# Composers and IQ



## beetzart

Which three composers do you consider to have a very high IQ, based on everything you know about them? Then again not everyone excepts IQ, so that could just be substituted for intelligence. I suppose it could be argued that to write a piece of music that stands the test of time requires supreme intellect, but which three are exceptional to that?

I go for:

JS Bach

Beethoven

Mozart


----------



## DrKilroy

How about:

Schoenberg

Ligeti

Stockhausen?


Best regards, Dr


----------



## scratchgolf

I can't personally speak for IQs. I remember years ago hearing that Henry Rollins and Chris Cornell had two of the highest IQs of singers at that time. I wouldn't have guessed. 

I do think there is a "look of genius". My best example of this would be Mahler. It's hard to explain and there's certainly nothing scientific about it. He just had the look. Much like Tesla, Edgar Guest, and many others.


----------



## hpowders

JS Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## trazom

Speed is one of the most important factors in determining IQ, which is why the amount of time it takes to answer is almost always used in intelligence testing. Beethoven's struggle and amount of time he spent on his work would suggest a smaller IQ than someone who could produce consistently great work within an allotted period of time like, say Haydn.


----------



## scratchgolf

But IQ is also measured at an early age. There is logic in your theory but it's deceiving. My IQ and compositional prowess are certainly not linked.


----------



## Ukko

If by 'IQ' you mean intelligence (IQ didn't exist in 1800), the people mentioned were probably 'music smart'. Whippersnappers in particular seem fascinated by Intelligence (note the cap), possiibly wondering if they have any. Most of us geezers have given up on it.


----------



## Blancrocher

Ukko said:


> If by 'IQ' you mean intelligence (IQ didn't exist in 1800), the people mentioned were probably 'music smart'. Whippersnappers in particular seem fascinated by Intelligence (note the cap), possiibly wondering if they have any. Most of us geezers have given up on it.


High IQ's are handy for young people who have achieved nothing and are looking for any evidence they can find of their potential to succeed later--and, as I infer from the following link, for those who would seem stupid if they didn't have that number to show off.


----------



## hpowders

Actually, when you speak of Mozart of Le Nozzi di Figaro or the Bach of the Well Tempered Clavier or the Beethoven of the Hammerklavier Sonata, there is no adequate measure of intelligence. These folks are way, way, way off the top of the charts into the realm of Super Intelligence.


----------



## Simon Moon

scratchgolf said:


> I remember years ago hearing that Henry Rollins and Chris Cornell had two of the highest IQs of singers at that time. I wouldn't have guessed.


Have you ever heard Henry Rollins speak? He's a pretty smart guy.


----------



## Flamme

trazom said:


> Speed is one of the most important factors in determining IQ, which is why the amount of time it takes to answer is almost always used in intelligence testing. Beethoven's struggle and amount of time he spent on his work would suggest a smaller IQ than someone who could produce consistently great work within an allotted period of time like, say Haydn.


But the best works of art in literature as well as music or painting are born in deep inner struggle of mind and body, emotions and reason...


----------



## trazom

scratchgolf said:


> But IQ is also measured at an early age. There is logic in your theory but it's deceiving. My IQ and compositional prowess are certainly not linked.


The original test was, but now they have things like the WAIS for adults and Raven's progressive matrices. Anyways, as I said in an earlier post, great artistic works are more influenced by the artist's personality. A high IQ is for people what more RAM is for a computer. Since they didn't even have IQ tests back then, assigning an IQ to a composer is just guesswork; but pure ability is basically what IQ is.


----------



## GreenMamba

To the extent that the Flynn Effect is real, we might assume some recent composer has the highest IQ. But as said above, IQ does not equate to intelligence (Flynn himself didn't think so).

As far as broad intelligence, I think someone can be a musical genius, but not one elsewhere, much they way in which one can be a chess genius, but not one in other fields (as studies have shown).


----------



## Flamme

Mozart and Vivaldi come to mind when listening you can almost ''inhale'' their enourmos intellect and talent...Like in this


----------



## Flamme

I have such a ''sharp'' and precise almost scientific or ''surgic'' feeling about this...


----------



## EdwardBast

trazom said:


> The original test was, but now they have things like the WAIS for adults and Raven's progressive matrices. Anyways, as I said in an earlier post, great artistic works are more influenced by the artist's personality. A high IQ is for people what more RAM is for a computer. Since they didn't even have IQ tests back then, assigning an IQ to a composer is just guesswork; but pure ability is basically what IQ is.


