Any chance of links to the other parts of this ???

errol morris is an incredible storyteller, i love his documentaries

I know I do.

>> ^d00kie:
Any chance of links to the other parts of this ???


they're in the related videos area on the youtube page for this video.

He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."

Then he goes on (in the second and third parts of the series) to describe how to create an "elite race" by not letting un-intelligent people breed. That kind of social-darwinism is just flat out wrong.

ALSO since when is cranium circumferance the measure of intelligence???

I would say he stole the test the day before he wrote it.

When he talks about finding some one who is smarter than him, he says "I wouldnt necessarily give him (sexist, jk) an IQ test. I would look at what he has produced."

Dawrin may have had an IQ of 135, but he sure got every ounce out of it; practically inviting the scientific feild of biology. with an IQ of maybe 200, he isnt too bright by his own deffinition; criticizing the academic world while working at a bar for 20 years. Brilliant, thanks for contributing to the human race.

I think part of being smart is not just knowing your IQ but knowing how valuable it is and actually doing something with it. I watched all three parts and found it incredibly frustrating.

He has some very stupid ideas for someone who is as smart as he is.

I would argue that creativity is more important than knowledge. Of the four people I have met in my life who I think are in fact geniuses only one finish finished college. And after being an outstanding graduate academic, he is thinking of leaving science to pursue finance...

I couldn't get past the first minute of that man talking, what an arrogant dick... and WRONG.

Binary logic, trying to say do I see him or do I not, it's all down to that. What bull. There's an awful lot more to understanding the universe than trying to break things down to a 0 or 1. Is he completely ignoring the experimentally proven quantum theory of things existing in more than one state at a given time? Has he never heard of Schrodinger's cat?

And for him to then talk himself up like that.

Sorry, not going to watch someone aggrandize themselves when they WORK IN A BAR.

If questions of IQ are on your mind, I suggest reading "The Mis-measure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould.

In a nutshell, much of what IQ tests attempt to quantify is ephemeral, poorly understood, and often culturally biased. That is not to say that it is wholly inaccurate, but IQ tests do not quantify the sum of "intelligence".

I won't comment on this guy's Emotional age, Social intellect, and the fact that he appears to be Ron Jeremy's brother.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."
Then he goes on (in the second and third parts of the series) to describe how to create an "elite race" by not letting un-intelligent people breed. That kind of social-darwinism is just flat out wrong.
ALSO since when is cranium circumferance the measure of intelligence???


Cranium size: He never says that it is a "measure" of intelligence, he says there is a correlation. Hawkins said the same thing, noting that human intelligence has been evolutionarily limited by the maximum head size that can fit through the birth canal. Large heads don't make people smart, but they do allow for larger brains and the possibility of higher intelligence.

Elite Race: unfortunately youtube won't let me load the 3rd part, so I can only comment on the part I've seen and what you said about it. What he wants to happen will happen, but for completely different reasons and through completely different methods.

Nanotech will soon (be it 20 years or 50) let us increase the mental capacity of any given person. We can already change a living person's dna, and that will only get easier. There will be no reason to selectively breed people since we will have direct control over dna (plus, people would never accept forced sterilization). I like the quote from Ray Kurzweil: "we will not only have designer babies, but designer baby-boomers".

Take your pick on who to believe as far as when that will happen, but chances are it will be within your lifetime.

he allegedly supports some form of intelligent design


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan

he seems to have solved the chicken and the egg problem -
[url redacted by admin]

I'm not that convinced.

There is scarcely any biological difference between modern man and prehistoric man which respect to brain capacity. The only significant difference is knowledge. This guy may be the "smartest man alive" but for a smart guy he doesn't even understand what intelligence is or how to utilize it.

Intelligence is a rate of transfer. Like the resistance of an electrical wire, it dictates how fast how much goes in (learning) and how fast how much comes out (application). Yet without an adequate supply (knowledge) the capacity of the wire is irrelevant.

