How to use this Page

Law enforcement agencies are challenged on many fronts in their efforts to protect online users from all manner of cyber-related threats. Through constant innovation, cybercriminals across the world are developing increasingly sophisticated malware, rogue mobile apps and more resilient botnets. With little or no technical knowledge, criminals now occupy parts of the Internet to carry out their illegal activities within the notorious Dark Web.

The post Infiltrating the Dark Web appeared first on OUPblog.

As the analysis reaches deeper behind the recent Paris attacks, it has become clear that terrorism today is a widening series of global alliances often assisted and connected via cyber social media, and electronic propaganda.

The post Cyber terrorism and piracy appeared first on OUPblog.

The durable Bond is back once more in Spectre. Little has changed and there has even been reversion. M has back-morphed into a man, Judi Dench giving way to Ralph Fiennes. 007 still works miracles, and not the least of these is financial – Pinewood Studios hope for another blockbuster movie. Hollywood roll over and die.

The post Spectre and Bond do the damage appeared first on OUPblog.

Ask anybody that question and you will probably get a different answer every time. Most would argue that intelligence is limited to mankind and give examples of brainy people like Einstein or Newton.

Others might identify it as being clever, good in exams or being smart, having a high IQ. But was Einstein particularly intelligent or Newton? Both were very gifted at mathematics and certainly imaginative but outside that, their lives didn’t seem to be any smarter or express particular cleverness than millions of others; in some respects perhaps the opposite.

We don’t know how well either would have done in IQ tests. Although successful people generally have a higher IQ than average, the correlation with success is chequered and not outstanding. So it is hardly surprising one recent article found at least 70 different versions of intelligence and then proceeded to provide a novel summary of its own.

Intelligence is an aspect of behaviour, and behaviour is the response to our environment, more properly the signals we perceive. The word intelligence is derived from the Latin interlegere, which simply means to choose between. Choice implies something in past behaviour has opened up two or more different courses of future action. Skill in assessing and taking the right choice within the present context we should describe as intelligent behaviour.

IQ supposedly measures some intrinsic property of the individual brain but actually it was set up simply to identify pupils with special needs. The present test sets problems requiring some numeracy, spatial recognition, and logic; it is largely academic in character but also strongly cultural.

We can see more clearly what intelligence is about if we take away the present cultural bias for intelligence. Go back 50-100,000 years to earlier mankind. The problems he/she faced were basic: finding food and mates, and avoiding predators. Failure led to premature death; success increased sibling number thus fulfilling the basic biological property we call fitness. Advanced society has simply removed the fundamental base of intelligence.

No wonder it is so difficult to characterise. One psychologist Howard Gardener has imaginatively identified all kinds of intelligence, emotional and physical intelligence, linguistic, musical and spatial intelligence, and logico-mathematical intelligence. All except the last one would be crucial for early mankind’s survival.

But I don’t see Einstein or Newton genius though they are in logico-mathematical intelligence as doing particularly well 100,000 years ago. Furthermore mathematics simply didn’t exist then except perhaps simple numeracy. It is a modern day activity in a society in which the fundamentals of survival are no longer pressing.

The most common view amongst psychologists is that intelligence relates to problem-solving and given that the quality does vary amongst individuals, a capacity for problem-solving. But then we are faced with a conundrum. All living things from bacteria plants to animals face the same basic issues of life, finding food whatever it is, finding mates, and avoiding predators; all these require problem-solving and the sheer variety of them for any one individual means the solution can’t be fixed in the genes as some sort of homunculus but necessitates assessment, a process that in some way incorporates knowledge of past history and the ability to choose between alternatives.

Even swimming bacteria have to choose between swimming towards food and away from poisons. To do the opposite is guaranteed disaster, the decision leading to survival and fitness is obvious. But the assessment there does not involve brains or neural pathways; bacteria simply use a protein network whereas animals use a neural network.

It is the complexity of networks of interacting molecules or cells that provide for intelligent behaviour. In swarm intelligence interactions relatively simple in number occur between effectively cloned organisms in the self-organising beehive or colony.

Similar problems are faced by higher plants. Plant behaviour is not familiar to many; are they not often considered still life?