IQ was developed as a predictor of future academic success. I have not heard any reliable claim that it measures anything but that. Proving a link between IQ and intelligence would require that someone actually come up with a good general definition of intelligence. Perhaps someone has done this, but if they have, I have not heard of it. So the IQ aspect of the question is just a distraction. What is really being asked in this thread, is: Which composers do you think are/were smartest. A good answer might be: Thinking one has a clue might just be a sign that one is deficient in whatever IQ is imagined to measure.



trazom said:


> Beethoven's struggle and amount of time he spent on his work would suggest a smaller IQ than someone who could produce consistently great work within an allotted period of time like, say Haydn.


Perhaps Beethoven had higher standards. Perhaps he was more innovative and ambitious in his departure from traditional forms and thematic structures? The only people who take IQ this seriously are members of Mensa, especially those who had to take the test seven times to get in.


----------



## trazom

EdwardBast said:


> IQ was developed as a predictor of future academic success. I have not heard any reliable claim that it measures anything but that. Proving a link between IQ and intelligence would require that someone actually come up with a good general definition of intelligence. Perhaps someone has done this, but if they have, I have not heard of it. So the IQ aspect of the question is just a distraction. What is really being asked in this thread, is: Which composers do you think are/were smartest.


It was, 100 years ago. Its use is still very relevant today in diagnostics. How can professionals determine if someone, either a child, a person suffering from a brain injury, or an elderly patient is performing at a level expected for someone their age without a tool for assessing their cognitive ability? They do agree that modern IQ tests do measure what the average person means when they say someone is "smart" or "intelligent." Most tests categorize intellectual ability into 'fluid' and 'crystallized' intelligence. The information is available to anyone who has the initiative to read up on the subject: Either at PubMed or PsychInfo. Just because it isn't perfect or agreed on 100 percent--which will likely never happen based on the controversy surrounding this topic-- doesn't make it any less valuable a tool.



> The only people who take IQ this seriously are members of Mensa, especially those who had to take the test seven times to get in.


Well, I don't know if that's based on your own experience, but they're still taken seriously today, especially by neuropsychologists and teachers.


----------



## EdwardBast

trazom said:


> It was, 100 years ago. Its use is still very relevant today in diagnostics. How can professionals determine if someone, either a child, a person suffering from a brain injury, or an elderly patient is performing at a level expected for someone their age without a tool for assessing their cognitive ability? They do agree that modern IQ tests do measure what the average person means when they say someone is "smart" or "intelligent." Most tests categorize intellectual ability into 'fluid' and 'crystallized' intelligence. The information is available to anyone who has the initiative to read up on the subject: Either at PubMed or PsychInfo. Just because it isn't perfect or agreed on 100 percent--which will likely never happen based on the controversy surrounding this topic-- doesn't make it any less valuable a tool.
> 
> Well, I don't know if that's based on your own experience, but they're still taken seriously today, especially by neuropsychologists and teachers.


I'm not disputing that IQ tests might have many uses. I'm only saying the claim that they measure innate intelligence is dubious.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not disputing that IQ tests might have many uses. I'm only saying the claim that they measure innate intelligence is dubious.


Hard to discuss without further defining "intelligence". I've seen it defined as "that which an IQ test measures"!

Probably more useful to investigate what IQ scores are correlated with. From Wiki: "IQ scores are used as predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income."


----------



## Yardrax

I am a composer with a high IQ 

I was actually offered a place in MENSA, my Dad convinced me to take up the offer on the basis that it would look good on University applications. Never went to any meetings, did read the magazine occasionally though, lots of crazies writing in the letters pages about how climate change wasn't a thing. That was all I needed to conclude that scoring high on the test and having genuine insight into a given field were very, very different things.


----------



## Blake

It's simply a societal fabrication to place people into easily definable categories and use their resources accordingly. It's not an absolute test of intelligence.


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> The only people who take IQ this seriously are members of Mensa, especially those who had to take the test seven times to get in.


Thanks, this is hysterical


----------



## PetrB

Unless they've changed, there was nothing much about the IQ tests which in any way could methodically measure a test result for the abstract and creative thinking needed to be an inventive artist, no criteria as to which of those who got such and so a score would be good / better / optimum candidates for making up brilliant stuff.

The origin of the tests may have been an abstract search about human capacity, but whomever of those above who said they are now most used to categorize people into groups of potential drones -- whether for potential as "high executive / research scientist" or someone more likely to inspect packaged processed chicken slices at that factory -- has hit the nail pretty much on the head.


----------



## KenOC

"...they are now most used to categorize people into groups of potential drones..."

I'm a Gamma and I'm glad I'm a Gamma!


----------



## scratchgolf

KenOC said:


> "...they are now most used to categorize people into groups of potential drones..."
> 
> I'm a Gamma and I'm glad I'm a Gamma!


