation, not causation (higher IQ and more years of education are both correlated with a lesser belief in a God, or perhaps atheism, as he says). But the conclusions he drew after that seemed more personal than empirical in nature. The main issue I have with his theory though, is that he completely disregards the possibility of actually having a high IQ, a high level of Openness, AND the proper regulatory thinking style to make sound decisions even if using analytical methods. It is not the presence of high IQ that makes one silly, it is the lack of practical intelligence (as defined by ) that serves to regulate the info coming and going and modulates one's behavior accordingly. Personality is a complicated thing, as is intelligence. That was the main reason why I brought this topic up for discussion.
| 10/05/09 | 19:03 PM
I didn't even want to get into the issue of openness, Andrea, because it was so clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he doesn't understand that openness is one of the prerequisites for creativity, he's just blowing smoke.
| 10/05/09 | 19:19 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/25/09 | 21:32 PM
MHY (not verified) | 12/16/11 | 20:19 PM
Charlton's paper leads me to believe he has published a social commentary diguised as a psychological paper. It could be possible that I'm reading too much into his work, but when someone throws out innate intelligence as a social norm in directing societies I suspect pseudoscience at work with an agenda on his part. Is he relabeling&cognitively intelligent high IQ people as idiot savants to tweak our noses?
| 10/04/09 | 22:54 PM
No, but the person with high IQ and high common sense, or Practical Intelligence, is definitely a rarer breed of genius.I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make much sense.& Far too many people with ordinary IQ's lack common sense in a variety of areas.& I'm not even sure what "practical intelligence" is supposed to mean.& ...they appear as foolish and silly to the rest of the population, and thus are maladaptive behaviorsOnce again, what is that supposed to mean?& Perhaps its the rest of the population that is foolish and silly for not understanding?& I'm been to my share of social gatherings where "foolish and silly" would be kind descriptions of many people's behavior.More importantly a significant social consideration is the idea that the high IQ individual has probably spent the majority of his/her life "on guard" so as not to offend or intimidate those around them, and having to downplay their own interests and conversations so as not to make those around them feel stupid.&
Mundus vult decipi
| 10/04/09 | 23:19 PM
Good point, Gerhard.& Perhaps the observation of "lack of common sense" has more to do with expectations.& We are surprised to see a smart person acting foolish, while we are not surprised to see a fool acting foolish.
| 10/05/09 | 10:37 AM
VERY good point, Josh.
| 10/05/09 | 19:22 PM
Gerhard: Like I responded to Sylvie, practical intelligence is the third facet of intelligence as defined by Robert Sternberg in his . It has been around for a while, and many papers and books written on it. Not only that, he has also developed standardized tests that measure all three components of intelligence. When these scores are compared to SAT scores, GRE scores, and college grades, his triarchic tests end up being better predictors of college success than either the SAT or the GRE. Here is some
regarding the tests.You can look
for more info on the exact test, and what kinds of questions are on them. Tufts University (in Boston) has an optional portion of the application for admission that is a standardized test of creative and practical intelligence. He spent years gathering data on this, so it is not just a theory anymore, there is actually data to support it.
| 10/05/09 | 19:21 PM
I think what the author either failed to describe or just does not realize is that the "silliness" you see at a party is cliche behavior i.e. drunkenness/gossip/dumb ideas in general.The "silliness" of the smart is not,and may even look somewhat the same but is based on far different reasons then the general population.I always say to people "Its not what you do....its why you do it"Also your last paragraph i have found to be the exact opposite.Smarter people have a harder time relating to normal ones and are ofter ostracized from a very young age.They develop your "on guard' theory more as a social defense mechanism to fit in better.The one with the largest vocabulary is the least understood.
| 12/05/09 | 03:35 AM
The article seems to say that super high IQ implies some kind of Autism, same as autism sometimes implies high special mental capabilities or abilities... doesn't it?I think it all depends on all the circumstances in which anyone has grown. No matters if you have high IQ, if you have not the tools or have not been taught on how to solve some kind of situations you probably won't solve it and vice versa... call them social behavior or lab's procedures.
| 10/05/09 | 20:09 PM
From what I've observed and my own experience, you can develop cognitive tools on your own, but it takes a lot of insight and struggle, and is an enormous waste of potential. One of my biggest gripes about gifted education is that it almost always concentrates on learning and ignores intellectual development.