The knowledge we have today wasn't built by smart people sitting around being smart, it was built by stupid, average, and smart people putting effort into learning the knowledge of their predecessors, applying it to solve current problems, and reporting it to their successors. It doesn't matter if a smart guy spends 10 minutes learning something and a stupid guy spends 10 hours if they both show up with the same amount of information needed to solve the problem.

Going around talking about your 210 IQ while working as a manual laborer is like placing a wire on the table and bragging about how much electricity it could conduct if you hooked it up to a battery.

>> ^bluecliff:
he seems to have solved the chicken and the egg problem -
[url redacted by admin]
I'm not that convinced.


The chicken and the egg problem is biological nonsense. "Chickens" are an invention of modern man to separate organisms into categories. A chicken is only recognized as a chicken because all its intermediates are extinct. If all the intermediates were placed in a line it would be almost impossible to tell which were chickens and which weren't. Whichever one you decided was "IT" i.e. the first chicken, would have necessarily grown from an egg laid from the sex between two intermediates. Clearly, the egg came first, as "IT" the first chicken hatched out of it. The assumption that only chickens can lay eggs which hatch chickens demonstrates a complete lack of evolutionary understanding. The fact that someone with a 210 IQ spends his time writing a 2110 word article in an attempt to answer such a riddle is ridiculous.

"I could do a bunch of tests without doing any work"

That's just not true. Many problems cannot be done without the knowledge of how to solve them, or even write them out. I defy anyone to merely differentiate an equation without knowing math and differentiation notation beforehand. There is no knowledge that you are born with like this. If you know how to do different problems, then you have studied it on your own time.

IQ tests differ from this, because they show computational capabilities - how well do you recognize patterns in numbers, shapes and (some times) language. This is not knowledge. It may indicate how quickly you can understand concepts, data and information, but like imstellar says, it is the application of these computational capabilities on theories and data that makes you "smart".

Christopher Langan is a very interesting person. He features prominently in Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers," which is a fascinating read in general. I'm interested in what he would have ended up as if he had had greater opportunities and circumstances.

and he decided on THAT haircut?

I believe that eugenics is the best way to promote the human race, but I don't think there is any viable method for implementing it. We cannot hold standards based upon one simple method, such as IQ or production; thus, we need a congregation of methods. However, this cannot be done because if we negate physical factors such as disease and defects, and mental factors such as low IQ or low productivity, we'd never have enough people to breed properly. And even if we found a few people that fit the perfect method, there is no way to ensure that the next generation will not hold mutations. The only proper way to ensure perfect breeding is through the use of cloning. But this takes breeding out of the argument entirely, since we could just ban procreation outside of a laboratory. So maybe someday we will create the perfect human. But it will not be through eugenics.

My ideas about humanity differ from Mr. Langan's views, because he seems to be rather optimistic about the future endeavors of mankind. I think we will destroy ourselves long before the best and the brightest can find a salvation factor.

So have fun while you can, because we're on the road to annihilation, and nothing can stop us.

When I watched this it basically reinforced my belief that mankind has no good way to gauge intelligence, doesn't really define intelligence very well, nor does intelligence mean that you can achieve anything with it.

Sure he has a problematic childhood, and was born poor but he decided to drop out of higher education, where a degree would have allowed him to continue to explore information.

Yet somehow he decided to simply take a stint in living by doing manual labor. I simply cannot understand that.

Furthermore if he was so intelligent how come he couldn't come up with any new breakthroughs in science? It seems that he is more then capable. Questions.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This guys good at puzzle quizes, so what. I can blow perfect spit bubbles that float through the air for up to 200 meters. That's just as valid a measure.

I do not believe you dag

If this guy took a test that said he was the worlds best construction worker he would think construction workers should run the world.

One of those Dudes

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Don't make me post a video. But it's not uncommon - check this. (only I'm much better at it than her - mine are lighter and fluffier and take to the air more easily)

>> ^GDGD:
I do not believe you dag

people who believe in IQ are retarded.

Why is it that everyone thinks the smartest people in the world should be doctors and scientists?
Just because someone is more intelligent that somebody else doesn't necessarily mean they want to do the "smart people" jobs.