But higher plants simply work on a different time scale. They lack a nervous system but have complex chemical communication between millions of cells that forms the basis of assessment and leads to decisions within the context of detailed environmental perception.

Much visible behaviour requires growth and in virtually all organisms, growth can be a slow business. Plants forage for the resources of light, minerals, and water. They possess self-recognition and recognise competitors. They possess the capabilities of what we call learning and memory, particularly in response to herbivory. But all this in molecules, not nerves, although electrical connection occurs and is used to transfer information. Intelligent behaviour is as essential for them as any other organism.

The underpinning behaviour is just as surprising. Leaves maintain a relatively constant internal temperature, roots sense and seek out resources, the cambium (a kind of inner skin) comparatively assesses the behaviour of branch roots or shoots and awards additional resources to those which are more likely to be profitable in the future.

These are positive responses to signals in their environment that will increase fitness. Selection also operates in mating by a variety of methods to ensure the most fit do mate. Self-organisation is a fundamental plant attribute. Intelligent behaviour is a holistic quality expressed only by the individual and in plants it finds its most surprising expression but without it plants would not be here.

Headline image credit: Photograph of a carnivorous plant, cultivated by Martha Miller, part of a display featured at a First Friday event at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA, on November 6, 2009. Photograph by Conrad Erb, Chemical Heritage Foundation. CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The post What exactly is intelligence? appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Plato and contemporary bioethics
• Recurring decimals, proof, and ice floes
• Rheumatology through the ages

 

In the trailer of Transcendence, an authoritative professor embodied by Johnny Depp says that “the path to building superintelligence requires us to unlock the most fundamental secrets of the universe.” It’s difficult to wrap our minds around the possibility of artificial intelligence and how it will affect society. Nick Bostrom, a scientist and philosopher and the author of the forthcoming Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, discusses the science and reality behind the future of machine intelligence in the following video series.

Could you upload Johnny Depp’s brain?

Click here to view the embedded video.

How imminent is machine intelligence?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Would you have a warning before artificial intelligence?

Click here to view the embedded video.

How could you get a machine intelligence?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Nick Bostrom is Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University and founding Director of the Future of Humanity Institute and of the Program on the Impacts of Future Technology within the Oxford Martin School. He is the author of some 200 publications, including Anthropic Bias, Global Catastrophic Risks, and Human Enhancement. His next book, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, will be published this summer in the UK and this fall in the US. He previously taught at Yale, and he was a Postdoctoral Fellow of the British Academy. Bostrom has a background in physics, computational neuroscience, and mathematical logic as well as philosophy.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only technology articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post The viability of Transcendence: the science behind the film appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Inferring the unconfirmed: the no alternatives argument
• 18 facts you never knew about cheese
• Five facts on canonization for saint watchers and atheists who believe in miracles

 

By Anthony J Lee

You can tell a lot about someone from their face, from simple demographic information such as sex and ethnicity, to the emotions they’re feeling based on facial expressions. But what about their health? Can the shape of someone’s face tell you how likely this person is to catch the common cold?

Studies have found that some facial attributes are associated with having good health. For instance, individuals with physically attractive faces report better health, are perceived as more healthy by others, and score better on objective health measures. Similarly, facial sexual dimorphism (i.e., the masculinity of male faces and the femininity of female faces) also appears to be associated with better health outcomes.

This ability to judge someone’s health based on facial features may be particularly important when choosing a sexual or romantic partner. This is because this will be someone with whom who you spend a lot of time in close proximity with, conditions in which pathogens or diseases are easily transferable from one person to another; also, any resulting offspring may inherit susceptibility to pathogens from their parents. As a result, humans have evolved to prefer facial cues of good health when choosing a sexual or romantic partner. This preference for facial attractiveness or sexual dimorphism may be stronger in those who are more sensitive to pathogen or disease threats.

To test this, in a recent study we asked a large sample of participants to rate the appeal of ostensible online dating profiles. Each profile contained a facial photograph and a personal description, which were embedded in a dating profile template – some examples are shown below. Photographs were chosen to represent a wide range of facial attractiveness, and these were manipulated with special software to be more or less masculine/feminine. Personal descriptions were chosen to represent a wide range of perceived intelligence. Participants also filled in a questionnaire that measured their pathogen disgust – an individual’s level of aversion to exposure to pathogen contagions that could threaten their health.