| 10/05/09 | 20:23 PM
That is why I am soooooooooo huge on "teaching to one's strengths", and allowing the person to use their area of interest to develop their intellectual skills. That is my general philosophy when teaching my clients with Aspergers and Hyperlexia.
| 10/05/09 | 20:26 PM
I have to add something my mother always remembered me:&"Common sense is the less common of all senses."
| 10/05/09 | 21:31 PM
... and let me add something more,IQ is like the processing power or hardware in a computer:No matters how powerful it can be, if there is not the right software, beginning with the operative system (for example, Mac vs PC, Ha!)... there is, or not, common sense.
| 10/16/09 | 15:01 PM
Adam Scott (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 20:27 PM
Thanks for the personal story! I love hearing stories of how young children tried to "beat the system"... hahahaa..About measures of practical intelligence, look above to my response to Gerhard. I linked up the page that has the standardized test data and methods explained.
| 10/05/09 | 20:31 PM
Nick A (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 20:51 PM
britt (not verified) | 10/16/09 | 13:15 PM
And a quick note on that:Medical Hypotheses&very specifically sets itself out as just that - a journal of hypotheses, not of hypotheses that have been tested. :Guidelines for Authors on the construction of articlesThe purpose of Medical Hypotheses is to publish&interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical,&speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are&coherently expressed.Medical Hypotheses is not, however, a journal for publishing&workaday reviews of the literature, nor is it a journal for primary&data (except when preliminary data is used to lend support to the main&hypothesis presented). ... [snip] ...An hypothesisRoughly speaking, an hypothesis should be an organized logical&structure (or model) that accounts for (some) known facts, and which&has real world consequences that are (in principle) observable.The consequences of an hypothesis constitute predictions that may be tested against observations and experiments to determine whether some of them are (apparently) fulfilled.Most articles for Medical Hypotheses should fulfil the requirements of an hypothesis, and the logic of the proposals should be clearly stated and evaluated.Part of its purpose is to provide for the dissemination of hypothese hence the intentional lack avoidance of peer review. As it happens, this has gotten the journal
over publishing an AIDS-denying piece. Note that the journal, as it currently exists and with its current review format,
its .yrs,twicker
| 03/13/10 | 13:38 PM
(not verified) | 10/17/09 | 15:22 PM
ProDigit (not verified) | 10/24/09 | 23:16 PM
Interestingly,
is an article to come out in November's issue of Scientific American Mind. I find especially interesting the last few paragraphs and conclusions...
| 10/30/09 | 05:19 AM
(not verified) | 10/30/09 | 10:56 AM
(not verified) | 10/31/09 | 01:13 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/06/09 | 20:32 PM
THAT'S HILARIOUS!!!! (^_^)
| 11/06/09 | 21:29 PM
The assertion is not bidirectional... but it's funny if you use it upside-down. Ha!As I said above:&my mother always remembered me:&"Common sense is the less common of all senses."
| 11/06/09 | 23:55 PM
Actually, I am inclined to think the term "common sense" refers to logistical sense needed in commonly occurring situations, rather than common in terms of distribution of ability or level of skill.Similar to the term "average person"; not necessarily meaning average intellectual ability, but average in terms of if you took a random sampling of people, the average person is the general type you would encounter, not implying anything about skill of any kind.
| 11/07/09 | 00:01 AM
You are right.Let's put it this way: If you pick up an "average person" you'll surely find "Common Sense" is absent.
| 11/07/09 | 00:32 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 00:37 AM
Well, Sean, just to add some fuel... is an article from New Scientist that talks of the same phenomenon (incidentally, it JUST came out, so I wrote this article first), however cites different literature. Maybe it will appear a bit more "scientific" to you. The truth is, one could cite countless studies, but a writer tends to pick a select few to reference in a blog such as this, otherwise it could easily turn into a 200pg thesis. I like to choose the more controversial pieces because... well, it is just more fun. (^_^)
| 11/07/09 | 00:44 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 00:51 AM
Actually, if you look waaaaaaaaay at the top of the comments, I referenced Sternberg's
of all three aspects of intelligence (analytical, creative, and practical), which when combined, give a really good measure of one's ability to function intelligently and successfully. He spent a few years gathering data through a grant-funded study, so it is not just a theory, it actually has proven results that have a higher predictive validity than just a typical standardized test of analytical ability like the SAT, GRE, or a basic IQ test. The problem is, we are so used to defining intelligence by analytical or computational ability, that it is hard for the "average person" to accept that there are better ways to measure true intelligence.