I'll be drinking at the Epsilon Pub all night.


----------



## trazom

PetrB said:


> The origin of the tests may have been an abstract search about human capacity, but whomever of those above who said they are now most used to categorize people into groups of potential drones -- whether for potential as "high executive / research scientist" or someone more likely to inspect packaged processed chicken slices at that factory -- has hit the nail pretty much on the head.


How about in diagnosing specific learning disabilities? So that the person can get the help they need rather than flunking a normal class, not learning anything, and feeling humiliated. The tests they have today are still crude, but they've come a long way and are much closer to defining intellectual ability than people think--mostly because all they know about the tests come from internet. Giving up and labeling it as some mystical human ability we'll never be able to quantify doesn't help anyone.


----------



## KenOC

There is a deep-seated prejudice against IQ tests and the like in certain circles today. This seems to be due to political (rather than scientific) convictions that do not bear delving into here. We live by our myths, as always.


----------



## brianvds

trazom said:


> How about in diagnosing specific learning disabilities? So that the person can get the help they need rather than flunking a normal class, not learning anything, and feeling humiliated. The tests they have today are still crude, but they've come a long way and are much closer to defining intellectual ability than people think--mostly because all they know about the tests come from internet. Giving up and labeling it as some mystical human ability we'll never be able to quantify doesn't help anyone.


As far as I know, IQ tests were indeed originally only intended as diagnostic tools that predict ability is specific academic subjects, especially math. The idea was that students with low IQ could then be more effectively helped to overcome their problems, in the same way that even someone with little musical talent can learn to play an instrument.

Part of the reason why IQ has become disreputable is because in the 1920s and 1930s it was used in a naive and indeed even scandalous manner to label people and as an excuse to deny immigrants entry into the U.S. It began to acquire an unpleasant odour of eugenics and Nazism which it seems to have found difficult to shake off, especially in these politically correct times in which everyone is supposed to be absolutely equal in all respects, and everyone supposedly has exactly the same potential in all areas. But experience does not bear out this rather naive view.

As some have pointed out, IQ is a good diagnostic tool. That is all it is, and we would do well to remember that. MENSA has its own share of nuts and dolts, even while Richard Feynman, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ too low for MENSA membership.

As for composers, I think it might actually be interesting to test their IQ, because it will show us whether musical intelligence correlates well with the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests. My guess is that the correlation will be poor. Beethoven would probably score on the low side, considering that he did not fare well academically and apparently never mastered even the most elementary of mathematics. Saint-Saëns, a very accomplished amateur mathematician, would probably score high.

In short, IQ cannot really tell us whether someone is "smart" or "dumb." It predicts probable academic achievement in specific types of subjects. It's a useful tool if used in the way it is intended to be used. If you try to use a hammer to turn screws with, you will likely make a big mess of it, but that doesn't mean a hammer isn't a useful tool.


----------



## trazom

brianvds said:


> As some have pointed out, IQ is a good diagnostic tool. That is all it is, and we would do well to remember that. MENSA has its own share of nuts and dolts, even while Richard Feynman, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ too low for MENSA membership.


I agree that it can be a useful tool, and that the MENSA society seems like an unfortunate bi-product. Just another way in which people can place themselves in an exclusive group to look down their noses at others; but people don't need a test score to do this when they've been doing this stuff throughout history with nationality, class, race, religion etc. That surprises me about Richard Feynman, my dad and a couple friends are big fans of his. One gave me a book about him and said it was a must-read, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman."


----------



## KenOC

True story, and shades of Huxley! I moved to a new city and started high school ca. 1962. Every incoming student was administered an IQ test, and on the score *alone* was classified as an X, Y, or Z. X students were college prep and got a curriculum heavy in math and the sciences. Y students were tracked into social studies, general science, and so forth. Z students were tracked into football-player subjects and metal shop in those rooms up over the gym.

Now the finale: On graduation, since the "X" curriculum was harder, X students had all their grades bumped up one point on the 1-5 scale for their transcripts. Z students were knocked down a point. "Y" students were unchanged.

All this was considered quite unexceptionable at the time.

BTW, if Richard Feynman scored poorly on a test, there was something seriously wrong with test! I mean hey, anybody who can invent "sum over histories" as a means of analyzing quantum electrodynamics can't be a total moron. Even if I have no idea what that is.


----------



## PetrB

Flamme said:


> But the best works of art in literature as well as music or painting are born in deep inner struggle of mind and body, emotions and reason...


How Very Romantic.