Examples of dating profiles with male (top) and female (bottom) profile pictures, as well as masculinised and intelligent (left) and feminised and less intelligent (right) pictures and personal description. Note varying degrees of facial attractiveness and intelligence were used.

Findings supported our predictions. For both men and women, individuals higher in pathogen disgust reported greater attraction to facially attractive profiles compared to those with lower pathogen disgust. Similarly, individuals with higher pathogen disgust also showed a greater preference for profiles higher in facial sexual dimorphism. The same effect was not found for the perceived intelligence of the profiles. In fact, interestingly, the more participants preferred facially attractive and sexually dimorphic profiles, the less they preferred intelligent profiles.

While human attraction is a complicated process influenced by a large number of factors, this research suggests that an individual’s perceived health is an important factor when assessing a potential partner’s attractiveness. We found that individuals who are sensitive to pathogens place greater importance on traits associated with good health – in this case, facial attractiveness and facial sexual dimorphism – and we were able to show that these effects occur in circumstances relevant to contemporary settings (i.e., internet dating). It appears that evolved mechanisms shift around what we want in a partner in ways we’re not even aware of, and we’re only just beginning to reveal these fascinating processes.

Anthony J Lee is a graduate student at The University of Queensland, School of Psychology in Australia. His research interests include the role of sexual selection and mate preferences on human evolution; in particular, how contextual factors (such as pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity) influences human mate preferences, as well as preference for genetic quality in a mating partner. He is the author of the paper ‘Human facial attributes, but not perceived intelligence, are used as cues of health and resource provision potential’ in the Behavioral Ecology journal, which is available to read for free for a limited time.

Bringing together significant work on all aspects of the subject, Behavioral Ecology is broad-based and covers both empirical and theoretical approaches. Studies on the whole range of behaving organisms, including plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, and humans, are included. Behavioral Ecology is the official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only environmental and life sciences articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only health and medicine articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

Image credit: Datebook profiles image used with permission of A. J. Lee. First published in Behavioral Ecology journal.

The post Can the shape of someone’s face tell you how healthy they are? appeared first on OUPblog.

  Beckett, Bernard. (2006) Genesis. London: Quercus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84724-930-2. Author age: young adult. Litland recommends age 14+.

Publisher’s description:

The island Republic has emerged from a ruined world. Its citizens are safe but not free. Until a man named Adam Forde rescues a girl from the sea. Fourteen-year-old Anax thinks she knows her history. She’d better. She’s sat facing three Examiners and her five-hour examination has just begun. The subject is close to her heart: Adam Forde, her long-dead hero. In a series of startling twists, Anax discovers new things about Adam and her people that question everything she holds sacred. But why is the Academy allowing her to open up the enigma at its heart? Bernard Beckett has written a strikingly original novel that weaves dazzling ideas into a truly moving story about a young girl on the brink of her future.

 Our thoughts:

 Irregardless of whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, if you like intellectual sci-fi you’ll love this book.  How refreshing to read a story free from hidden agendas and attempts to indoctrinate its reader into a politically-correct mindset.  And while set in a post-apocalyptic era, the world portrayed is one in which inhabitants have been freed from the very things that sets humans apart from all other creation, including man-made. Once engulfed in the story, the reader is drawn into an intellectual battle over this “difference” between man and man-made intelligence. The will to kill; the existence of evil. A new look at original sin. And a plot twist at the end that shifts the paradigm of the entire story.

 Borrowing from the American movie rating scale, this story would be a PG. Just a few instances of profanity, it is a thought-provoking read intended for mature readers already established in their values and beliefs, and who would not make the error of interpreting the story to hold any religious metaphors. The “myth” of Adam and Art, original sin and the genesis of this new world is merely a structure familiar to readers, not a message. The reader is then free to fully imagine this new world without the constraints of their own real life while still within the constraints of their own value system.