Intelligence is useless without happiness, and some jobs, no matter how smart you are or how much they pay, still won't make you happy.

I did find this interesting, but I take it as a documentary of "the guy who thinks he is the smartest man in the world", then it's not annoying, since I'm not buying the implication of the original title, it's just an interesting sociological case study.

He is most definitely NOT the world's smartest man. He is the man with the highest IQ. And MINK, I'm not exactly sure which angle you're taking with that comment, but it is one of the best predictors for academic success (though no predictor is all that great), so in that sense university administrators really should "believe" in IQ in as much as it has some predictive value.

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY&feature=related

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0&feature=related

So if he's world's smartest man, why's he still blaming other people for him not reaching his potential?

I'll take the slightly above average, hardworking Darwin over a lazy genius bartender any fucking day.

He's got a bit of an attitude.

So he got his IQ from a test in the back of Omni magazine? Uh... I consider IQ tests to be a bit subjective to begin with... one in the back of a magazine which appeals to UFO/conspiracies theoriests, yeah... not so much.

He's certainly articulate, but listening to him, he's just an asshole with some vocabulary.

To me Genius means someone who has contributed a unique/innovative idea to society. The difference between this guy and Darwin, Einstein and everyone else that he compares himself arrogantly to is that they actually produced something, where as he WORKS IN A BAR.

I'm not saying that working in a bar makes you worthless, but it doesn't make you Darwin or Einstein either.

Edit: went back to check... yup, he self-administered the IQ test as well. Yeah... I'm sure that is worth something.

Edit 2: So I went on Wikipedia to see what it said there and it was kind of equivocal. Seems this guy was a bit more popular back in 1999 and has been administered some real IQ tests (the validity of them I'm still skeptical of).

Nevertheless, the one thing that comes across is that he's got a serious attitude problem and it doesn't necessarily translate into his "genius." Dropping out of school because "he knew more than his professors" and similar comments make me think that he's QUITE concerned with the marketing aspects of being the "Smartest Man In America." The reality is that he doesn't work in a bar anymore, he did that briefly. He's married to a doctor and runs a horse farm and as far as I can tell, his biggest hobby is promoting himself.

Edit 3: reminds me of Howard Stern's campaign to call himself the "King of all Media"

>> ^JiggaJonson:
He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."


That's because he believes in intelligent design (hmm, he's so smart!)

the guinessbook fell victim to PC. awww..

This guy isn't a real genius.

Real genius isn't knowing things; real genius is the ability to see unrelated things in a related manner and from that vision, understand something that was totally unknown until that moment of cognition. That's why true genius is so incredibly rare.

Just a couple questions:

Has he decided he's a "genius" because he recently discovered how high his IQ is?

If you found your IQ to be this high and had done nothing in your life to further mankind would you admit to anyone that your IQ was this high?

Since he HAS done nothing to further mankind, does this put him at the front of some sort of "worthless genius" list?

Where would the world be if it were full of people with this level of intelligence who failed to utilize it?

Next.

This video brings to mind one of my favorite quotes: "Talent instantly recognizes genius, but mediocrity knows nothing above itself."


This guy is brilliant, and it is very sad that his ideas are so thoroughly colored by his terrible past. He obviously has contempt for those below him who think they are as smart or smarter than he is. Imagine how you would feel being stuck in a world of IQ 75 religious fundamentalists who make fun of you because you think the theory of evolution makes sense.

I think one of his pitfalls is that he does not (and possibly cannot) understand the psychology of those around him. I'm sure everyone seems fairly predictable to him, but he could never see the world through their eyes.

I want to look up much of his writings after seeing this, just to understand what is going on in his head (to the best of my ability at least). His unfortunate attitude about the world is no surprise after what he went through, but his ideas are fascinating none-the-less.

>> ^Psychologic:
Imagine how you would feel being stuck in a world of IQ 75 religious fundamentalists who make fun of you because you think the theory of evolution makes sense.

Since when do I have to imagine?

From Wikipedia:

"In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

Uhuh. This I would like to see.

