Talk:William James Sidis

His parents' methods
"raised in a particular manner" ... "their methods of parenting" ... "Sidis's manner of upbringing": excruciatingly vague phrases paired with noisy apologetics for that which is not stated. Enough teasing! Just what were his parents' methods? Did they beat him? Ground him? What? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah this article has some vagueness about it. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

IQ Score
IQ is a ranking score, that states the ratio of people that a smarter than you

an IQ of 100 have a frequency of 1:2, meaning that 1 in 2 persons will have a higher G-factor (generalized intelligence) than that individual.

an IQ of 130 have a frequency of 1:50 (Mensa level)

an IQ of 180 have a frequency of 1:20 million

an IQ of 200 have a frequency of 1:75 billion

an IQ of 210 have a frequency of 1:9 trillion

an IQ of 220 is hard to calculate as you reach the numerical maxima of double precision computation

In other words.. No, 250 is just not possible and would be in the ballpark of 1:observable universe given all planets in it were inhabited as densely as earth. 84.238.46.248 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, these articles about individual savants on Wikipedia and other places are always full of improbable and ridiculous claims. There also seems to be COIs sometimes even on long dead subjects. You almost have to treat it as a pseudoscientific field. This isn't to say though that modern research on human intelligence isn't legitimate. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 07:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah - got to agree with. Sidis is interesting because he is well documented and went to Harvard. But I added the part about his grades because he did decent, but not fantastic, while there. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's nonsensical. Like claiming someone lived to a thousand or they're 50 feet tall. There's no good evidence (obviously given the sensational claim) for it other than his family members claiming as such. Is there any scholarly treatment of this? All that I see are junk articles that at best reference this Wiki page. Mathlogsci (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Amount of detail in Writing and Research section
The amount of detail in this section feels like it gives "authority" to his ideas - especially the "found notes" section. Perhaps this would be best deleted unless any of it is peer-reviewed literature or summaries of peer-reviewed literature? I'm honestly not sure what the standard is for inclusion in these sections. 2601:1C2:1600:22E0:1426:54D7:F14B:679 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)