The Smartest Kid At Harvard: William J Sidis

Blacknight

Well-known member
Really interesting individual I just read about. Both parents were very smart, and they combined their intellects to shape the mind of their son at the very start of his infancy.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-william-j-sidis said:
The Rise and Fall of William J. Sidis

In the waning years of the nineteenth century, boatloads of Russian Jewish immigrants were arriving in New York harbor as they fled from the religious and political persecution of their homeland. Boris and Sarah Sidis arrived in such a fashion, and they quickly gained notoriety in the United States as brilliant individuals. Boris established a reputation for himself as a pioneer in the study of psychology, and his wife Sarah became one of only a handful of women in America to receive a medical degree. Though they were widely regarded as the possessors of highly gifted minds, they were also renowned for their eccentricities.

After breezing through Harvard as a student, Boris became a professor of psychology there, where he taught and wrote about his ground-breaking theories in the field. He was influential in the areas of hypnosis, group psychology, and mob frenzy; and he was fascinated with the effects of evolution on the human psyche. He was also an advocate of some bizarre treatments such as the “rest cure,” whereby victims of mental disorders were isolated in bed for up to two months, sometimes in tandem with electrotherapy. Much of Boris’s work was experimental and adventurous in a time when the field of psychology was making great strides.

On April Fool’s day in 1898, Boris encountered a unique opportunity to begin applying his eccentric theories of psychology in a real-world environment: his wife Sarah gave birth to a son. Under the tutelage of these ingenious yet neurotic parents, young William James Sidis developed into an individual with astonishing talents.

Boris and Sarah began their child’s education in his first few months, and William’s infant mind absorbed the information at an extraordinary rate. Using wooden blocks, Boris began demonstrating the alphabet to his young son, using techniques similar to hypnosis to coax the baby into pronouncing the letters. At six months, William uttered the word “door,” and by the following month he had doubled his vocabulary to include “moon.” At eight months old, his proud parents boasted that he was able to feed himself with a spoon, a skill that very few children develop within their first year. He was also able to recognize and repeat the letters on Boris’s toy blocks, giving him a four-year-old’s grasp of symbol recognition.

The Sidises believed that aggressive curiosity was a quality to be nurtured, so Sarah gave up her career in medicine to dedicate her life to the child’s development. William’s thirst for knowledge never went unquenched, and by his first birthday– an age when most children are still babbling– he was honing his spelling skills. At one and a half years of age, he was reading the daily newspaper.

As William approached his fifth birthday, his spectacular abilities began to draw the attention of the press. He had taught himself to operate the typewriter from his high chair, tapping out a letter to Macy’s regarding an order for toys. He had also taken it upon himself to learn Latin, Greek, Russian, French, German, and Hebrew. His appetite for information seemed endless as he easily chewed through weighty tomes such as Gray’s Anatomy and the works of Homer. He entered grammar school at age six, but in just over half a year he had advanced into high school curriculum. His stunning accomplishments soon became a frequent feature on the first page of the New York Times.

William James SidisBoris and Sarah were understandably proud of their son and his intellectual achievements. By cultivating his precocious nature it seemed that they had confirmed some of their outlandish theories, and they paraded young William around as evidence of this. But the question of how much was due to their influence and how much was was due to his own natural genius is a matter of some debate. Whatever their approach may have contributed to his development, it is clear that his mind had a natural propensity for gorging itself on information.

At age nine William attempted to enroll at Harvard, and though the entrance exams were not a challenge for the young intellect, he was turned down on the basis that he was too “emotionally immature” for college life. As William waited for the Harvard admissions board to capitulate, he spent the intervening time at Tufts College correcting mistakes in mathematicians’ books, perusing Einstein’s theories for possible errors, mastering foreign languages, and diligently collecting streetcar transfer slips. He discovered that he could mentally calculate the day of the week for any given date in the past or in the future, and he wrote four books. When the boy prodigy reached eleven years of age in 1909, the prestigious university finally relented and accepted William as a student.

On a cold January evening in 1910, about a hundred professors and advanced math students gathered in a Harvard lecture hall to observe the eleven-year-old William Sidis’s first public speaking presentation. He spoke in a quiet, shy voice and had to stifle the occasional giggle, but his lecture on Four-Dimensional Bodies was very well received. It was sufficiently advanced that it bewildered many of his audience members, as indicated by the depth of his introduction:
“My own definition of the Fourth Dimension would be that it is an Euclidian space with one dimension added. It is the projection of the figures of the Third Dimension into space. The third dimensional figures, such as the cube, are used as sides of the figures of the Fourth Dimension, and the figures of the Fourth Dimension are called configurations. It is not possible to actually construct models of the figures of the Fourth Dimension, or to conceive of them in the mind’s eye, but it is easy to construct them by means of Euclid’s theorem.”

Sidis graduated *** laude at age 16, having grown a bit introverted in response to the sudden fame and pressure. At his graduation, he told the gathered newspapermen, “I want to live the perfect life. The only way to live the perfect life is to live it in seclusion. I have always hated crowds.” He began a lifelong policy of vigorously rejecting sex, art, music, or anything else that would distract him from the pursuit of pure knowledge.

William briefly taught mathematics at Rice University in Houston, but he resigned when it became apparent that his age and fame were inescapable distractions to the students. He went back to Harvard for a short time to pursue a law degree, but dropped out when he found that the law did not suit him. In 1919 William was once again subjected to public scrutiny when he was arrested for participating in an anti-draft demonstration which developed into a riot. The ensuing trial further underscored his unconventional philosophies, such as his lack of a belief in God– particularly the “big boss of the Christians”– and his socialist leanings. His political views later evolved into something resembling Libertarianism.


Sidis made a noble effort to avoid the public eye in his adult years. He wrote several books, but most of them were under assumed names and about obscure subjects. One such book, entitled Notes on the Collection of Streetcar Transfers, discusses his unusual hobby of peridromophilia at painstaking length. The work was described by one Sidis biographer as “the most boring book ever written.” William also alluded to the existence of dark matter before it had been formally theorized, and wrote about how one democratic Native American tribe may have strongly influenced the politics of America’s founders. In the meantime he continued to learn new languages, absorbing dozens of foreign tongues with ease.