----------



## PetrB

trazom said:


> How about in diagnosing specific learning disabilities? So that the person can get the help they need rather than flunking a normal class, not learning anything, and feeling humiliated. The tests they have today are still crude, but they've come a long way and are much closer to defining intellectual ability than people think--mostly because all they know about the tests come from internet. Giving up and labeling it as some mystical human ability we'll never be able to quantify doesn't help anyone.


I thought the entire thread was about anything BUT "Disability."


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> BTW, if Richard Feynman scored poorly on a test, there was something seriously wrong with test! I mean hey, anybody who can invent "sum over histories" as a means of analyzing quantum electrodynamics can't be a total moron. Even if I have no idea what that is.


He didn't score poorly; his IQ was tested several times and quite consistently measured at 125. That is well above average, but perhaps not what one would expect of one of the top ten theoretical physicists of the century.

Apparently, when he learned that his IQ was lower than expected he was overjoyed. To win a Nobel prize with a 140+ IQ was perhaps not so exceptional, he said. But to win it with MY IQ! Now THAT is a real achievement! This humane, self-deprecating humour was very typical of him. Early in his career, a professor or colleague (I can't remember who) wrote a letter recommending him for a post at a university. "He's like a second Dirac," the letter went. "Only this time human."

Ah, wait, found it. It was written by Oppenheimer:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/12/he-is-second-dirac-only-this-time-human.html

Incidentally, the site on which this appears is utterly addictive; stay away! 

As has been reported here before, he was also an expert player of bongo drums. Less well known is that he was not half bad at art, having taken up drawing and painting only as an adult, but with his typical perseverance keeping at it until he got it.

















Another tale: while working on the atomic bomb project at Los Alamos as a young man, he once gave a lecture on mathematics there, titled "Some interesting properties of numbers," in which he derived just about the entire bulwark of modern math from first principles. In the audience were the likes of Von Neumann, and a whole array of the rest of the who's who in physics and mathematics at the time. By all accounts, they were completely blown away by his insight and originality. Unfortunately the lecture was never written down!


----------



## science

Well, so much for IQ. As for intelligence, I nominate François-André Danican Philidor, hereafter "Philidor," composer of almost nothing remembered today, and the greatest chess player of his age, famous for his Enlightened (in the technical, capitalized sense) declaration that "pawns are the soul of chess."


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> True story, and shades of Huxley! I moved to a new city and started high school ca. 1962. Every incoming student was administered an IQ test, and on the score *alone* was classified as an X, Y, or Z. X students were college prep and got a curriculum heavy in math and the sciences. Y students were tracked into social studies, general science, and so forth. Z students were tracked into football-player subjects and metal shop in those rooms up over the gym.
> 
> Now the finale: On graduation, since the "X" curriculum was harder, X students had all their grades bumped up one point on the 1-5 scale for their transcripts. Z students were knocked down a point. "Y" students were unchanged.
> 
> All this was considered quite unexceptionable at the time.
> 
> BTW, if Richard Feynman scored poorly on a test, there was something seriously wrong with test! I mean hey, anybody who can invent "sum over histories" as a means of analyzing quantum electrodynamics can't be a total moron. Even if I have no idea what that is.


Actually, nobody knows what they are, since those functional integrals are mathematically ill defined most of the times!. But they work!.


----------



## brianvds

science said:


> Well, so much for IQ. As for intelligence, I nominate François-André Danican Philidor, hereafter "Philidor," composer of almost nothing remembered today, and the greatest chess player of his age, famous for his Enlightened (in the technical, capitalized sense) declaration that "pawns are the soul of chess."


I didn't know he composed. Perhaps he thought accidentals were the soul of music? 

Along the same lines, we might also nominate William Herschel, an accomplished musician and composer, but today chiefly remembered as the best telescope builder of his day, discoverer of Uranus, and several other notable scientific achievements.

And then of course Borodin, also a highly accomplished scientist.


----------



## science

brianvds said:


> I didn't know he composed. Perhaps he thought accidentals were the soul of music?
> 
> Along the same lines, we might also nominate William Herschel, an accomplished musician and composer, but today chiefly remembered as the best telescope builder of his day, discoverer of Uranus, and several other notable scientific achievements.
> 
> And then of course Borodin, also a highly accomplished scientist.


It is common to point out in these situations that Prokofiev was also a talented chess player. (In addition to managing the whole Soviet scene pretty well, which probably also demonstrates a high level of intelligence.)


----------



## Piwikiwi

Most composers I know are quite intelligent. Quite a bit more than the classical musicians. I think it is because people who are intelligent tend to be more interested in composing because playing music is not that intellectually challenging a lot of the times but this is pure speculation of course


----------



## Ebab

PetrB said:


> Flamme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the best works of art in literature as well as music or painting are born in deep inner struggle of mind and body, emotions and reason...
> 
> 
> 
> How Very Romantic.
Click to expand...