| 11/07/09 | 00:58 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 01:25 AM
The Tufts website link was answering to the comment of there being more aspects of intelligence to measure than just computational ability. The idea of common sense is a different aspect altogether. I think the responses and comments are not exactly in alignment. This feels like a voice-over in a kung-foo movie. Heh, heh. (^_^)
| 11/07/09 | 01:34 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 02:21 AM
Oh, I remember it, which is why I disagreed with many points made in the article. I found the conclusions drawn in the article to be simplistic, overly generalized, somewhat socially biased, and not very well thought-out, which is why I chose to blog about it. If I thought he was 100% spot-on, it would not have been as interesting to comment on. Make no mistake: when I choose to comment on an article or study, it does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but that I find the points made or conclusions drawn worthy of discussion, elaboration, or ridicule, or a combination of the three.
| 11/07/09 | 02:27 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 00:12 AM
Hey now, don't get so down on smart people. Intelligence falls in a normal distribution across a population, but so do traits like greed, selfishness, and basic moron-ed-ness (theoretically speaking).The point is, just because someone is smart, it does not mean that they are evil or selfish, or out to ruin everyone else's lives. It sounds like you are a bit bitter from a specific personal experience, so please don't let that clout your judgment on this specific topic. If you noticed, I did not exactly agree with the author of the paper I cited, I instead pointed out details that I felt are important that he missed. Mainly, that there are some people who are highly intelligent that do have common sense, but also some that don't. High IQ is not a free-pass on life success, as much as people think it is. You may have a high IQ and be a complete jerk, or have a high IQ and be a sensitive, altruistic person. There is
all traits are distributed when our parents conceived us, and they fall across a distribution. There is no hard-and-fast rule. And if I am rambling or making little sense, I blame the H1N1 that I have been bed-ridden with all week.& A side bar: GET THE FLU SHOT. I wish I had been able to before I caught this darn thing.
| 11/07/09 | 01:12 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 01:37 AM
Sean... have you read any of my other articles on intelligence and genius? Maybe if you did, you would understand the perspective I am speaking from. I feel we are on "the same side" but the "Medical Hypotheses" article has tainted your view of what I am trying to say here.
| 11/07/09 | 02:36 AM
(not verified) | 11/07/09 | 02:39 AM
Oooooooo.... have fun with that. I have some theories on musical ability, creativity, mathematical perception, and intelligence... but that is for another day... ;)
| 11/07/09 | 02:41 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/25/09 | 21:34 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/25/09 | 21:36 PM
Just to be a complete purist: that is a mechanical pencil, not a pen. When I take my research notes, I always use a mechanical pencil. Probably has something to do with the fact that I am an artist as well, and often sketch out diagrams and figures into my notes, and it is easier to shape the general trend of the figures when I use pencil. Plus I just like them. Maybe that bit of over-explained quirkiness qualifies me on the "low social skill spectrum".... but I prefer to think of myself as 'refreshingly interesting' and 'rarely boring'. (^_^)
| 11/26/09 | 00:03 AM
And actually, that isn't really me in the photo. It is my stunt-double.
| 11/26/09 | 00:10 AM
ProDigit (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 07:31 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/25/09 | 20:59 PM
anti_supernaturalist (not verified) | 12/03/09 | 12:38 PM
Andrea: the site has been edited.& The link to the article is now In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and
socially-inept ‘nutty professor’ stereotype in science, and the
phenomenon of ‘psychological neoteny’ whereby intelligent modern people
(including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state
of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence.That's a very mix-and-match statement.The stereotypical 'nutty professor' is simply absent minded.& That has nothing whatsoever with IQ or neoteny or common sense.& It has everything to do with focus.& The 'nutty professor' is so focused on the investigation at hand that he or she forgets ordinary everyday things like eating, sleeping, ducking under low doorways etc.& He or she may lack an element of the social norms whereby we recognise when we are boring other people to tears.& But that is a matter of psycho-social skill, rather than common sense.
| 01/28/10 | 01:00 AM
I totally agree that high IQ and absent-mindedness have less to do with common sense and 'everything to do with focus'. I wonder if there are any fMRI scans that can back this up?
However, I find it worrying that everyone talks about high IQ as though it means high intelligence when it is simply a high score on a specific IQ test, devised by often pretty averagely intelligent psychologists.