A clipping from Boston Traveler (click for full view)A clipping from Boston Traveler (click for full view)The press continued to hound William for years, poking fun at his humdrum jobs and scorning his neglected potential. One New Yorker article entitled “April Fool” was so scathing and filled with personal details that it prompted Sidis to sue for invasion of privacy, a case which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He finally won a partial victory in 1944, but it was a bittersweet success.

William did not live long after that; in the following July his landlady telephoned the police after discovering him unconscious in his Boston apartment. Forty-six year old Sidis had suffered a massive stroke, and he never again regained consciousness. Such was the end of the one-time prodigy who had astonished a Harvard math audience at age eleven; he died a reclusive, penniless office clerk.

Those who knew him in his later life spoke of his conspicuous brilliance and his mastery of over forty languages, but his tangible contributions to society seemed to be relatively few for someone of his talents. Some argue that his parents pushed him too hard in his youth– overexerting his exceptional mind at an early age– and some blame the press for driving him into isolation. There is considerable evidence that William favored the Okamakammesset tribal philosophy of “anonymous contribution”, a principle which implies that one’s value is not measured by one’s visible contributions to society.

Though he probably would not have put much stock in formal measures of intelligence, it is estimated that William Sidis’s IQ was as high as 300, where 100 is average and over 140 is considered genius. Whatever the reason for his underwhelming output later in life, he was certainly one of the most profoundly gifted human beings who ever lived. There is no telling what William might have accomplished for mathematics and science if only his talents had not been squandered.

William Sidis was born on April 1, 1898; birth time unknown.
He died on July 17, 1944 from a brain hemorrhage at 46.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis said:
His father had died of the same malady in 1923 at age fifty-six.

Some wiki info on the father:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Sidis said:
Boris Sidis, Ph.D., M.D. (/ˈsaɪ dɪs/; October 12, 1867 – October 24, 1923) was a Russian American psychologist, physician, psychiatrist, and philosopher of education.

And his chart:
ZmAyBIp4ImuFpmqjZQNjZQNj.png


Too bad his birth time is unknown!
 
M

may28gemini

To think of a genius dying all alone and penniless is all too tragic for me to even comprehend!! And then there are a lot of idiots who say the right things to get well paid jobs and skanky gold digging hoes who get attention at the bat of an eyelash. That story really sadden me.
 

The Ram

Well-known member
I wouldn't call him one of the most talented people to ever live.

He was smart like a computer is smart and likely had the same detriments.

I classify overall intelligence as a mix of a lot of factors: emotional intelligence, intuitive (even psychic) faculties, a strong will or spirit, creativity. Those are just as important as the ability to analyze and retain information and really that's what IQ tests and even standardized testing in general mostly measure.

Him dying from the exact same thing as his father, only 10 years sooner is very telling imo. If he were such a genius he probably should have figured a way around that. The problem is tht being able to listen and be in tune with your body requires reflective qualities that he may not have had developed very well. Ppl with really strong rational minds like that are usually incredibly weak in some of the other areas.

True genius is someone like Da Vinci. He was not just smart like a computer, he had creative, emotional, will power, intuitive faculties as well and had a balance between them. Tesla had a mix of those qualities too, he actually got ideas for his inventions in his dreams.

Hmmm this dude also has a Aries sun, Aries mc, and aries merc, like me and he also has a retrograde sag Uranus like me as well. That isn't comforting lol.
 
Last edited:
M

may28gemini

I wouldn't call him one of the most talented people to ever live.

He was smart like a computer is smart and likely had the same detriments.

I classify overall intelligence as a mix of a lot of factors: emotional intelligence, intuitive (even psychic) faculties, a strong will or spirit, creativity. Those are just as important as the ability to analyze and retain information and really that's what IQ tests and even standardized testing in general mostly measure.

Him dying from the exact same thing as his father, only 10 years sooner is very telling imo. If he were such a genius he probably should have figured a way around that. The problem is tht being able to listen and be in tune with your body requires reflective qualities that he may not have had developed very well. Ppl with really strong rational minds like that are usually incredibly weak in some of the other areas.

True genius is someone like Da Vinci. He was not just smart like a computer, he had creative, emotional, will power, intuitive faculties as well and had a balance between them. Tesla had a mix of those qualities too, he actually got ideas for his inventions in his dreams.

Hmmm this dude also has a Aries sun, Aries mc, and aries merc, like me and he also has a retrograde sag Uranus like me as well. That isn't comforting lol.

He has no essential debilities but the topic is smartest kid at Harvard... which is about factual knowledge. I went an Ivy League school and it's rigorous and demanding. Granted, I don't have a genius IQ so I can't really compare.
Intelligence, for a very long time has been measured by the ability to grasp, organize, and apply factual knowledge in concrete subjects such as mathematics, physics, biology, etc. everything that's anchored in reality.

Emotions aren't facts because they aren't anchored in reality. It's true that emotions do exist, but it's personal, and there's no way to cross reference to know if there's a right or wrong answer, unlike, say, math. There's no way to measure emotional "intelligence" and even if it were, how do you concretely define it?

Anyway, like I said, I went to an Ivy League school and I've met real geniuses but what you don't understand about those who are truly intelligent and brilliant in the traditional sense is that they don't really care/pay much attention to other areas- which includes doing mundane everyday things such taking care of their health or brushing their hair. Their minds are preoccupied on bigger and larger questions and it blinds them to the immediate and lesser important concerns such as dressing properly and taking time to chitchat with others.

It's always sad to me that geniuses die poor and penniless because they're not concerned with mundane worldly cares. If you study about the personal lives of Adam Smith, Newton, Fermat, etc. they rarely had much of a social life and they weren't of the emotional variety either. Their "friends" were colleagues and work confidences. They didn't socialize for the heck of it, much less because they were forced to.

Leonard Da Vinci was brilliant but he was actually "computer" like. He was definitely a master of painting, architecture, sculpture, virtually everything he laid his hands on. He happened to have been vain, which was why he dressed well and was always looking "handsome" and dignified. But as far as his genius was concerned, he didn't like to socialize with others (had no friends, but plenty of rivals), he didn't trust people (he wrote in his diary mirror imaged), he didn't even give a d@mn about pi$sing his employers off as he had the habit of leaving a lot of projects unfinished and if someone was super mad at him, he'd leave. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA He surely was freaking awesome but he didn't have "emotional intelligence" as he didn't give one flying fig what others felt. He wanted to make painting into a science, and I will agree with that, he had systematic techniques set up. He was a brilliant inventor and thought up of all kinds of advanced things (like the parachute and contact lenses). Now tell me this, since he was so dang busy thinking up of all the brilliant things that went on in his mind, how the heck would he have time to mess around with frivolous stuff in life such paying attention to others in social settings in order to develop "emotional intelligence"?

