Natalie Portman is certainly above average intelligence wise, but she's hardly a genius. Her SAT score is reportedly only a 1400, which is good, but definitely not Harvard material.
"In addition to her native Hebrew and English, Portman has studied and/or can speak (to some degree) French, Japanese, German, and a little Spanish, and she is now learning to speak Arabic."
she doesn't speak 5 languages, only 2 fluently, knowing a little doesn't make you fluent. Hell, I studied 2 years of Spanish and I can barely order tacos.
that said, I'd marry her.
"In addition to her native Hebrew and English, Portman has studied and/or can speak (to some degree) French, Japanese, German, and a little Spanish, and she is now learning to speak Arabic."
she doesn't speak 5 languages, only 2 fluently, knowing a little doesn't make you fluent. Hell, I studied 2 years of Spanish and I can barely order tacos.
that said, I'd marry her.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
in·tel·li·gence Audio pronunciation of "intelligence" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.
1.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
Again -- intelligence does not necessarily require genius-level performance, as you seem to imply.
If that is your measuring stick of whether or not someone is intelligent then that would include everyone who wasn't severely mentally handicapped.
My reading comprehension is just fine..thanks. Perhaps your definition of intelligence differs from the typical dictionary.
No, all I am saying is that Natalie Portman may be intelligent to some degree but I think that people are putting too much weight on the fact that she went to Harvard.
Futhermore, the fact that she did psychology is definately not a plus.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
That's basically what we're saying...
Well..to be fair, your measuring stick must be somewhere near Einstein.
Can't you appreciate the fact that someone who doesn't need any higher education put forth the effort to get into a good school and shoot for good grades?
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
A qubit is the quantum analogue of the classical bit. It's made up of two orthogonal basis states, usually denoted by |0> and |1>. It differs from a classical bit in that instead of the only possible states being 1 and 0, any linear combination of the |0> and |1> states is allowed. The advantage over classical bits in computing is that a qubit allowes all possible states to represented at once, instead of one at a time. This is extremely useful for certain types of problems, say factoring large numbers, for example. Using Peter Shor's algorithm, a quantum computer could theoretically do the factoring in polynomial time when a classical computer would have to do it in exponential time.
[/quote]It's that orthogonal basis state part that I don't understand. Bleh, oh well.
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Well..to be fair, your measuring stick must be somewhere near Einstein.
Can't you appreciate the fact that someone who doesn't need any higher education put forth the effort to get into a good school and shoot for good grades?
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
That's because Dissipate lives in a theoretical world and is concerned only with the most basically logical of pursuits. This is much easier to understand once you've had political discussions with him, but he generally has a disdain for anyone who devotes themselves to study outside of mathematics/science.
harobikes333
Platinum Member
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
No, it has little to do with getting a PhD.
I just want to see her do something where you can objectively say it was hard.
It appears she is hard-working, but that doesn't mean she is really intelligent.
For instance, is she good at Chess, Checkers or some other mentally challenging game?
Is she good at puzzles?
How does she fare on IQ tests?
How well did she do in math?
As for the Chess example, Humphrey Bogart was an expert. Hence, he was good at something that is objectively difficult. Hence, we can say that Bogart was relatively intelligent.
harobikes333
Platinum Member
I'm also getting sick of connan talking about that he has a good show tonight...omg dude just make jokes up and quit the dumb we've got a good show tonight thing!
Originally posted by: Dissipate
A qubit is the quantum analogue of the classical bit. It's made up of two orthogonal basis states, usually denoted by |0> and |1>. It differs from a classical bit in that instead of the only possible states being 1 and 0, any linear combination of the |0> and |1> states is allowed. The advantage over classical bits in computing is that a qubit allowes all possible states to represented at once, instead of one at a time. This is extremely useful for certain types of problems, say factoring large numbers, for example. Using Peter Shor's algorithm, a quantum computer could theoretically do the factoring in polynomial time when a classical computer would have to do it in exponential time.
It's that orthogonal basis state part that I don't understand. Bleh, oh well.[/quote]
Well they're...orthogonal states.
Basically it means that the "overlap" of one state onto the other is zero. A very simplified way to think of it would be two normal, 3-dimensional vectors. If the dot product of the two vectors is zero, then they're obviously orthogonal, and their overlap is zero. In quantum mechanics, we talk about an infinite-dimensional vector space called a Hilbert space to represent quantum mechanical states, which is just the mother-of-all-generalizations of the normal 3-d vector space.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CadetLee
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
No, it has little to do with getting a PhD.