Romantic is not a dirty word for me. Romanticism can develop a sharp sense for mental, social and economic realities.

I agree with Flamme: sustaining art is the result of conflicts.

(As others have pointed out much better than I could, the Intelligence quotient is a valuable tool, and like all tools, its value is confined to a certain purpose. I don't regard the IQ as a valuable criterion in regarding _art_, so I will not participate in that discussion.)


----------



## Flamme

PetrB said:


> How Very Romantic.


How very Cynical indeed.


----------



## ahammel

science said:


> Well, so much for IQ. As for intelligence, I nominate François-André Danican Philidor, hereafter "Philidor," composer of almost nothing remembered today, and the greatest chess player of his age, famous for his Enlightened (in the technical, capitalized sense) declaration that "pawns are the soul of chess."


Philidor, if memory serves, gave the first recorded blind simul exhibition: playing three games at once without looking at any of the boards. I think he got two draws and a win.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> It is common to point out in these situations that Prokofiev was also a talented chess player. (In addition to managing the whole Soviet scene pretty well, which probably also demonstrates a high level of intelligence.)


For some reason, nearly all of Prokofiev's non-vocal music seems to... radiate(?) intelligence. Usually sardonic to some degree, but some people are like that; nearly everything in their lives they find at least a little bit ridiculous.


----------



## Couac Addict

I did an IQ test when I was in my 20s as part of some survey/experiment thing the college was doing. Those things are a lot easier to ace than you might think. It's not about being exceptional at anything but being good at lots of things. 

If your comfortable with arts as well as sciences - you're going to score very high. Especially if you can recognise patterns within them.

If you know your pronouns from your adverbs, algebra and logic puzzles, painting, music, chemistry/physics/biology basics... you'll cruise through it. 

All that the test proved to me is that I'd be a handy addition to a pub trivia team. :lol:


----------



## samurai

You must be great at *Trivial Pursuit *as well, although I don't even know if that game is around anymore. I used to be a pretty fair hand at it myself, back in the day.


----------



## Couac Addict

samurai said:


> You must be great at *Trivial Pursuit *as well, although I don't even know if that game is around anymore. I used to be a pretty fair hand at it myself, back in the day.


I grew up with it but the IQ test was mostly about identifying patterns/sequences etc.
eg. 58, 26, 16, 14, ?
...and you give the following number.

I remember one question being something like E F G A ? 
An easy question if you're artistically inclined but it may be gobbledygook to the science boffins who recognised the number sequence immediately.

At least that's how I remember the questions being set (it was 20yrs ago).

Oh, and to answer the OP's question....Mahler. Obviously. He looks like an extra from _Revenge of the Nerds._


----------



## brianvds

I have on several occasions tried out online IQ tests. Never once managed to score more than 80. I don't get it even when I see the answer. I can thus conclude that if you were to use me for self defense, or to cut anything tougher than wet tissue paper, you'd be well served to use a different blade, for I am not the sharpest in the drawer.


----------



## brianvds

Couac Addict said:


> I grew up with it but the IQ test was mostly about identifying patterns/sequences etc.
> eg. 58, 26, 16, 14, ?
> ...and you give the following number.
> 
> I remember one question being something like E F G A ?
> An easy question if you're artistically inclined but it may be gobbledygook to the science boffins who recognised the number sequence immediately.


Are the above examples for real? They are so culturally biased they cannot possibly be said to measure anything innate or unchangeable. About three minutes of musical instruction will teach you how to solve the second question - if only it were that easy to increase my intelligence!

Not sure what would be required for the first, but I have this feeling it is a type of problem that one can also learn to solve without much difficulty. If my math weren't so rusty, maybe I would get it too.


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> Are the above examples for real? *They are so culturally biased*...


AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, THE KNOWN AND MUCH ADVERTISED LEGITIMATE NAMED BY THE EXPERTS PROBLEM WITH IQ TESTS.

See? You ARE a genius!


----------



## brianvds

PetrB said:


> AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, THE KNOWN AND MUCH ADVERTISED LEGITIMATE NAMED BY THE EXPERTS PROBLEM WITH IQ TESTS.
> 
> See? You ARE a genius!


Not if my IQ is anything to go by.


----------



## Blancrocher

brianvds said:


> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/12/he-is-second-dirac-only-this-time-human.html
> 
> Incidentally, the site on which this appears is utterly addictive; stay away!


Oh no--there goes my day.