 Genesis is moderately short but very quick paced, and hard to put down once you’ve started! Thus it is not surprising to see the accolades and awards accumulated by Beckett’s book. The author, a New Zealand high school teacher instructing in Drama, English and Mathematics, completed a fellowship study on  DNA mutations as well. This combination of strengths gives Genesis its intrigue as well as complexity. Yet it is never too theoretical as to exclude its reader.  See our review against character education criteria at Litland.com’s teen book review section.  And pick up your own copy in our bookstore!

  12 Days of Sci-Fi, Day 10:

 Earth, space, earth, space, Canada…what? Where are we again? Believe it or not my fellow Americans, Canada is its own country, not a US holding (LOL!)…

 Cloned to Kill by Derwin Mak

 Equality

 Editor’s comment: “Cloned to Kill” goes beyond the ethics of cloning to explore the nature of free will, forgiveness and belonging to community. As such, it’s a story not so much about clones as about us.”

 One of the best aspects of great sci-fi is that it forces the reader to think through their own values and beliefs by presenting these in a new, never-before-imagined situation. Thus Derwin Mak, our author, has forced his reader to deliberate the unthinkable. Should clones be baptized? Are they human like natural-born people? Should they receive the sacraments? Ultimately the reader is forced to question what it means to be human. And mildly, another thread running through the plot involves the hearing of voices…saints have experienced this by God’s grace, yet everyday people suffer it as a result of mental illness. What is sane? What is humane? This is an excellent story for family or book club discussion, as its mere dozen pages leaves much to be discussed. Don’t miss it in the anthology Infinite Space, Infinite God II http://ow.ly/4F48e .

 (Derwin Mak lives in Toronto, Canada. His story “Transubstantiation” won the 2006 Prix Aurora Award for Best Short-Form Work in English. His novel The Moon Under Her Feet was a finalist for a 2008 Prix Aurora Award for Best Long-Form Work in English. His second novel, The Shrine of the Siren Stone, was published in 2010. With Eric Choi, he co-edited The Dragon and the Stars (DAW Books), the first anthology of science fiction and fantasy written by persons of Chinese ancestry living outside China. His website is www.derwinmaksf.com .)

How You Got So Smart by David Milgrim

From infant to child, you have a come a long, long way!  This book reveals just how you got as smart as you are.  You watched and listened.  Chewed on things.  Explored and asked lots of questions.  You investigated, made friends, and were very brave.  Each and every step taught you something, and that is what made you so very smart.  This jolly book takes a humorous but sincere look at how babies grow into amazing children every day.

Milgrim’s success with this book is in its tone.  It is funny but really honest and truthful about what makes each of us smart.  The best part is that it is about normal children, who all grow in their own way, who all explore, who all invent.  Every child will see themselves here and relate effortlessly to the book.  Milgrim’s illustrations add to the humor.  They also bring the necessary bright colors and charm. 

Perfect spring reading for classes of children who are advancing to the next grade.  This reminds everyone that they are special and smart.  Appropriate for ages 4-7, older as a treat read-aloud around graduation time.

Reviewed from library copy.

The Clever Stick by John Lechner

This is one sharp stick, very smart and clever.  He is so bright, he writes poetry and enjoys listening to the birds singing.  So bright that he is frustrated when he can’t communicate with the other things in the forest.  Finally, he is so dejected that he just drags himself home.  But then he looks back and realizes that he is leaving a trail in the dirt, and that he can use that trail to communicate!  The stick draws a huge detailed picture that has everyone in the forest impressed.  Even when the rain comes and washes it all away, the stick is still happy because he knows he can always draw more.

Lechner has created a smart story about self-expression and finding innovative ways to communicate.  The book has a gentle sense of humor that works very well.  It is a quiet sort of book, one that is more about brains than action, more about creativity and imagination too.  The fact that the stick is special because of its intelligence is also a great message to send to children who may be hiding their own light in school.  Lechner’s illustrations done in ink and watercolor are simple and clear. 

A sharp stick for smart kids, this book is a quiet gem.  Appropriate for ages 3-5.

Reviewed from copy received from publisher.

Also reviewed by Books4YourKids.