I just want to see her do something where you can objectively say it was hard.
It appears she is hard-working, but that doesn't mean she is really intelligent.
For instance, is she good at Chess, Checkers or some other mentally challenging game?
Is she good at puzzles?
How does she fare on IQ tests?
How well did she do in math?
As for the Chess example, Humphrey Bogart was an expert. Hence, he was good at something that is objectively difficult. Hence, we can say that Bogart was relatively intelligent.
Intelligence is not restricted to mathematical pursuits.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Well..to be fair, your measuring stick must be somewhere near Einstein.
Can't you appreciate the fact that someone who doesn't need any higher education put forth the effort to get into a good school and shoot for good grades?
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
That's because Dissipate lives in a theoretical world and is concerned only with the most basically logical of pursuits. This is much easier to understand once you've had political discussions with him, but he generally has a disdain for anyone who devotes themselves to study outside of mathematics/science.
Misconceptions abound tonight. :roll:
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CadetLee
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
No, it has little to do with getting a PhD.
I just want to see her do something where you can objectively say it was hard.
It appears she is hard-working, but that doesn't mean she is really intelligent.
For instance, is she good at Chess, Checkers or some other mentally challenging game?
Is she good at puzzles?
How does she fare on IQ tests?
How well did she do in math?
As for the Chess example, Humphrey Bogart was an expert. Hence, he was good at something that is objectively difficult. Hence, we can say that Bogart was relatively intelligent.
Intelligence is not restricted to mathematical pursuits.
IQ tests, puzzles and mentally challenging games are not math.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Well..to be fair, your measuring stick must be somewhere near Einstein.
Can't you appreciate the fact that someone who doesn't need any higher education put forth the effort to get into a good school and shoot for good grades?
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
That's because Dissipate lives in a theoretical world and is concerned only with the most basically logical of pursuits. This is much easier to understand once you've had political discussions with him, but he generally has a disdain for anyone who devotes themselves to study outside of mathematics/science.
Misconceptions abound tonight. :roll:
As does elitism.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CadetLee
From your attitude, I get the impression that unless she had a PhD in something, you wouldn't really care. For some people, a PhD isn't really a priority.
No, it has little to do with getting a PhD.
I just want to see her do something where you can objectively say it was hard.
It appears she is hard-working, but that doesn't mean she is really intelligent.
For instance, is she good at Chess, Checkers or some other mentally challenging game?
Is she good at puzzles?
How does she fare on IQ tests?
How well did she do in math?
As for the Chess example, Humphrey Bogart was an expert. Hence, he was good at something that is objectively difficult. Hence, we can say that Bogart was relatively intelligent.
Intelligence is not restricted to mathematical pursuits.
IQ tests, puzzles and mentally challenging games are not math.
You know exactly what I'm saying -- 'intelligence' is more broad than your topics of choice.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Well they're...orthogonal states.
Wouldn't they be orthanormal if they are both normal and orthogonal?
I haven't a clue what the Hilbert space is. Perhaps there lies the problem.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
IQ tests, puzzles and mentally challenging games are not math.[/quote]
You know exactly what I'm saying -- 'intelligence' is more broad than your topics of choice.[/quote]
Pick any objective measure of intelligence you want. Is Natalie Portman significantly better than average at any of them?
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
You know exactly what I'm saying -- 'intelligence' is more broad than your topics of choice.[/quote]
Pick any objective measure of intelligence you want. Is Natalie Portman significantly better than average at any of them?[/quote]
Does your average person score a 4.0 in anything?
There's your answer. I'm going to sleep.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Pick any objective measure of intelligence you want. Is Natalie Portman significantly better than average at any of them?[/quote]
Does your average person score a 4.0 in anything?
There's your answer. I'm going to sleep.
[/quote]Someone who is not significantly above average in intelligence could score a 4.0 if they worked hard enough.
Hence, hard-working, not necessarily significantly intelligent.
Sorry, by "normal" I meant ordinary, not magnitude equal to 1. Yeah, I would read up on what a Hilbert space is if you're really interested in quantum mechanics. It's not a terribly hard concept, and it's pretty fundamental to the way the math works.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Well they're...orthogonal states.
Wouldn't they be orthanormal if they are both normal and orthogonal?
I haven't a clue what the Hilbert space is. Perhaps there lies the problem.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter