Marilyn Vos Savant : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The most intelligent person on earth predicts that Y2k will have an impact of 1 to 2 on a scale to 10. Would the 2nd most intelligent person please comment on her observation.

-- fly.:. (.@...), May 09, 1999


That merely indicates that _her_ preparations are 97% complete.

-- A. Hambley (, May 09, 1999.

She is clueless about the cascade effects of massive numbers of errors. To be fair, I've been a programmer for 30 years, and it took me awhile to see the danger. But as she claims to be the "most intelligent person on earth", she should catch on faster. She won't look so smart next year.

-- Steve Heller (, May 09, 1999.

If 99.9999% of the Earths population have never taken an IQ test, Then How does she make this claim? Or do people who have taken an IQ test just automativally assume that puts them in the top 1%? Looking at the present condition of the world in general I would hazard to guess I could stop the first 300 people coming out of Wal Mart and build a more honest and competent government than this 1% has provided. A lot of people seem to mistake a lack of greed and a conscience for lack of intelligence.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 09, 1999.

Nikoli wrote: "A lot of people seem to mistake a lack of greed and a conscience for lack of intelligence."
Hear Hear! ''Gotta be something wrong in the noggin with him/her; they haven't climbed the ladder, don't got lotsa stuff -- they ain't playing the game! They must not know the rules. Poor idiots. Stay away from them, those modern-day untouchables.''

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (, May 09, 1999.

Hey - she's just living up to her nickname, wait for it...

IDIOT Savant

-- Andy (, May 09, 1999.

OOOOooo....nice one, Andy.

-- RUOK (ruok@yesiam.not), May 09, 1999.

Why, yes, fly, since you asked, I'd be glad to comment on the ursurpers "observation". You see actually I'M the most intelligent person on earth but she cheated on the test (had stuff written on the cuffs of her blouse).

My comment is that she should really be able to make up her (alleged) mind better than that. Is it a 1 or is it a 2. Come on Marilyn, take a stance. If one is actually THE most intelligent person on earth, one does not have to shilly-shally around.


-- Got QI?

-- Greybear (, May 09, 1999.

Now there's Emotional Intelligence to boot ...

-- Leska (, May 09, 1999.

This one is worth reposting. LOL Dave!

Here is the site address to help evaluate her limitations

"Marylin is wrong"

-- Dave (, May 09, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), May 09, 1999.

we'll all find out next year that she is NOT the most intelligent person on earth, merely someone with a high IQ. big deal.

-- jocelyne slough (, May 09, 1999.

Yeah. Most definitely.

-- rainman (, May 09, 1999.

I used to think I was ignorant but now I don't know anymore.

-- Epistemology (me@self.referential), May 10, 1999.

The problem with intellectuals is that they all to often forget to leave room in the gray matter there for some common sense!

-- Tim (, May 10, 1999.

Everything has been figured out, except how to live.

-- JP (jean@paul.satre), May 10, 1999.

There are different types of conclusions people arrive at....a spectrum of seriousness....we don`t know how much Mrs. Savant would wager that her prediction is right...until we have a clear statement from her regarding how much she would wager on her opinion....we`re just guessing. Ummmmm....instead of asking the most intelligent person lets ask the most serious.

-- bud (bud@computers, May 10, 1999.

It is well-established that the Intelligence Quotient (IQ; Stanford- Binet Intelligence Quotient) is a very gross summary, and not used as a single number by most serious researchers. Current theory is that "intelligence" is modular; it is quite possible to rate very high on one sub-scale and score below average on another, with the average resulting score still very far above "normal". A trivial example of this might be someone who is extremely gifted in verbal communication, but completely unable to read a map (verbal vs.visuo-spatial skills, using different areas of the brain). The most extreme example of this phenomenon used to be called "idiot savant", it is now more p.c. to refer to it as "savantism".

English translation: one can be incredibly bright in one area, and still be a dummy in others.


-- Spindoctor (, May 10, 1999.

not much is gonna happen, we have all wasted a LOT of money. I gota go along with marylyn scene. its all alotta hype. I stupidly bought into the hype, spent a lotta money. feelin' kinda stupid, now

-- ed (, May 10, 1999.

Nikoli: I really liked your words: "A lot of people seem to mistake a lack of greed and a conscience for a lack of intelligence." I wrote it in my journal - good words of wisdom. I have some words that I'd like to share that I have hanging on my wall (not quite the same topic, but good words anyway): "THE REAL DEFINITION OF CLASS IS HOW YOU TREAT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT POSSIBLY DO YOU ANY GOOD." :-)

-- Scarlett (, May 10, 1999.

As I remember from Dungeons and Dragons, Wisdon and Intelligence are separately derived...and do not necessarily correlate. Seems to be true in "real life" as well.

-- Mad Monk (, May 10, 1999.

Vos Savant does have the highest measured I.Q. (236), but remember that intelligence quotient is only a measure (and a rough one at that) of one's ability to learn. I've no idea how much actual research (and actual learning) she has done on the Y2K problem; if she hasn't done much, then her opinion still isn't worth much.

Incidentally, I recollect that some years ago she had written a whole slew of books. None was published. Perhaps that situation has since changed, but the point, again, is that one has to actually spend plenty of time and research on a subject in order to become knowledgeable about it. Vos Savant flits around, writes an article for "Parade," etc.--and, so far as I know, she is not a recognized expert or scholar in any field.

-- Don Florence (, May 10, 1999.

This is MinnesotaSmith, author of the Y2K-preparatory website Her intelligence should not be the issue here, but her informedness. Unless she has incentive to lie (that is stronger than her ethical sense), I would expect that she simply does not know much about how severe Y2K can be expected to be. The smartest person could easily reach the conclusion her public position implies if the mass-media "don't worry-be happy" pablum was the complete extent of their data on Y2K.

-- MinnesotaSmith (, May 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