I n a statement signed by Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen and Richard Lynn, all eminent professors and experts in the field of intelligence and IQ testing, they concur that the definition of intelligence is “general mental capacity that involves the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” These gentlemen agree that intelligence is not merely book learning or test-taking smarts; rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings. It is important to realize that “catching on,” “making sense” and “figuring out” are the key factors in “intelligence.” The professors also agree that IQ tests measure this general ability, and that most standardized IQ tests measure more or less the same traits - so far so good! However, they overemphasize the role genetic factors play in the measurement and understanding of human intelligence. According to these men and 48 other signees of the approval of the conclusions of the book  The Bell Curve,  Blacks are doomed to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians. The group further declares that there is no convincing evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial groups are converging. In unison they affirm that there is no definite answer as to why IQ bell curves differ across racialethnic groups. Could it be that IQ tests themselves hold the key to this problem…? Is it really “genetics” that explains why a hungry child in Ethiopia or young student in some war-torn area of the globe does not learn math and language as well or score as high on an IQ test as his counterpart who lives in a good neighborhood in the socalled First World, is at peace with himself and his environment, has the benefit of a decent education and parents who can care for and tutor him? The signees believe that research on matters of intelligence relate to some  unclear  social and primarily biological  distinctions. A phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect may reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between races and cultures in the future. With IQ scores in affluent Holland and Spain up by 6–8 points, respectively, in just one decade and an astonishing 26- point increase in the past 14 years in developing Kenya, it is evident that the Flynn Effect is a reality and that genetic bias against Blacks does not carry any weight. There is, in addition, an argument that the average IQ of the United States was 75 before improved nutrition increased the scores of the general population. (The IQ for the average American is currently 98.) It is almost universally agreed upon that a person’s IQ can predict academic success, but not how to function successfully in one’s environment. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from re-testing and the application of different tests that a person’s IQ does not remain fixed over his  lifetime.

Emotional and motivational factors play a key role on how one scores on any given test and may vary from one test to another. It is a believed that as many as 60% of IQ test scores change significantly over time. With this in mind, can we assume that a test score accessed at a particular point in an individual’s life is a valid indicator of his “native” intelligence? “G” or “general intelligence” is as cultural as it is controversial. The core element in measuring a person’s intelligence is vocabulary. Vocabulary reflects one’s cognitive skills but exposure to words is not genetic, it is learned (read environmental). A child or an adult who has never seen an octagon or the male icon or symbol (B&) or the symbol for female (@&) would most certainly not recognize them if they were presented to him in an intelligence test. The genetic component in IQ is the reciprocal of the environmental component: the larger the difference in environments, the less thecomponent determined by genes will appear. Today it is acceptable and realistic to embrace the view that racial and gender differences are not genetic but reflect environmental challenges. But consider Harvard University’s President in 2005, Lawrence Summers. Summers suggested that gender differences in intrinsic ability were a cause of the dearth of top echelon female scientists. He cavalierly disregarded the realities of bias in hiring, discriminatory tenure practices and negative stereotypes. Stating that sex differences in cognitive ability were the “real” reason there were less women scientists than men; he and his supporters felt that research on the matter clearly pointed in that direction. Summers must have completely forgotten about Marie Curie, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes: one in chemistry and the other in physics! Summers later apologized for his “reckless” language and shortly thereafter resigned.  Phillip Emeagwali, who helped give a boost to the supercomputer, is a Nigerian-born scientist who stunned the world of high tech and HIQ when he won the Gordon Bell Prize in 1989. The fact that a Black African would have an IQ of 190 and be married to a Black American microbiologist/biochemist may have caused racist Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, to roll over in his grave. Ironically, Shockley died the same year that Emeagwali won the Gordon Bell Prize for The Connection Machine. Andy Warhol was one of the most important representatives of pop art and best remembered for his representations of Campbell’s Soup cans. Warhol created hundreds of other works during his allotted 58 years, including commercial advertisements, films, the blotted-line technique and the process of silk screening in painting. His IQ was allegedly 86. Yet many would call  both  Emeagwali and Warhol geniuses despite the 104 point difference in IQ scores. The idea that one group of people is, in comparison to another, smarter or dumber than another should be discarded. Clearly there will always be individual differences, but it should be emphasized that the individual who is well adjusted has the capability; life experience and motivation will be a success in his elected vocation.