----------



## mmsbls

brianvds said:


> Are the above examples for real? They are so culturally biased they cannot possibly be said to measure anything innate or unchangeable. About three minutes of musical instruction will teach you how to solve the second question - if only it were that easy to increase my intelligence!





PetrB said:


> AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, THE KNOWN AND MUCH ADVERTISED LEGITIMATE NAMED BY THE EXPERTS PROBLEM WITH IQ TESTS.


As PetrB says, a strong critique of IQ tests is that they are culturally biased. It's really impossible to devise tests that do not assume at least some cultural learning. Those who make them try to minimize that cultural component by using shapes, numbers, common words, etc. rather than specific knowledge from a given area (pronouns, adverbs, painting, music, chemistry/physics/biology). IQ tests and trivia tests are enormously different so I strongly suspect that the tests Couac Addict took were not standardized IQ tests even though they might have been advertised as IQ tests. Still I have seen questions from tests that assumed knowledge readily found in a suburban education but much less so of inner city schools.

As to the OP, I think it's impossible to guess which composers would have tested very high for IQ. In my opinion any composer who wrote many works that have been deemed interesting enough to be recorded is at least fairly intelligent.


----------



## ahammel

mmsbls said:


> As to the OP, I think it's impossible to guess which composers would have tested very high for IQ. In my opinion any composer who wrote many works that have been deemed interesting enough to be recorded is at least fairly intelligent.


I would think that composing music requires one to have a decent memory and good pattern-matching ("ah, I once saw a score where the composer got into trouble like _this_ and resolved it like _that_..."), as well as good problem-solving skills (to be able to work out harmonic and contrapuntal problems and so forth), and probably other skills that people think of as being part of 'intelligence' as well. It seems to me to be mostly an intellectual exercise; it's not as though one can just struggle with one's demons and expect the notes fall out onto the page.

Of course, I've never composed so much as a bar, so you may not want to value my opinions on the subject too highly :tiphat:


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Interesting topic...

What follows is pretty subjective and is not backed by any scientific study that's known to me-

The two main characteristics of what I consider intelligence are: A) problem-solving ability, and B) capacity to learn. These are handy things to have in the pursuit of knowledge... but having outstanding tools in the tool-box doesn't mean they're going to be used like a master-craftsman.

Since this is a Classical Music Forum, doubtless many of you have heard of Ervin Nyiregyházi. A good number of you may not have heard of him. For those in the latter category, there are reasons for his obscurity. Maybe fewer than ten persons in known history were born with more natural musical gifts than he. What he did (or, more accurately, _didn't do_) with them is quite well-documented---

Now, prodigious musical accomplishment (e.g.: stunning precocity) is frequently a sign of intelligence- except, of course, when it isn't. Now, behind this flippant statement is the fact that, every now-and-then, someone can be immensely gifted in music- or mathematics- or board-gaming or computer-science, and be really ordinary (or less-than-ordinary) in other endeavors.

People whom we consider to be brilliant composers will likely have a very high level of natural talent- but I think we can distinguish between (just) high-level innate talent (like Copland and Alfvén) and stratospheric talent like Mozart and Mendelssohn. At the same time (though not in precise parallel) there is the component of erudition-level. Mahler, for instance, has been mentioned a few times in this thread- but is someone whom I would consider to be, amongst his fellow-composers-- an individual with a very high erudition-level. Likewise, Wagner... who may have been the most voracious reader of all of the great composers.


----------



## hpowders

As in idiot savants.


----------



## Ukko

hpowders said:


> As in idiot savants.


The term is too imprecise to have much more that shock value. To the extent that it refers to a person with one superior/vastly superior facility with all others very below par, it is related _by appearance_ to many people who operate at genius level in one area of understanding, but are moderately inept at other, mundane activities. Both Mozart and Beethoven may be in that category... ?


----------



## hpowders

Socially inept, but terrific in music.


----------



## ahammel

hpowders said:


> Socially inept, but terrific in music.


That's not what "idiot savant" means.


----------



## trazom

Ukko said:


> Both Mozart and Beethoven may be in that category... ?


No, they weren't. "Idiot savant" refers to people with severe developmental disorders like autism, and most have little no ability to communicate. Mozart organized and advertized his own concerts in Vienna, both Beethoven and Mozart had no language disabilities. They're not even in the same ballpark as "idiot savants."

On a side note, there are tests that are supposed to be 'fair." Raven's Progressive Matrices are supposed to be culturally non-biased intelligence tests that measure nonverbal, pattern recognition skills. Sometimes they use them in the workplace setting to, once again, see what 'path' you're best fit for.