I've had the pleasure of meeting my mentor's friend/ex-boyfriend a few years back who has his Ph.D in nuclear physics. Yes, that's right. He's a Gemini Sun and his chart actually mimics mine (which sorta scares me but isn't surprising). He's brilliant and very logical. I love talking with him but he said that he's now more "social" than he's ever been when he was under 40. Soon after he got his Ph.D, all the nuclear power plants closed and he didn't know what to do for work as it never occurred to him. So... he ended up getting a job at garden/hardware store and has worked there ever since for like the past 25 years. Just a few years ago, there was an orphaned kitten he had no idea what to do with it and my mentor (being smart herself, but she's not a genius) told him, "Well you take care of the kitten!!" and she taught him how. That's how clueless geniuses are about normal, everyday, mundane life. There's so much brain activity occupying their time that they are detached from the here and now of the immediate and rather frivolous state of life.
 
Last edited:

poyi

Premium Member
Without accurate birth time. By declinations, you can still see that he had Saturn, Uranus both parallel to North node. Venus contra parallel to Rigel and Mars parallel Rigel, Mercury and Pluto parallel Regulus, both Mars and Moon parallel to Sirius etc.

He was born with interesting planetary alignment but how it was supposed to manifest that of course was based on his ascendant degree and the rest the houses. But I guess those above planets would be ruling the most important houses/axises that would indicate spectacular intelligence.

The cerebral hemorrhage was interesting to think about it would be some kind of progression/transit etc actually hit the most precious part of his being.
 

Blacknight

Well-known member
I wouldn't call him one of the most talented people to ever live.

He was smart like a computer is smart and likely had the same detriments.

I classify overall intelligence as a mix of a lot of factors: emotional intelligence, intuitive (even psychic) faculties, a strong will or spirit, creativity. Those are just as important as the ability to analyze and retain information and really that's what IQ tests and even standardized testing in general mostly measure.

Him dying from the exact same thing as his father, only 10 years sooner is very telling imo. If he were such a genius he probably should have figured a way around that. The problem is tht being able to listen and be in tune with your body requires reflective qualities that he may not have had developed very well. Ppl with really strong rational minds like that are usually incredibly weak in some of the other areas.

True genius is someone like Da Vinci. He was not just smart like a computer, he had creative, emotional, will power, intuitive faculties as well and had a balance between them. Tesla had a mix of those qualities too, he actually got ideas for his inventions in his dreams.

Hmmm this dude also has a Aries sun, Aries mc, and aries merc, like me and he also has a retrograde sag Uranus like me as well. That isn't comforting lol.

He has no essential debilities but the topic is smartest kid at Harvard... which is about factual knowledge. I went an Ivy League school and it's rigorous and demanding. Granted, I don't have a genius IQ so I can't really compare.
Intelligence, for a very long time has been measured by the ability to grasp, organize, and apply factual knowledge in concrete subjects such as mathematics, physics, biology, etc. everything that's anchored in reality.

Emotions aren't facts because they aren't anchored in reality. It's true that emotions do exist, but it's personal, and there's no way to cross reference to know if there's a right or wrong answer, unlike, say, math. There's no way to measure emotional "intelligence" and even if it were, how do you concretely define it?

Anyway, like I said, I went to an Ivy League school and I've met real geniuses but what you don't understand about those who are truly intelligent and brilliant in the traditional sense is that they don't really care/pay much attention to other areas- which includes doing mundane everyday things such taking care of their health or brushing their hair. Their minds are preoccupied on bigger and larger questions and it blinds them to the immediate and lesser important concerns such as dressing properly and taking time to chitchat with others.

It's always sad to me that geniuses die poor and penniless because they're not concerned with mundane worldly cares. If you study about the personal lives of Adam Smith, Newton, Fermat, etc. they rarely had much of a social life and they weren't of the emotional variety either. Their "friends" were colleagues and work confidences. They didn't socialize for the heck of it, much less because they were forced to...

You know this Sidis guy immediately reminded me of Nikola Tesla actually. Tesla was incredibly smart & did in fact make many successful inventions, but in the end he died penniless and friendless (I read he was only really close with a handful of people) in a ****** apartment.

I think the recurring theme in the lives of a lot of "genius" people is that they have non-existent social lives or very limited ones. And sure they might get public acclaim and fame for their works, but interpersonal relations seem to be.... what's the word... indifferent, aloof, strained, stuffy, the opposite of flowing?? It's like if they were in a dance, they would be the people stiff as a board stepping on people's feet, and then maybe they'd do something really cool like the moon walk. :p

And you know what, I bet this dude died prematurely in part because he was depressed about life. Sidis basically exiled himself from the public because of his status of freakish intelligence. I bet he felt like he couldn't relate to anyone, and frankly who wants to live that kind of life. I can see why his life ended in that way. Tesla also got repeatedly ******* over in part because he was considered a foreigner & not a true american inventor even though he loved the us. I'm also sure Edison was jealous of the man's ability to get things done right the first time. I'll bet you Tesla would not have needed to test 1000 light bulbs like a dork to figure out what works.

Emotional intelligence is definitely important. You see that come through in art, which is also a very subjective thing. I think it's something you could relay to acting ability. People who can express and emote their actions and feelings clearly make good actors. And then there's just regular people who have a really great way of relating to other people from all walks of life.

How do you measure that though?? How do you measure feelings?? Totally subjective... IQ tests are just an assessment of people's logic, memory & reason. They really work for technical stuff best because that's objectively measurable, but I totally agree that they should not be the barometer for total intelligence.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Since we don't have the time of birth we can't use the angles or houses with any reliability-however, I do notice the partile conjunction of Lilith with Neptune plus the exact opposition of Saturn to Pluto (Lilith+Neptune+Pluto all in Gemini, and Saturn in Sagittarius); also the exact quincuncx of Moon (brain) to Mars (inflammation, hemorrhage)

Using symbolic directions of the planets, note that at age 46 natal Mars would have directed to conjunct natal Venus within 1 degree; natal NN directed to conjunct natal Mars within 1 degree;natal Mercury directed to conjunct natal Pluto within 1 degree, and natal Uranus directed to exact quincunx with natal Lilith...
 