In my opinion there are some people who are highly intelligent who would not score well on IQ tests, and some people who are very unintelligent who would get very high IQ scores. Without the ability to focus and see the big picture, amazing attention to detail, and even memory for such detail, becomes nothing more than a person who's brain behaves more like a computer than the average person. Computers are fast processors that store enormous amounts of detail but they have no intelligence.
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 23 of 65 entries at
| 08/24/10 | 16:04 PM
(not verified) | 01/28/10 | 13:23 PM
i, Diot? (not verified) | 02/18/10 | 01:47 AM
When I was a kid, I thought that common sense is what most other people had instead of intelligence. I can't say I've changed my mind a lot since then, I've merely become more eloquent, or perhaps verbose.The ability to interact with one's peers is very important. What seems like maladaptive behaviour to the average plank may be normal, or at least not offensive, within a genuine peer group. I've taught gifted kids and they are a joy - sure some are odd but then kids are. One of the nicest things that happened at one summer school was that one of the other teachers approached me to say that the kids had no respect for any of the other teachers and administrators... apart from myself. I grinned. If you're not part of the mob then forget it, leave it behind, or it will hurt you. The outsider will only be accepted back into the mob if they discover something of worth to other people. Go your own way and find interesting and extraordinary people.One of the reasons why the sciences and mathematics are so revolutionary is that they are often counter-intuitive. It can take centuries for 'common sense' to change - by which time it's probably wrong again.
| 02/19/10 | 10:47 AM
(not verified) | 02/21/10 | 16:58 PM
(not verified) | 03/13/10 | 10:30 AM
Reed (not verified) | 03/14/10 | 01:16 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/10 | 18:52 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/14/10 | 09:15 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/10 | 18:53 PM
Hello Anon. Thanks for writing. I understand a lot of what you are going through—seeing the world differently, having unique passions. But that does not mean you suffer from low common sense or that there is anything wrong with you. I skipped a grade when I was young and felt like an outsider for most of my life. It wasn't until I started reaching out to other people who shared my interests and goals (who happen to be located all over the world) that I began to really see my own place in the world, and feel really comfortable with who I am. Guess where I met a lot of these amazing people? Yep—on facebook. Probably 80% of my fb friends I haven't met in real life, but I'm closer to some of them than I am with my own family. May I suggest that you give facebook a try? Go to my Science 2.0 profile, and click on the link to my facebook page,& I'll introduce you to a ton of people who I think you'll relate to just fine. :)
| 11/08/10 | 19:05 PM
@Anonymous (not verified) | 03/14/10 |
09:15 AMI am new here, so I speak not greater experience (on this site) as most.&I would rather not say what my IQ is, and if the IQ tests are accurate, then since the results were no consistent, then I consider it likely, my IQ may not be now, what it was then or that the tests are not that accurate.&You sound to me a bit like myself, I am not responsible for (but try to be, with) my IQ, I was born this way. So I don't understand how I can take it personally.&I would not want someone to treat me differently (above or below them), no matter what my IQ is, I cant help the way I was born.&If wise in any way, I would feel stupid to see others as being stupid, to put another down, does not show my intelligence, if I were intellegent, I could lift them up, and if I was really really smart, find a way to make them and every one else laugh, at the same time.&I tend to ignore posts were a poster is putting other posters down, or putting down their point of view, because I am not here to learn how to do that nor interested in that method.&I seem to be learning in my short time here, that what to me is natural others claim supernatural, so I'm trying to feel my way around here, what is acceptable to discuss and what is not, so I can assist in the sites intentions, not distract from them.&&Back to topic:&My wife often refers to me as Einstein, but also tends to do that while looking at my hair.&&When trying to understand what I do not understand, I often focus a large amount of attention on it.&Because of this, my attention to other matters (all else in the universe) is decreased.If recently in the habit of intense concentration, even when I am not, I still retain the residual effect of being in the habit of excluding the world around me, to focus on what is at hand only.&My trying to apply common sense, to understand why I may be lacking severely in common sense.
| 03/14/10 | 13:39 PM
&When trying to understand what I do not understand, I often focus a large amount of attention on it.&Because of this, my attention to other matters (all else in the universe) is decreased.If
recently in the habit of intense concentration, even when I am not, I
still retain the residual effect of being in the habit of excluding the
world around me, to focus on what is at hand only.That speaks to me in my own words.&My trying to apply common sense, to understand why I may be lacking severely in common sense.You and me both, brother.