But as a warm up, why doesn't he tackle the Millenium Problems. He could earn a quick $6 million dollars . . . but perhaps this would divert his attention from his Intelligent Design research . . . hmmm.

Intelligence is a measure of the potential to incorporate knowledge. The fact that he does manual labour says nothing about his intelligence. World view and emotional\psychological makeup has as much or more to do with someone's "accomplishments" as does their intelligence.

It seems to me that the truly smartest people on earth are probably smarter than this guy and likely can't be bothered with the minds of the rest of our species. They have rich internal lives and they don't care what you think. It's probably some Australian aborigine with an internet connection, who sits there under the stars, taking in the meaning of it all and vision-questing without pretense.

Eugenics is a bad idea no matter how smart you are.

This guy proves why IQ is a pointless measurement. IQ is all about capacity to process information. It's like the processor speed of your computer. Even if you have an uber rig, you're just wasting it if all you do is surf the net for porn and play solitaire all day.

>> ^Psychologic:
This video brings to mind one of my favorite quotes: "Talent instantly recognizes genius, but mediocrity knows nothing above itself."

This guy is brilliant, and it is very sad that his ideas are so thoroughly colored by his terrible past. He obviously has contempt for those below him who think they are as smart or smarter than he is. Imagine how you would feel being stuck in a world of IQ 75 religious fundamentalists who make fun of you because you think the theory of evolution makes sense.
I think one of his pitfalls is that he does not (and possibly cannot) understand the psychology of those around him. I'm sure everyone seems fairly predictable to him, but he could never see the world through their eyes.
I want to look up much of his writings after seeing this, just to understand what is going on in his head (to the best of my ability at least). His unfortunate attitude about the world is no surprise after what he went through, but his ideas are fascinating none-the-less.


Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. I think you would have more fun talking to someone who is knowledgeable rather than intelligent. As budzos said, the smartest person on earth will likely never be found because 2/3 of the world is in extreme poverty. How much fun are you going to have talking to some genius who spends his time eating mud cakes?

I'd rather talk to joe-six-pack about his black powder nerf gun than listen to some "genius" try to prove the afterlife mathematically...

Just watched parts 2 and 3. Almost all the ideas he speaks of can be found in popular media. Its as if he got his ph.d from television university. He sounds incredibly ignorant.

Part three is borderline scary.

If someone with a 210 IQ can't understand whats wrong with the information from such sources, what chances does someone with an IQ of 100 have?

"I want to hold the whole world in my mind"
"Wouldn't holding the whole world in your mind make you God?"
"Yes, not with the power of God, not with the extent of god, but I would have some sort of theic identity"

someone needs to tell this guy hes a freaking monkey.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Monkeys-A-Short-Movie-About-What-We-Are

genius is a balance of drive, knowledge, and creativity.

a massive intellect, yet so weak in insight... i couldn't watch it all; too depressing.

im annoyed with this talk of a terrible past and how his early circumstances are supposed to have some bearing on what he is or is not able to achieve in adulthood. bullshit. this is a measure of mental/emotional strength which is far more important than an arguably arbitrary number. i could knock back hard knocks stories until we all fucking cry, it is no excuse for my current laziness and boredom.

creativity and emotional strength are far more inspriring/admirable qualities, says i.

also all this "HE WORKS IN A BAR" talk is pfft. i used to deliver pizza and sling coffee, didnt make any more or less useful as a human. vocation is not equal to worth.

the stuff about proving the existance of god with binary logic sounds too much like some schizofrenics i have known and loved. he should get that checked out.

ass.

Years ago, when I was 12 or so, I got into Dungeons and Dragons. I remember reading a brief explanation on the difference between intelligence and wisdom, or at least how it applied to the game. Intelligence, it said, is being able to recognize the fact that it's raining. Wisdom is having enough sense to get out of the rain.

