>Maybe this is the same guy that I saw on a TV
special awhile back. The guy on the special had the
highest IQ ever recorded, and he chose to work as a
bouncer because money wasn't important to him, and he
didn't want a stressful job. He was devoting his time to
trying to mathematically >prove the existence of
God.
Hmm. This is why I don't watch TV. First anyone who
tries to mathematically prove the existence of God
can't be that smart--irrespective of whether God exists
or not; there are fundamental problems with such an
approach (Analytic Philosophy 101 anybody?). Second,
leaving aside the inefficacy of IQ at the high end--what
do they mean the highest recorded? At what age
(there are wide disparities in scores based on how young
you're tested because of the way it's normed--you can
really only compare with the same age) was his score
recorded? On which test? Most tests only go up to 150, by
definition you can't really go above 200; in other words,
there is no such thing as a "highest score"--it's not
the way these tests work.
Nathan