M

may28gemini

You know this Sidis guy immediately reminded me of Nikola Tesla actually. Tesla was incredibly smart & did in fact make many successful inventions, but in the end he died penniless and friendless (I read he was only really close with a handful of people) in a ****** apartment.

I think the recurring theme in the lives of a lot of "genius" people is that they have non-existent social lives or very limited ones. And sure they might get public acclaim and fame for their works, but interpersonal relations seem to be.... what's the word... indifferent, aloof, strained, stuffy, the opposite of flowing?? It's like if they were in a dance, they would be the people stiff as a board stepping on people's feet, and then maybe they'd do something really cool like the moon walk. :p

And you know what, I bet this dude died prematurely in part because he was depressed about life. Sidis basically exiled himself from the public because of his status of freakish intelligence. I bet he felt like he couldn't relate to anyone, and frankly who wants to live that kind of life. I can see why his life ended in that way. Tesla also got repeatedly ******* over in part because he was considered a foreigner & not a true american inventor even though he loved the us. I'm also sure Edison was jealous of the man's ability to get things done right the first time. I'll bet you Tesla would not have needed to test 1000 light bulbs like a dork to figure out what works.

Emotional intelligence is definitely important. You see that come through in art, which is also a very subjective thing. I think it's something you could relay to acting ability. People who can express and emote their actions and feelings clearly make good actors. And then there's just regular people who have a really great way of relating to other people from all walks of life.

How do you measure that though?? How do you measure feelings?? Totally subjective... IQ tests are just an assessment of people's logic, memory & reason. They really work for technical stuff best because that's objectively measurable, but I totally agree that they should not be the barometer for total intelligence.

I do not doubt that emotional intelligence is important, but it is not recognized as important to those who are overly the top left-brained. The issue with that is not only the fact that geniuses cannot relate to others on a personal level, but very few can even relate to someone of far superior intellectual caliber. There's a mismatch between the mundane, everyday, average person vs the above average intelligent person, let alone throw a genius in the mix and expect the genius to maneuver like a socialite. Clearly 2 different grounds to stand on. Not surprisingly, there's plenty of studies that show strong linkage between heighten levels of intelligence with depression. Elizabeth Wurzel is a great example, but not uncommon.

I'm not a genius but I went to school with geniuses. Ivy Leagues are a very different and extremely competitive world, and very few people will ever begin to grasp what it's like submerged in such an environment if you are not up to par and ready to bat one out of the ballpark on command. If you cannot do that, you're inferior and not worth a dime. I seem like I'm too relaxed now, but I use to move around with elitist assh0les, those who come from tremendous money and power and if you are not of their equal in status and standing, you're going to feel so small that you'd rather die than live to be their inferior. That's how it is. That's what money and prestige and reputation can do to a person. Sidis didn't come from wealth, power, and prestige. He was from obscure and modest means. He must have felt the vast difference between himself and others comparatively in the material and social world, and the one way, the ONLY way he could prove to be their superior was through sheer intelligence. That's what his parents wanted, to prove something to the world.


One of my favorite roommates while I was going to school was an Aqua Sun. My classmate was quite bright and socially agreeable person, but she generally locked herself up in her room and studied nonstop. She came from a lot of money, but she was a foreign student and she felt cut off the social world, but she also seemed to not have any interest. Her personal checking account had no less than $95000 at any point. I know this because she gave me access to her account so I could pay our rent. She had lived alone for a few years (since she started school) and never lived with anyone but wanted to know what it was like to have someone not related to her live with her. We both had our names on the lease but she often paid all the rent. Although I always insisted on paying my part of the rent, she didn't care and would tell me to keep it.

She lived off of pizza deliveries, whereas I cooked (I like cooking). She would only venture outside our apartment if she had classes, but otherwise, she'd stay in. Whenever she saw me in the apartment, we would talk a long time because we did get along, and we understood each other.- pressures of fulfilling expectations- from parents, society, peers.

She was an engineering student and the level of mathematics she was doing made my head spin. I was a whiz in calculus and always scored in the top of my math classes, but that's NOTHING compared to my roommate. I majored in Sociology, specifically, Social Theory and my major's peers always thought I was a total freak of nature. They didn't understand why I took so many math classes when our major didn't require it. I had completed a lot of traditionally hard science classes when it wasn't necessary. And when it came to discussing theory, would somehow try to "prove it" by drawing up mathematical charts. They didn't know that when I entered school, I entered as Pre-Med student and concrete subjects were my forte, and it's child's play. My roommate knew this about me and she didn't think of me as her inferior, in many ways, she thought I was her equal in intelligence and superior to her in social standing. I had the upper hand just from the sheer volume of people I ran around with. I begged and pleaded with her to let me take her out to socialize (I had a car and she didn't) and meet new people. She gave him a few times, just not all the time. I even introduced her to her now husband (much to my regret, since I dislike him).

My point is, because the topic is about Harvard which is a very rigid and one of the most traditional of Ivy League schools (I have 2 cousins who graduated from there), being immersed in a world where you have little to no social standing but expected to come out as #1 is very difficult and strenuous, esp. during Sidis' time. And the issue with feeling and being cut off from others socially is a major hurtle to overcome. Sidis was taught to stand on his own and represent his modest family.

I'm not brilliant, not even remotely a genius. I was smart enough to be accepted in 2 very prestigious schools when I did not come from wealth nor elite social standing, but I'm not so smart that I'm beyond vanity and needing to interact with others. I graduated because I know how to follow directions and completed all the necessary requirements. However, I was surrounded by what many would call "emotional retards" because the kinds of people I went to school with didn't focus their energy towards interpersonal skills. They were already too dang smart for that and a lot thought of it beneath them to bother. Comparatively to the brainy but socially retarded lot, I'm a brilliant socialite. But in reality, when I'm compared to a regular/normal/average person, my emotional intelligence is actually rock bottom. I cannot connect with people who are of average or below average intelligence. I'm not condescending, but I hold those beneath me with contempt and I do not interact with them. Spending much of my youth in boarding schools and then going through the Ivy League system has made it difficult for me to integrate with the average/normal/mundane world. I largely do feel cut off. But I can only begin to imagine how completely cut off Sidis was because he would have had to dumb himself down in order to connect with others, which was something he obviously didn't do, even though it ultimately lead to his own demise.
 