This guy demonstrated neither in substantial amounts in this clip; particularly not humility, which I would see as a facet of wisdom.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
He seems like kind of a douche bag. On the one had he states he doesnt believe he's better than anyone else, on the other he describes Darwin's IQ as "down there in the toilet at 135."
Then he goes on (in the second and third parts of the series) to describe how to create an "elite race" by not letting un-intelligent people breed. That kind of social-darwinism is just flat out wrong.
ALSO since when is cranium circumferance the measure of intelligence???


yeah that circumfrence thing was a bit weird. there's loads of evidence that large cranial circumfrence size in newborn primates (human, chimps etc.)is predictive of developmental delay. also, what about larger mammals like dinosaurs and elephants? wouldn't their heads be much bigger than ours?

>> ^bluecliff:
he seems to have solved the chicken and the egg problem -
[url redacted by admin]


!!! WARNING !!!
this chicken & egg problem website contains a hijack attempt - Trojan.Pidief.D
which can exploit an unpatched Adobe Reader and start downloading stuff (yes even on firefox)
details - http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-110718-5133-99&tabid=1

IQ is a measurement of intellect but obviously not a measure of ones creative and non-linear thinking potential.. and this video shows that as absolutely obvious and that is why IQ isn't remotely as important as some people suggest.

So this guy's IQ is supposedly higher then Einsteins, but it's rather obvious that the work Einstein did to farther the knowledge of humanity is beyond higher then this guys.

Then you have Darwin with an IQ in the 130's (lower then my own by good bit,) but his ability to 'think outside the box' is beyond anything this guy could like ever achieve, or I could ever achieve myself (and my IQ isn't close to 190+.)

If that doesn't say that IQ alone as a measurement of intellect is not remotely as important as it used to be.

As to this guys attitude, he is bouncer after all. But I bet every single one of his co-workers hates him. If someone talked down to me like that with that (and people have before,) I'd do my best to avoid him.

In an unsupervised and untimed test from an out of print magazine, a pudgy narcissistic bartender gets a high score. Let's make a documentary so he can tell us all how smart he is, while he empties ashtrays and changes kegs.

Must come in handy when he's counting the change in his tip jar though.

lol at people flaming him and calling him wrong. I call jealousy because he has a higher IQ

>> ^MINK:
people who believe in IQ are retarded.


No, people with an IQ less than 70 are retarded.

Even if I stop trying to find flaws in what he says, which is an obvious self defense for el stupido me, I just have quote another youtuber:

He lost me at eugenics.

IQ is to academics what height is to basketball.

being really tall doesn't automatically make you a good basketball player, but it gives you a serious leg up on your competitors. clearly IQ has a huge affect on your ability to become "smart" and is thus a very important measurement. Of course, as this man demonstrates, being tall doesn't mean sh*t if you never pick up a basketball...it just makes you socially awkward.

lol wow, watching all part 1, 2, and 3... this guy is a bit off from reality.

He may have a fast brain but it doesn't mean there are good programs installed

Exactly legacy0100,

The fastest processor in the world running MS Paint on an EGA screen.

Smart is as smart does.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I've pulled the suspect trojan URL out of the comments in this post - ta.

Eugenics scares the shit out of me! The fact that it is becoming increasingly acceptable in the minds of some to replace natural selection now that money can buy cures for so many diseases (and is essentially the new "natural" selection) is frightening!

>> ^thinker247:
I believe that eugenics is the best way to promote the human race, but I don't think there is any viable method for implementing it. We cannot hold standards based upon one simple method, such as IQ or production; thus, we need a congregation of methods. However, this cannot be done because if we negate physical factors such as disease and defects, and mental factors such as low IQ or low productivity, we'd never have enough people to breed properly. And even if we found a few people that fit the perfect method, there is no way to ensure that the next generation will not hold mutations. The only proper way to ensure perfect breeding is through the use of cloning. But this takes breeding out of the argument entirely, since we could just ban procreation outside of a laboratory. So maybe someday we will create the perfect human. But it will not be through eugenics.
My ideas about humanity differ from Mr. Langan's views, because he seems to be rather optimistic about the future endeavors of mankind. I think we will destroy ourselves long before the best and the brightest can find a salvation factor.
So have fun while you can, because we're on the road to annihilation, and nothing can stop us.

At least we can say with certainty that douche-bagism and high "IQ" are not mutually exclusive.