----------



## Ukko

trazom said:


> No, they weren't. "Idiot savant" refers to people with severe developmental disorders like autism, and most have little no ability to communicate. Mozart organized and advertized his own concerts in Vienna, both Beethoven and Mozart had no language disabilities. They're not even in the same ballpark as "idiot savants."


Hmm. You could try rereading my post... but that may not be sufficient.


----------



## hpowders

ahammel said:


> That's not what "idiot savant" means.


It was when my HS advisor was describing me.


----------



## trazom

Ukko said:


> Hmm. You could try rereading my post... but that may not be sufficient.


Or you could gracefully accept that what you think idiot savant refers to is incorrect, and even by your definition what savant means, Mozart and Beethoven did not fit that description, since they were not 'moderately inept' at everything else.


----------



## hpowders

For example, Beethoven seemed to be very "ept" at wine drinking.


----------



## spradlig

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up over this question. Most of the composers we are discussing have been dead for 100+ years. This forum is for fun.

I'll vote for Camille Saint-Saens. I didn't check all the earlier responses, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet. But he was very knowledgeable and accomplished in many different fields. He certainly would have scored very high on an IQ test, regardless of what you think about such tests.

I do not claim that his music reveals more intelligence than the music of J. S. Bach, Mozart, or anybody else. But that wasn't the question.


----------



## Ukko

trazom said:


> Or you could gracefully accept that what you think idiot savant refers to is incorrect, and even by your definition what savant means, Mozart and Beethoven did not fit that description, since they were not 'moderately inept' at everything else.


Sorry. I accept no responsibility for your misunderstandings.


----------



## spradlig

I have a Ph.D. in math and I had trouble with the first question (find the next number in the sequence starting 58, 26, 16, 14). I only solved it hours after I had seen it (I did not waste the entire time thinking about that question). Each number is obtained by adding the digits of the previous one and multiplying the result by 2. So the answer is 10.

If I were writing an IQ test I would not put this question on it. There is nothing terribly special about the decimal representation of a number. From everything I've read, the only reason most people use base 10 these days is that we're born with 10 fingers.



brianvds said:


> Are the above examples for real? They are so culturally biased they cannot possibly be said to measure anything innate or unchangeable. About three minutes of musical instruction will teach you how to solve the second question - if only it were that easy to increase my intelligence!
> 
> Not sure what would be required for the first, but I have this feeling it is a type of problem that one can also learn to solve without much difficulty. If my math weren't so rusty, maybe I would get it too.


----------



## brianvds

spradlig said:


> I have a Ph.D. in math and I had trouble with the first question (find the next number in the sequence starting 58, 26, 16, 14). I only solved it hours after I had seen it (I did not waste the entire time thinking about that question). Each number is obtained by adding the digits of the previous one and multiplying the result by 2. So the answer is 10.


I would think that people who regularly do this sort of math puzzle will get pretty good at solving them too, without necessarily being particularly talented at math. Whereas a hugely gifted hunter-gatherer will fail hopelessly. 

Another problem with such puzzles that I have noticed is that the more obscure the patterns, the more likely it is that there will be more than one legitimate solution, and some of these may well require MORE creativity and pattern recognition than what the creator of the test intended. But the person who marks the test will never know.

As I said before, I don't think IQ tests are nonsense. Well designed ones can serve as a useful tool, but like all tools they have to be used with some care and never serve as nothing more than a convenient way to label people or force them into pigeonholes.


----------



## spradlig

I agree with your first point. I think that mathematicians, and, as you say, people who are talented at math, are likely to do poorly on this particular puzzle because it depends on the base-10 respresentation of the numbers, which is not that important mathematically. Frequent puzzle-doers might do better on this puzzle.

Of course there are other correct answers to the puzzle, but any formula for the _n_th term of the sequence that does not rely on the base-10 representation of the numbers is going to be fairly complicated (a lot more complicated than the rule I found), and a complicated formula is not a great answer when you are only given four numbers in the sequence to start with. For example, I could find a cubic function _f_ such that f(1), f(2), f(3), and f(4) are 58, 26, 16, and 14, respectively, and then say the answer is f(5) (it would probably be some dreadful fraction), but that's not a satisfying answer.



brianvds said:


> I would think that people who regularly do this sort of math puzzle will get pretty good at solving them too, without necessarily being particularly talented at math. Whereas a hugely gifted hunter-gatherer will fail hopelessly.
> 
> Another problem with such puzzles that I have noticed is that the more obscure the patterns, the more likely it is that there will be more than one legitimate solution, and some of these may well require MORE creativity and pattern recognition than what the creator of the test intended. But the person who marks the test will never know.
> 
> As I said before, I don't think IQ tests are nonsense. Well designed ones can serve as a useful tool, but like all tools they have to be used with some care and never serve as nothing more than a convenient way to label people or force them into pigeonholes.