Last edited:

Blacknight

Well-known member
Thank you for that interesting post may28. Do you do creative writing? I bet you could make some money in literature.

The closest I get to higher education is my local community college and the university outterstaters I cross paths with at my retail job. I gotta say though, I get to meet a lot of different people while working retail. Not a glam job, but I like the diverse audience.

My high school had a German foreign exchange student for a year who I shared chemistry class (and some lame history thing) with, and he seemed to be pretty much just like the room mate you described. He was very rigid and studious and it seemed to me that our schooling was like a joke to him. He did look down on most people from an intellectual angle. I think pride in part also prevents really smart people from socializing with people below their intelligence level (whether someone comes from a prominent background or not). That's why I think there's real genius in humor. Laughter is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter how smart you are because a good joke makes everyone laugh.
 
M

may28gemini

Thank you for that interesting post may28. Do you do creative writing? I bet you could make some money in literature.

The closest I get to higher education is my local community college and the university outterstaters I cross paths with at my retail job. I gotta say though, I get to meet a lot of different people while working retail. Not a glam job, but I like the diverse audience.

My high school had a German foreign exchange student for a year who I shared chemistry class (and some lame history thing) with, and he seemed to be pretty much just like the room mate you described. He was very rigid and studious and it seemed to me that our schooling was like a joke to him. He did look down on most people from an intellectual angle. I think pride in part also prevents really smart people from socializing with people below their intelligence level (whether someone comes from a prominent background or not). That's why I think there's real genius in humor. Laughter is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter how smart you are because a good joke makes everyone laugh.

HAHAHA no, I not a "creative" writer at all. The only thing I'm good at is stuff rooted/anchored in reality. If you told me to sit down and come up with an original story and gave me a year to do it, you'd be wasting your time because by the following year, I'd still have nothing for you. If you ask me to write my interpretation of John Hughes films and the teenage movement during the 80s, sure, I can write that easily. That's a major thing with the Ivy Leagues... they train the minds to be technically sharp.

Most who come into the Ivy League schools are already at least above average intelligence (my cousins are dummies and they graduated Harvard, so that should say something...) and money has to be parked over. To be perfectly honest, everyone in our family were shocked my cousins even got into Harvard, and even made a huge deal that both graduated. I didn't go to Harvard, I went to a more "rural" Ivy for my undergrads because I wanted to feel "isolated" and way from stupid people.

In reality, I'm a lazy person and it's been what I would say are "many" years since I've graduated. I use to have nightmares for several years after graduation dreaming that I was late to class or slept through my final exams.

There's nothing wrong with community colleges or State colleges or whatever. Many good, solid minds did NOT come from Ivy Leagues and I prefer a more stable minded person than a genius who tries to commit suicide because they're NOT #1 anymore. Some of the best people I've had the pleasure to meet came from very unusual schools like Art schools who are so well rounded and thoughtful and not spoiled dingbats riding on their parents' coattails.

I've worked in several retail stores- the big dept. stores. I've worked in a hair salon as shampoo girl and did blow dry styling for old rich b*tches who lived in $15 million mansions. I've worked as wedding makeup artist and dealt with bridezillas who secretly harbored grudges against their prettier relations and bridesmaids and wanted me to make everyone uglier than them. I've done writing pieces for magazines, PR press for wannabe pop stars, hip hop artists, all sorts. I like doing a lot of different things and I'm not to proud to work. I hate office jobs and I'm not a corporate personality.

I'm unlike my Ivy schoolmates because 1. I didn't come from sheer money, 2. I don't have connections with all the "right" people, 3. I'm a risk taker and like doing weird things, 4. I have no reputation to speak of so I don't feel pressured, 5. I am a loner and outsider, despite moving in some scary circles while going to school, 6. I'm a generalist and like a lot of different things, whereas my peers liked whatever they were told to like.

I must sound completely ungrateful or rebellious because much of my life was handed to me on a nice platter but unless you've gone through a rigid schooling system, you'd have no idea how hard it was in those environments if you don't fit the WASP mold. I was known as the "halfie" from California and generally "well liked" but I was NOT one of them. I never was, and never will be. Most of them made sure to stress that to me, in subtle, passive aggressive ways. I was never good enough, and I would never stand on the same level that they stood at. I grew up knowing that and accepted that I'd be 2nd rate. That's how it was. Thank the stars that I have Libra rising and I did manage to get out and socialize (a lot), even with people I actually disliked and didn't trust. But that's the main thing I've learned while at school, to have the appearance of belonging but not actually really belonging. A lot of my friends dropped out. They couldn't deal with it.

I think that Sidis must have had a lot inferiority ingrained in him. He did not come from the Elite class that went into the Ivy Leagues. He was socially nothing.

The German exchange student must have felt like a total outsider and instead of making effort to integrate, he must have had experienced more people pushing him away. Humor is not just the great equalizer, it is the main human connector. We don't bond over sadness or tragedy, we bond over joy and laughter. We connect better with those whom we laugh with. I have a realistic and probably "mean" sense of humor. Most do not feel safe with me, because they do not know what I'll say that's going to either burst their bubble or slam their face in the walls with my observations. In reality, I have no interest or use for hurting people's feelings. I just don't care about others emotions and I just like real stuff, real talks and that's what's the most funny to me. The fake stuff isn't rooted in anything that I can possibly relate to, and that's the main reason why I didn't connect with my peers at school but I can connect with a lot of people on the fringe.
 
Last edited:

Blacknight

Well-known member
Lol, funny. Bridezillas are serious business. I could see you as a columnist easily. :tongue: It does suck being an outsider when you don't jive with the people already in place. With that German exchange student, I sensed he preferred not to associate himself with the kids at my HS even thought everyone was really welcoming. I mean he wasn't the only German student and the other one was pretty social. Maybe he just couldn't socialize. And yeah my dad's motto with life is whatever you do don't lose your sense of humor. It's definitely one of life's key ingredients.
 
M

may28gemini

Lol, funny. Bridezillas are serious business. I could see you as a columnist easily. :tongue: It does suck being an outsider when you don't jive with the people already in place. With that German exchange student, I sensed he preferred not to associate himself with the kids at my HS even thought everyone was really welcoming. I mean he wasn't the only German student and the other one was pretty social. Maybe he just couldn't socialize. And yeah my dad's motto with life is whatever you do don't lose your sense of humor. It's definitely one of life's key ingredients.

Of course it's difficult to be an "outsider" because others don't accept you, but the thing that I've learned is to not let that get in the way. This may be a total culture shift, but people just don't seem to put much effort into being social and getting along anymore. I see this with people who even only 2-3 years younger than me (let alone much younger) they're extremely socially clueless, lazy, and INSECURE. Probably much more insecure than when I was a teen running around with the wolves.

To set aside one's differences with community and social surroundings and "run with the wolves" (as I did) is really one of the biggest lessons to learn and integrate. It's a necessary foundation for survival; we are "social" creatures, after all. I suppose it might be something that's already built into people who have "social" Saturn placements which are the Air signs (Libra is exalted, Aqua is domicile, and Gemini is Air triplicity essential dignity if diurnal), but I see people easily withdrawing if others don't come over to them and be inviting. There's just an overall sense of wallflowerism and expecting others to come over and lack of recognition that they are part of the social surrounding and they can do some initiating themselves.

I'm a Libra Saturn, and I ran around with other Libra Saturn people. As a small 2-3 year generation of people, I find that we've always tried to include others and tried being nice to others, even if we DON'T like them. I have no idea why that is. It's always been an automatic thing for me, and it was an automatic thing for my classmates. Socially, we mixed with all sorts and we didn't discriminate outwardly. I hungout with the "jocks" but I was also an honor student and excelled academically. I was in fine arts and I hungout with the "freaks" there. I tried to get along with everyone, even though I actually liked very few. Actually, on the inside, I disliked a lot of them. But the ability to be socially moveable was encouraged by my schools and that the intermingling could only serve to be useful (my counselors use to say to me). Surprise, surprise, it's true.
 
Last edited:

The Ram

Well-known member
He has no essential debilities but the topic is smartest kid at Harvard... which is about factual knowledge. I went an Ivy League school and it's rigorous and demanding. Granted, I don't have a genius IQ so I can't really compare.
Intelligence, for a very long time has been measured by the ability to grasp, organize, and apply factual knowledge in concrete subjects such as mathematics, physics, biology, etc. everything that's anchored in reality.

It's been that way for a little while, for most of human history it certainly hasn't been measured purely by just those parameters. This is due to humanity being in a very imbalanced state currently.

The smartest kid at harvard is the one who's very good or great at most everything he or she does. Not someone who just considers sciences, mathematics and railroad cars :andy: as "real" knowledge and literally shuts themselves off from other things like art, emotion and sex.

The smartest person at Harvard beats this man at most any contest, except for a select few.
Emotions aren't facts because they aren't anchored in reality. It's true that emotions do exist, but it's personal, and there's no way to cross reference to know if there's a right or wrong answer, unlike, say, math. There's no way to measure emotional "intelligence" and even if it were, how do you concretely define it?
There is a way to measure emotional intelligence. Humans just aren't intelligent enough to do that. For a god, it would be easy to measure human emotional intelligence. The fact that we can't quantify it just highlights the fact that it's further beyond our grasp than easier things like sciences and mathematics. Imo this fact certainly doesn't discredit the validity of emoton, if anything this enhances it.
Anyway, like I said, I went to an Ivy League school and I've met real geniuses but what you don't understand about those who are truly intelligent and brilliant in the traditional sense is that they don't really care/pay much attention to other areas- which includes doing mundane everyday things such taking care of their health or brushing their hair. Their minds are preoccupied on bigger and larger questions and it blinds them to the immediate and lesser important concerns such as dressing properly and taking time to chitchat with others.
What you don't understand is that neglecting these other areas is precisely what prevents a person from being truly intelligent.

These ppl are clever, they are not intelligent. Intelligence is having the understanding to take care of yourself, only by taking care of your health can a person expect to achieve their full potential. It's like a nascar driver who doesn't take care of his car and only studies theories, noone would consider a person like that as an intelligent driver. Infact he'd be considered a buffoon. And rightly so.

I don't really care about things like not dressing properly or chit chatting with others, that's their prerogative. But neglecting your own health for these ahem "bigger concerns" is a unbelievably stupid and it would make such a person deserving of a darwin award.
It's always sad to me that geniuses die poor and penniless because they're not concerned with mundane worldly cares. If you study about the personal lives of Adam Smith, Newton, Fermat, etc. they rarely had much of a social life and they weren't of the emotional variety either. Their "friends" were colleagues and work confidences. They didn't socialize for the heck of it, much less because they were forced to.
Newton was an occultist, so he definitely had an emotional side. You just don't know about it. Newton was a true genius, because he was balanced more than most humans in the areas I mentioned. He combined the various forms of intelligence and by doing so it made him more intelligent as a whole and not surprisingly he accomplished great things.

I don't care about social lives of these ppl. A genius is someone who can relate to anybody, yet noone can relate to him. So it's understandable that many don't have the best social lives. For one most ppl would feel threatened by the genius.

Leonard Da Vinci was brilliant but he was actually "computer" like. He was definitely a master of painting, architecture, sculpture, virtually everything he laid his hands on. He happened to have been vain, which was why he dressed well and was always looking "handsome" and dignified. But as far as his genius was concerned, he didn't like to socialize with others (had no friends, but plenty of rivals), he didn't trust people (he wrote in his diary mirror imaged), he didn't even give a d@mn about pi$sing his employers off as he had the habit of leaving a lot of projects unfinished and if someone was super mad at him, he'd leave. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA He surely was freaking awesome but he didn't have "emotional intelligence" as he didn't give one flying fig what others felt. He wanted to make painting into a science, and I will agree with that, he had systematic techniques set up. He was a brilliant inventor and thought up of all kinds of advanced things (like the parachute and contact lenses). Now tell me this, since he was so dang busy thinking up of all the brilliant things that went on in his mind, how the heck would he have time to mess around with frivolous stuff in life such paying attention to others in social settings in order to develop "emotional intelligence"?
Well first off. We disagree on one important fact. You feel that emotional intelligence is built exclusively by relating to others. I don't hold this belief, I certainly agree that it can be, partially. But emotional intelligence is built primarily by an ability to look deep within your own self, an ability that very few actually possess. I believe Da Vinci had that ability.