This guy is certainly not modest.

Another interview in the series is here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Mr-Debt

>> ^notarobot:
Eugenics scares the shit out of me! The fact that it is becoming increasingly acceptable in the minds of some to replace natural selection now that money can buy cures for so many diseases (and is essentially the new "natural" selection) is frightening!
>> ^thinker247:
I believe that eugenics is the best way to promote the human race, but I don't think there is any viable method for implementing it. We cannot hold standards based upon one simple method, such as IQ or production; thus, we need a congregation of methods. However, this cannot be done because if we negate physical factors such as disease and defects, and mental factors such as low IQ or low productivity, we'd never have enough people to breed properly. And even if we found a few people that fit the perfect method, there is no way to ensure that the next generation will not hold mutations. The only proper way to ensure perfect breeding is through the use of cloning. But this takes breeding out of the argument entirely, since we could just ban procreation outside of a laboratory. So maybe someday we will create the perfect human. But it will not be through eugenics.
My ideas about humanity differ from Mr. Langan's views, because he seems to be rather optimistic about the future endeavors of mankind. I think we will destroy ourselves long before the best and the brightest can find a salvation factor.
So have fun while you can, because we're on the road to annihilation, and nothing can stop us.



Eugenics was accepted by a healthy majority of the scientific community as a worthy scientific endeavor fifty years ago. Fear not, for this will never be the case again. Now we are simply striving to find ways to improve the DNA of the unborn without having to worry about who is mating with whom.

I haven't read any of the preceding comments, but after watching all three parts of this, I'm sure this guy is very smart, capable of high cognitive performance. He is also delusional.

This guy seems like a psychopath himself or maybe he's just schizophrenic.

Why does it scare you?

>> ^notarobot:
Eugenics scares the shit out of me! The fact that it is becoming increasingly acceptable in the minds of some to replace natural selection now that money can buy cures for so many diseases (and is essentially the new "natural" selection) is frightening!
>>^thinker247:
I believe that eugenics is the best way to promote the human race, but I don't think there is any viable method for implementing it. We cannot hold standards based upon one simple method, such as IQ or production; thus, we need a congregation of methods. However, this cannot be done because if we negate physical factors such as disease and defects, and mental factors such as low IQ or low productivity, we'd never have enough people to breed properly. And even if we found a few people that fit the perfect method, there is no way to ensure that the next generation will not hold mutations. The only proper way to ensure perfect breeding is through the use of cloning. But this takes breeding out of the argument entirely, since we could just ban procreation outside of a laboratory. So maybe someday we will create the perfect human. But it will not be through eugenics.
My ideas about humanity differ from Mr. Langan's views, because he seems to be rather optimistic about the future endeavors of mankind. I think we will destroy ourselves long before the best and the brightest can find a salvation factor.
So have fun while you can, because we're on the road to annihilation, and nothing can stop us.

from Wikipedia:

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."

Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma." He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere."

Very interesting.

I've seen this before, on youtube, but the discussion here was a great read.
Worthy of a *promote, methinks.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, February 12th, 2009 3:16pm PST - promote requested by EndAll.

Frankly, what a dick. Charles Darwin is considered a genius because he was (largely) responsible for an enormous shift in the way intelligent people view the world. Not because he answered some puzzles made to entice people with more money than sense into parting with their cash in exchange for being considered clever.

Intelligence should measure the whole of a person's essence and mix of abilities, as directed by the brain. This fellow falls way short, on the emotional, civil, social and total picture needed to solve our serious problems today. Humanity's problem is no longer first cost, but total cost of our methods and systems. If a person is seriously applying their intelligence to solve these problems, his holistic abilities and use thereof should be viewed as our new measure of intelligence. This man's true "native" IQ is in a word... a failure.

>> ^iotic:
Charles Darwin is considered a genius because he was (largely) responsible for an enormous shift in the way intelligent people view the world.


Exactly demonstrating how I would define a genius: someone who has altered our understanding of reality based simply off of the ideas they presented.

I guess this guy is trying, but the things he lists in this documentary seem somewhat elementary....