I n a statement signed by Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen and Richard Lynn, all eminent professors and experts in the field of intelligence and IQ testing, they concur that the definition of intelligence is “general mental capacity that involves the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” These gentlemen agree that intelligence is not merely book learning or test-taking smarts; rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings. It is important to realize that “catching on,” “making sense” and “figuring out” are the key factors in “intelligence.” The professors also agree that IQ tests measure this general ability, and that most standardized IQ tests measure more or less the same traits - so far so good! However, they overemphasize the role genetic factors play in the measurement and understanding of human intelligence. According to these men and 48 other signees of the approval of the conclusions of the book  The Bell Curve,  Blacks are doomed to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians. The group further declares that there is no convincing evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial groups are converging. In unison they affirm that there is no definite answer as to why IQ bell curves differ across racialethnic groups. Could it be that IQ tests themselves hold the key to this problem…? Is it really “genetics” that explains why a hungry child in Ethiopia or young student in some war-torn area of the globe does not learn math and language as well or score as high on an IQ test as his counterpart who lives in a good neighborhood in the socalled First World, is at peace with himself and his environment, has the benefit of a decent education and parents who can care for and tutor him? The signees believe that research on matters of intelligence relate to some  unclear  social and primarily biological  distinctions. A phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect may reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between races and cultures in the future. With IQ scores in affluent Holland and Spain up by 6–8 points, respectively, in just one decade and an astonishing 26- point increase in the past 14 years in developing Kenya, it is evident that the Flynn Effect is a reality and that genetic bias against Blacks does not carry any weight. There is, in addition, an argument that the average IQ of the United States was 75 before improved nutrition increased the scores of the general population. (The IQ for the average American is currently 98.) It is almost universally agreed upon that a person’s IQ can predict academic success, but not how to function successfully in one’s environment. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from re-testing and the application of different tests that a person’s IQ does not remain fixed over his  lifetime.

Emotional and motivational factors play a key role on how one scores on any given test and may vary from one test to another. It is a believed that as many as 60% of IQ test scores change significantly over time. With this in mind, can we assume that a test score accessed at a particular point in an individual’s life is a valid indicator of his “native” intelligence? “G” or “general intelligence” is as cultural as it is controversial. The core element in measuring a person’s intelligence is vocabulary. Vocabulary reflects one’s cognitive skills but exposure to words is not genetic, it is learned (read environmental). A child or an adult who has never seen an octagon or the male icon or symbol (B&) or the symbol for female (@&) would most certainly not recognize them if they were presented to him in an intelligence test. The genetic component in IQ is the reciprocal of the environmental component: the larger the difference in environments, the less thecomponent determined by genes will appear. Today it is acceptable and realistic to embrace the view that racial and gender differences are not genetic but reflect environmental challenges. But consider Harvard University’s President in 2005, Lawrence Summers. Summers suggested that gender differences in intrinsic ability were a cause of the dearth of top echelon female scientists. He cavalierly disregarded the realities of bias in hiring, discriminatory tenure practices and negative stereotypes. Stating that sex differences in cognitive ability were the “real” reason there were less women scientists than men; he and his supporters felt that research on the matter clearly pointed in that direction. Summers must have completely forgotten about Marie Curie, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes: one in chemistry and the other in physics! Summers later apologized for his “reckless” language and shortly thereafter resigned.  Phillip Emeagwali, who helped give a boost to the supercomputer, is a Nigerian-born scientist who stunned the world of high tech and HIQ when he won the Gordon Bell Prize in 1989. The fact that a Black African would have an IQ of 190 and be married to a Black American microbiologist/biochemist may have caused racist Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, to roll over in his grave. Ironically, Shockley died the same year that Emeagwali won the Gordon Bell Prize for The Connection Machine. Andy Warhol was one of the most important representatives of pop art and best remembered for his representations of Campbell’s Soup cans. Warhol created hundreds of other works during his allotted 58 years, including commercial advertisements, films, the blotted-line technique and the process of silk screening in painting. His IQ was allegedly 86. Yet many would call  both  Emeagwali and Warhol geniuses despite the 104 point difference in IQ scores. The idea that one group of people is, in comparison to another, smarter or dumber than another should be discarded. Clearly there will always be individual differences, but it should be emphasized that the individual who is well adjusted has the capability; life experience and motivation will be a success in his elected vocation.