Da vinci was no computer. Being vain, being as spiritual as he was, being a great artist, having unparalleled creativity. These are not qualities of any computer. Atleast none that I have worked with, but then again I only own a quad core. Perhaps it's time to upgrade...

What you're talking about is social intelligence. Which would be a mix of several of the factors I prev mentioned. Emotional intelligence is a key part of it sure, but it's only one part, among many. Someone with good enough social intelligence could manipulate this sidis character easily, I don't think they could with actual genius's like da vinci or others.

Not caring what others think is definitely characteristic of a genius. So is not having many friends. Ppl become too jealous and can't relate to genius's.
I've had the pleasure of meeting my mentor's friend/ex-boyfriend a few years back who has his Ph.D in nuclear physics. Yes, that's right. He's a Gemini Sun and his chart actually mimics mine (which sorta scares me but isn't surprising). He's brilliant and very logical. I love talking with him but he said that he's now more "social" than he's ever been when he was under 40. Soon after he got his Ph.D, all the nuclear power plants closed and he didn't know what to do for work as it never occurred to him. So... he ended up getting a job at garden/hardware store and has worked there ever since for like the past 25 years. Just a few years ago, there was an orphaned kitten he had no idea what to do with it and my mentor (being smart herself, but she's not a genius) told him, "Well you take care of the kitten!!" and she taught him how. That's how clueless geniuses are about normal, everyday, mundane life. There's so much brain activity occupying their time that they are detached from the here and now of the immediate and rather frivolous state of life.
Again we disagree on a very fundamental concept to this discussion.

I think there is nothing frivolous about the here and now of everyday life. The here and now is actually the most important part of life, other more abstract considerations that take away from a person being present in the here and now are what is frivolous. There is nothing wrong with thinking about these matters, I know I do a lot, but a balance has to be maintained.

Balance is a trait this man did not have, he developed his brain in an imbalanced way and he died of the same thing his father did only 10 years quicker. This shows that he was actually a de-evolution from his father in some ways. His mad scientist father probably did mess him up though.

There are ppl that are funtionally dull that can calculate pi to more decimal places in their head than any normal, or even far beyond normal person could even dream of matching. While I wouldn't say that this man and his father were in the same boat, they were only a level or 2 beyond that. In an overall sense they were both quite inept and their line has been removed from the gene pool. Natural selection.:smile:

Smartest kid at harvard has his hand in everything, he's good at everything, he's versatile, he's balanced, he's a whole person. He's probably an occultist. This person whether they are working in the forefront or behind the scenes will leave their mark on the world, something this man never did.

Examples of Geniuis are Davinci, Newton as mentioned. but also even dudes like Napoleon, Napoleon was a great mathematician and actually had a big hand in creating the metric system(one of the great contributions to science and math in the last several hundred years), a great occultist, he was also a brilliant leader, warrior, strategist. He was good to great at most everything he did.

A true Genius would spin a man like this Sidis or his father around in circles in most any situation, if he so desired. Or in another situation (say a survivalist one) a true genius, or even most ordinary ppl would probably eat him.

Even looking at his chart, it's quite ordinary. There are more indications of intelligence in many others of charts I've seen. His astrology definitely does not indicate genius, unless the stars were truly aligned in his real birth time...His angles had to have made strong aspects because the rest of his chart is weak.

The only things that stand out to me are what poyi mentioned, an opp between Saturn and Pluto, a 2 deg loose mercury chiron quincunx and a 6 deg loose Mercury Uranus quincunx. That last aspect is at a loose orb, but since they're both in fire signs and the aspect is double-ly approaching (merc moving direct and uran moving backwards) ill give him the benefit of the doubt and say he had it.
 
Last edited:
M

may28gemini

It's been that way for a little while, for most of human history it certainly hasn't been measured purely by just those parameters. This is due to humanity being in a very imbalanced state currently.

The smartest kid at harvard is the one who's very good or great at most everything he or she does. Not someone who just considers sciences, mathematics and railroad cars :andy: as "real" knowledge and literally shuts themselves off from other things like art, emotion and sex.

The smartest person at Harvard beats this man at most any contest, except for a select few.
There is a way to measure emotional intelligence. Humans just aren't intelligent enough to do that. For a god, it would be easy to measure human emotional intelligence. The fact that we can't quantify it just highlights the fact that it's further beyond our grasp than easier things like sciences and mathematics. Imo this fact certainly doesn't discredit the validity of emoton, if anything this enhances it.
What you don't understand is that neglecting these other areas is precisely what prevents a person from being truly intelligent.

WRONG. You gave your criteria for what you deem as in intelligence. Again, the topic is smartest dude who attended Harvard. Ivy Leagues are different. Read all of my posts before you say that I don't "understand," because the person who doesn't understand this topic of discussion is you.

These ppl are clever, they are not intelligent. Intelligence is having the understanding to take care of yourself, only by taking care of your health can a person expect to achieve their full potential. It's like a nascar driver who doesn't take care of his car and only studies theories, noone would consider a person like that as an intelligent driver. Infact he'd be considered a buffoon. And rightly so.
First off, stop trying to reinvent the English language. Intelligence is defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." It focus a person's reasoning abilities dealing with FACTS.

Second, Nascar drivers don't have to take care of their cars. They have mechanics who are trained to do that.

Just because a person is a professional driver doesn't mean they also have to be a mechanic. It would help a driver to have some mechanical knowledge, but it's not required. Same goes with "intelligence." Just because Sidis had a lot of it, doesn't mean he'd use it for all areas of his life.

Newton was an occultist, so he definitely had an emotional side. You just don't know about it. Newton was a true genius, because he was balanced more than most humans in the areas I mentioned. He combined the various forms of intelligence and by doing so it made him more intelligent as a whole and not surprisingly he accomplished great things.

1. During the Age of Enlightenment, many scientists such as Newton were interested in many topics of studies. The extent of his involvement in the "occult" was alchemy, but it was extremely common for most scientists to be swayed by that ancient "science."

2. Of course Newton had an emotional side. Every complex celled creature who have crawled, walked, limped, hopped, flew, and everything else in-between that have existed on this vast Earth have an emotional side. But highly intellectual persons like Newton are NOT emotionally driven, which is far different in meaning than "having an emotional side."

3. Newton was deeply introverted, as is very common with most geniuses and that's what I've talked about in previous posts.

Well first off. We disagree on one important fact. You feel that emotional intelligence is built exclusively by relating to others. I don't hold this belief, I certainly agree that it can be, partially. But emotional intelligence is built primarily by an ability to look deep within your own self, an ability that very few actually possess. I believe Da Vinci had that ability.

STOP STOP STOP misinterpreting what I write and injecting odd words into my meaning.

I do NOT "feel" nor did I even convey that I "feel" that "emotional" intelligence is built exclusively in relations to others. To possess "emotional" intelligence requires extensive interpersonal skills and in order to achieve that, one must practice by interacting with others in order to understand emotions.

Geniuses are NOT concerned with people and from people, there's emotions. Geniuses are introverted and concerned with their own interests. I talked about this extensively.

Da vinci was no computer. Being vain, being as spiritual as he was, being a great artist, having unparalleled creativity. These are not qualities of any computer.

He had a deep connection with his creations because he considered that those where his children but he wasn't exactly "spiritual" because he was an atheist. On his deathbed, he tried to reconcile with "God" but during his life, he resisted the Church and everything to do with it as much as he could. And he did a great job of avoiding it, too.

What you're talking about is social intelligence. Which would be a mix of several of the factors I prev mentioned. Emotional intelligence is a key part of it sure, but it's only one part, among many. Someone with good enough social intelligence could manipulate this sides character easily, I don't think they could with actual genius's like da vinci or others.

NO, what you fail you grasp is that "emotional" intelligence requires the person to understand how others behave and learn how to anticipate and even manipulate others' emotions. Da Vinci, Newton, and plenty of other geniuses all LACK that component because they were/are deeply introverted.

Not caring what others think is definitely characteristic of a genius. So is not having many friends.
Right, and when a genius does NOT care about what others think/feel and don't have friends, they're NOT able to work on "emotional" intelligence. I keep saying this over and over again.

I think there is nothing frivolous about the here and now of everyday life. The here and now is actually the most important part of life, other more abstract considerations that take away from a person being present in the here and now are what is frivolous. There is nothing wrong with thinking about these matters, I know I do a lot, but a balance has to be maintained.

1. I've said a billion times in previous posts that the here and now of everyday life is frivolous to genius. They are too concerned and enthralled in their own heads to bother with immediate. They have extreme tunnel vision- they see the light at the end of the tunnel but they don't know what vehicle is taking them there. You obviously don't understand this notion which tells me you've never been around any.
2. I never said there was anything wrong in being concerned with the here and now. As a general thing, I am not concerned about present mundane existence as I have bigger things to occupy my time and brain capacity. I consider most everyday tasks to be frivolous, and I'm not a genius.

Smartest kid at harvard has his hand in everything, he's good at everything, he's versatile, he's balanced, he's a whole person. He's probably an occultist. This person whether they are working in the forefront or behind the scenes will leave their mark on the world, something this man never did.
You're clearly obsessed with "balance" as a concept but in real life, that rarely exists. Newton and Da Vinci may have had some interest in the "occult" but that was in the form of alchemy which was a very common interest amongst learned men. Being an occultist doesn't make a person any smarter than those who aren't interested in the occult. The occult is built upon unproven beliefs, whereas, those who have recently attended Ivy League schools and are of the genius caliber are not likely to take much interest.


Examples of Geniuis are Davinci, Newton as mentioned. but also even dudes like Napoleon, Napoleon was a great mathematician and actually had a big hand in creating the metric system(one of the great contributions to science and math in the last several hundred years), a great occultist, he was also a brilliant leader, warrior, strategist. He was good to great at most everything he did.
Napoleon wasn't a genius. He was power hungry, dogmatic, and a tyrant. If you think that's balanced, fine, but he wasn't. He had syphilis and the "cure" for that disease was mercury (which causes looniness) and arsenic was in most medication. On a factual basis, arsenic isn't great for mental "balance" either. He was batty in the belfry and finally that tipped and he got captured and exiled.

If he was such a great military strategist, 1. why did he not use conscription for Waterloo when he used it in the past 2. why did his very experienced army lose Waterloo to 2 very inexperienced coalition English and Prussian armies?

Loony.



Even looking at his chart, it's quite ordinary. There are more indications of intelligence in many others of charts I've seen. His astrology definitely does not indicate genius, unless the stars were truly aligned in his real birth time...His angles had to have made strong aspects because the rest of his chart is weak.

The only things that stand out to me are what poyi mentioned, an opp between Saturn and Pluto, a 2 deg loose mercury chiron quincunx and a 6 deg loose Mercury Uranus quincunx. That last aspect is at a loose orb, but since they're both in fire signs and the aspect is double-ly approaching (merc moving direct and utan moving backwards) ill give him the benefit of the doubt and say he had it.
Yeah, Sidis' chart is boring and ordinary but that doesn't take away him being the smartest that attended Harvard.

Let's look at Da Vinci's chart then and see what could be indicators of his genius. Da Vinci, like Sidis, had Aries Mercury but he had more awesome Mercury action. Da Vinci's Mercury trine Leo Pluto (investigative thinking), opposes Libra Neptune (creativity), and opposes exalted Libra Saturn (graceful censorship)! Pisces Moon trine Cancer Uranus could give some added emotion to his artwork/expression. Mars is the ruler of his Mercury and by which, Mars sextile Mercury. Mercury is in the face of Mars, while Mars is in the face of Mercury...oh la la Mercury dominates!

The thing is, I have similar aspects to Da Vinci and I'm not a genius. I have domiciled Gemini Mercury square Libra Saturn, opposite Sagittarius Neptune, trine Libra Pluto. I also have Pisces Moon trine Uranus (except my Uranus is in Scorpio). In addition, I have Mercury aspecting other planets that Da Vinci doesn't have.
oycOJQASBGq5qUMXZQNjZQNj.png
 
Last edited:
Top