| 03/14/10 | 15:17 PM
@Patrick, coming from one who's gift or dedication to learning wise use of words I admire, I do feel I have just received a high compliment to the results of my desire to learn to communicate better in human.&Due to my upbringing, what is common sense to me, may be very different, to the common sense to someone more raised in a different society (human) I am less familiar with. Including some common sense in what is to others, basic communication skills let, alone that others could appreciate any of my contributions because of it.&Thank you Sir you are a scholar and a gentleman to be so kind...
| 03/14/10 | 16:31 PM
load of bull based on a false idea of what intelligence is, or supposed to be, however I have yet to come across a true one.
| 03/16/10 | 01:10 AM
Perhaps someday all we have talked about here will be perfectly understood. Many people like me missed rain man's curse grew up with the aid of our obessions and splinter skills and came up from the depths of special education and tutoring and today some of us&pass the mensa IQ tests.& As we inadverently learned the building blocks of the mind the sublevel thoughts most people don't even realize they have, we actually learned the same normal thoughts you use. If we did in fact learn the nitty gritty details of the mind our resulting 'road map' will be the key to the next 1000 chapters in psychology. My Anthropology of autistic people do the impossible we are social, and we overcame autism. 98% of are GLBT and the queer eye for the straight guy charm school& made us much more social than many of our&autistic counterparts.& That also explains why autism will not admit to us, (well one of the reasonS). Even if we were straight and narrow as arrows we function way too well not to outshine&contemporary autism. Even worse, the thought process we discovered is the very thoughts you don't know you have so all the peer review in the world could never support us and autism for sure will keep us well hidden.&& It& is just as well ,Man& in general is not all that keen or advanced enough to handle any real amount of deep thought or new ideas. As for new& ideas if you have them keep them to& Really good ones are simply too advanced to go against convention, no matter how&good they are.&As I display my&Turing Motor a green triple hybird one& central spinning car motor and people discover its not a 'model T motor" and GASP I tell them Henry Ford was just tinkering and didn't know his motor from an engineering point of view,I'm naturally ran out of town on a rail on those grounds alone. & The Turing Motor is named for Autstic Alan Turing
He was Father of the computer and like my Motor his Idea was totally radical and just too good to be true. If Sir Winston Churchill and others didn't need to win a war they would have never given him the time of day.&& All Alan did was take the same mind we figured out and you don't know you use and simply made a mechanical version of it we know today as a computer.& Rich Shull
| 03/16/10 | 17:01 PM
Tree (Thunderchild/DeepSpaceMine) (not verified) | 03/17/10 | 12:15 PM
I don't think common sense is actually as common as is assumed, the very definition of it as common, suggests there's a lot of it about. High IQ by definition 'high', suggests there's not a lot of it about.My take on common sense is actually not the modern scary slant alluded to by Tree, but is probably a connection to our intuitive self, our survivor inner being, which may or may not have journeyed through many lifetimes, but as sure as heck - it seems to know things people may never have done in their lifetimes, and is the sort of thing that people hearing it, go..... 'Of course!' ....or today, more likely, 'Do you always HAVE to be right?' in response to something you may think to be 'just ordinary'or even, occasionally, 'DOH!'times change.....Of the two, I think I prefer common sense......according to the understanding of it that I just gaveAitch
| 03/17/10 | 12:50 PM
asdfasdfas (not verified) | 04/28/10 | 06:49 AM
asdfasdfas (not verified) | 04/28/10 | 06:49 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/24/10 | 21:39 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/24/10 | 14:38 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/10 | 18:46 PM
nick koenig (not verified) | 12/17/10 | 14:51 PM
(not verified) | 12/17/10 | 15:55 PM
(not verified) | 02/17/11 | 09:25 AM
This sounds more like "ego" than "genius".
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/17/11 | 13:23 PM
(not verified) | 06/19/11 | 23:54 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/26/11 | 19:16 PM
Cesar (not verified) | 08/07/11 | 19:22 PM
Cesar (not verified) | 08/07/11 | 19:36 PM
Craig Kimble (not verified) | 08/29/11 | 11:36 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/19/12 | 17:12 PM
Allan Quebix (not verified) | 04/09/12 | 02:58 AM
Bob (not verified) | 06/26/12 | 02:23 AM
Something like common sense keeps getting in the way.Yeah ... that and a little thing like facts.& No sense letting them get in the way of a good conspiracy story.
Mundus vult decipi
| 06/26/12 | 06:46 AM
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
Current Topic:The best writers in science tackle science's hottest topics.
Books By Writers Here
421 guests