----------



## QuietGuy

In no particular order:

Bach
Mozart 
Stravinsky

I read somewhere that Mozart's IQ was 165 -- I don't know how they measured that back in his day, though, and don't know how the author found this out. Take it with a grain of salt. But he's gotta be "up there". All three do!


----------



## Morimur

Is there really a convincing way of measuring intelligence? I am not so certain.


----------



## Matsps

The average IQ of Nobel Prize winners is 120. I'd say looking at that statistic that the greatest composers might not have an IQ as high as some people in this thread think. After all, IQ measures skills in a few areas, none of which are music and great composers need only have great skill in that one area. So, I would expect great composers to have good, but not outstanding IQs. 

If I had to put people forward for the title of composer and high IQ, it would be all-rounders. Perhaps Rousseau?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I almost wish Xenakis were a better composer.


----------



## chalkpie

Zappa was apparently 172


----------



## joen_cph

never mind ......................................


----------



## PetrB

chalkpie said:


> Zappa was apparently 172


Fat lot of good it did him


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> Fat lot of good it did him


Unless one counts a long career of performing music one enjoys playing, discovering a large amount of young talent, hearing ones music performed by great symphony orchestras and ensembles, having the satisfaction of serving the public good and freedom of speech through political action, having had the freedom to compose the music one wishes and always having found a large audience for it, and dying knowing that one has lived life to the fullest and has been prolifically productive in ones field of endeavor. Yes, clearly a man to be pitied


----------



## PetrB

spradlig said:


> I have a Ph.D. in math and I had trouble with the first question (find the next number in the sequence starting 58, 26, 16, 14). I only solved it hours after I had seen it (I did not waste the entire time thinking about that question). Each number is obtained by adding the digits of the previous one and multiplying the result by 2. So the answer is 10.
> 
> If I were writing an IQ test I would not put this question on it. There is nothing terribly special about the decimal representation of a number. From everything I've read, the only reason most people use base 10 these days is that we're born with 10 fingers.


LOL. I had such bad lower school math teaching (rote) that I am inept with numbers. I would not have gotten the answer to that one either. BUT -- a lot of those types of questions in the maths segment are not so much about maths, but are about _pattern recognition._ Ergo, those similar questions with the exploded diagrams of shapes with patterns on them -- also all about pattern recognition while transliterating 3D pictures represented in flat drawings into dimensional objects.

Many of those questions are not at all literal, but are about what one can juggle in the abstract imagination to them come up with 'conclusions,' i.e. they are measuring, to a degree, _creative thinking vs. linear thinking._


----------



## KenOC

QuietGuy said:


> I read somewhere that Mozart's IQ was 165...


Yes, grain of salt with that one. But he was certainly no dummy! Some people say the smartest composer was Saint-Saens, a polymath who knew everything about everything (and irritated his colleagues endlessly by telling them about it).

Beethoven was always poor-mouthing his math abilities, but cut some very sophisticated deals with publishers and had no problem with complex rhythm notation in scores (like in the Arietta of the Op. 111), enharmonic notation, and so forth. So when he starts talking about how bad he is at math, keep one hand on your wallet.


----------



## GGluek

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Is there really a convincing way of measuring intelligence? I am not so certain.


A good answer to your question can be found in Stephen J. Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, in which he argues fairly convincingly that IQ tests (and trying to quantify intelligence with a number) is basically a crock. Yes, some people are "smarter" than others, but there are so many disparate aptitudes that it is senseless to argue if someone good at math skills is inherently smarter than someone with good verbal, or literary, or musical skills. It's like trying to assign a quantitative measure to something that has too many variables and gets measured on too many axes to be able to make sense of. You can say that Leonardo was "smarter" than Alfred E. Neuman, but you can't really confidently measure his intelligence against Newton's, say, or Goethe's.


----------



## Blancrocher

GGluek said:


> A good answer to your question can be found in Stephen J. Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, in which he argues fairly convincingly that IQ tests (and trying to quantify intelligence with a number) is basically a crock. Yes, some people are "smarter" than others, but there are so many disparate aptitudes that it is senseless to argue if someone good at math skills is inherently smarter than someone with good verbal, or literary, or musical skills. It's like trying to assign a quantitative measure to something that has too many variables and gets measured on too many axes to be able to make sense of. You can say that Leonardo was "smarter" than Alfred E. Neuman, but you can't really confidently measure his intelligence against Newton's, say, or Goethe's.


Hm, looks like Stephen J. Gould probably scored below 140 on his IQ test.


----------

