Talk:Marilyn vos Savant/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Smartest human" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Smartest human. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Smartest woman" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Smartest woman. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:MINOR the website reference www.marilynvossavant.com does not seem to be active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:5B7F:F890:9573:98CD:6D8E:457E (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Marilyn vos Savant.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Image In Infobox

If some upload the Image of Marilyn Vos Savant in Wikipedia Commons, it will be helpful for others to use the same in other languages also. I have translated the Article into Tamil Language. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this article has already been flagged as needing a photograph. There is no image of vos Savant on Commons at present. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous IQ

The opening paragraph should acknowledge that the IQ test (which resulted in an IQ of 228) was performed improperly. It seems like a pivotal piece of information in the story, and it's buried in a body paragraph. Either that or remove the reference to her world record. ThrillShow (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Child

She has a son named Dennis Younglove, why no mentioning? 2A01:C23:7861:C700:1C:2633:A2F0:C746 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give the names of people's children unless those children are also notable. See WP:BLPNAME. It does seem an oversight that the article doesn't mention her having children at all, though, I'll add it to the infobox. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fermat controversy

The discussion of the Fermat book is essentially correct. However, it suggests that MvS was being attacked on technicalities/terminological pedantries while she may still have been making essentially fair points. If you read the book, you will see that mathematical induction and empirical induction are confused in a thoroughgoing way: the standard caveats attached to empirical induction (as outlined in any introductory philosophy of science text, which TBH she probably copied here) are used to call into question mathematical induction. To give an idea of how grossly absurd and wrongheaded this is: the behaviour of a system as time progresses is sometimes called its "evolution" (a gallicism; the French are big in maths). Imagine that differential equations were being attacked with creationist arguments! By the same token, the manner in which the retraction is reported lends itself too easily to facile interpretations as in male chauvinists mathematicians could not stomach the remarks of the smartest woman on Earth, and was browbeaten into submission. The only thing MvS gets right in that book is the dates. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:ACE8:5706:313C:6845 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Vos

Somebody asked whether vos was a nobility prefix and did not receive an answer. Well, it is not in Dutch (where Vos is just a surname, and hence always capitalised) nor in any other language that I am aware of. 09:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:ACE8:5706:313C:6845 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any actual proof of this wildly outlandish statements claiming she had an IQ of 400

unfortunately the references used to verify this supposed article are nothing more than fictitious pieces of random journalism with no references in themselves..... Otherwise known as opinion pieces. Is there any actual clinical technical proof of this lady's intelligence or IQ? In the modern world right now there are a bunch of random publications that say Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden were the best presidents that ever lived... These articles have no proof and are entirely opinion pieces. Most journalism is without proof and entirely an opinion article... This sort of information should not be on Wikipedia. Nor should a bunch of random articles with no external references in themselves be used as references. Another good example would be claiming that Harry Potter is the best book that was ever written. There are thousands of publications and articles stating Harry Potter is the best book ever written... Unfortunately that doesn't mean diddly because their articles with no external references..... Those articles have no metrics They have no bearing There is no comparison made between them and other pieces of literature.... Journalists are not intelligent If that was the case they wouldn't be a journalist they would be a scientist they'd be a doctor they'd be an astronaut they'd actually be something besides a storyteller... Remember it's called journalism not facts..... Tombootooth (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this 400 figure?

The current version of the article only refers to scores of 228 and 186 at different times in her life, presented in context and both sourced to the Guinness Book of World Records. Belbury (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You do realize the Guinness book World records is basically Ripley's Believe It or Not.... fine I'll humor you What sort of evaluating circumstances did the Guinness book of World records use? Is that Guinness book World records reference doesn't have a physical copy of the test she took and the answer she put down It is no more than hearsay... journalist often do this with each other. Try and get more publicity for each other's fake BS stories. 2601:1C0:C800:560:6CD4:C6C2:E483:7CC6 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what the Guinness Book of World Records is. The statement that vos Savant's IQ was listed in that book a couple of times is being presented as exactly that, no more and no less. Belbury (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a lie unless it's able to be verified or proven. so it should be noted as a fiction story. Notice how a Guinness book of World records has never attempted to recertify somebody for high IQ because it's completely bs and arbitrary and Guinness is in no position to be evaluating people for that. And you still haven't answered my original question where is the proof... A fiction story written by the Guinness book of World records is not verifiable or proof. 2601:1C0:C800:560:6CD4:C6C2:E483:7CC6 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Two boys" problem

The explanation for the solution for the "two boys" problem is in error in relation to the question being asked. The question is "What is the probability that the other one is male?" ("Other" referring to the dog that the person bathing the dogs hasn't checked out as to sex. "Other" is even italicized there). However, the explanation of the solution two paragraphs later is centered around whether either dog is male. This is not the question that was posed. The question was about the other dog. More notably, if the question had been either, the correct answer would be 100%, as the bathing person just checked that the dog they were bathing is indeed male! So the solution would have to be based on the right question, and vos Savant's answer is (only) correct in relation to that question (i.e. the other). 88.112.129.192 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)