How smart was he?

...

My estimation?

140-145 IQ, probably Archimedes was smarter, around 160

wew lad. Archimedes was smart. Very smart.

But IQ is bullshit.

Also Apollonius might have been smarter than Archimedes, for his work with the Harmonic ratio.

I don't agree that IQ is bullshit, although people sometimes place too much faith in it. It certainly has flaws and limitations. But a measurement being imperfect doesn't make it meaningless.

I agree that estimating the IQ of historical figures like da Vinci and Archimedes is pretty silly, though. It's fun but just too speculative to be anything more than a game.

Why is Archimedes considered smart? what did he do?

wank alot.

Archimedes and Apollonius are the two greatest ancient mathematicians of all time.......

Are you retarded?

Fluid mechanics (Archimedes' principle), proto calculus, principle of the lever, Archimedes' screw, giant hooks destroying giant ships easily, devices setting fire to ships

Archimedes has done more

Did that guy even give the world some useful contribution? He's lauded as being a massive genius, but all he has to show are some sketches of things that were never constructed.

He was a very good painter, engineer and architect, he accomplished a lot of projects for Milan like improving the canal system. He made some interesting sketches of things like bikes, tanks and flying machines but they were never built

This was

He was also a big hypocrite cuckold, all his life he insulted priests and even the christian faith but when was about to die he converted and cried like a weak sissy big baby :)

>But IQ is bullshit.
>literally the best single predictor of lifetime success
>more reliable even than social class, wealth, or education
>bullshit
Sub 90 detected.

IQ is everything, but social IQ is also very important

I feel like Aristotle is the best contender for 'smartest person ever'

IQ is not "everything", it's just not "bullshit".
>social IQ
What?

Fuck no, he did took the time to define the concept of logic but he made no progress in mathematics or physics, if anything he only did a lot of damage to physics with his retarded claims

>social IQ

knowledge builds upon knowledge. None of his claims were "retarded"

Yeah they were

I'd bet money on somebody modern.
More people means their is going to be a bigger outlier.

>the best
IQ is not science. It's pseudoscience.

Lol the fuck its proved by science

>>literally the best single predictor of lifetime success
>>more reliable even than social class, wealth, or education
Really? Everything I've heard points to wealth.

who was smarter between Aristotle and Archimedes?

IQ is a representation of the general ability factor or g factor, which is measurable and has an important impact on many life outcomes.

This being said, bringing either into a discussion about historical figures is dumb.

smart enough to be far, far ahead of his time, centuries ahead even; including da Vinci drawing blueprints for flying machines, parachutes, and tanks before there were even the materials available to make them a reality.

but the true gravity of his contribution to humanity is just how many fields he was educated in and innovated our way of thinking in those fields of study, including art, mathematics, architecture, sculpting, botany, engineering, writing, anatomy, and the list goes on, even today it's exceedingly rare to find a true Polymath who's educated in all such subjects.

I'd even argue that if you had to pick a single person who contributed the most towards the advancement of human learning and understanding, it'd be either him for his contributions, or Francis Bacon for laying the foundation for the modern scientific method.

Not Newton?

you can really switch out bacon and newton in my eyes, both contributed immensely in the same fields, but my apologies for not mentioning him.

> for flying machines, parachutes, and tanks before there were even the materials available to make them a reality.
false. this is sensationalist bullshit

bacon was mediocre. new atlantis was definitely novel and he is perhaps the first to espouse the modern ideology of "progress" but it's questionable whether his writings had an impact on science and were only seen that way in retrospect. He was little known beyond scientific circles in england working within the royal academy of science.

>false. this is sensationalist bullshit
okay

>Really? Everything I've heard points to wealth.
Then I suggest you try actually reading some of the data, and not just assuming you already know, because you're wrong, it's IQ.

Francis 'fuck mathematics and copernicus' bacon

Archimedes easily

Unironically "ahead of his time" (a phrase which gets abused). If he had been born a century later we would have known him as this brilliant engineer.

clearly a fan, for circulation
try again brainlet

This

Off the charts.