Genius

[Deridaburi]

What is genius, what is a genius, is genius learned, is a genius born?

 

[snafupants]

Genius is not born, nor is it entirely environment dependent. Genetic inheritance of mucho intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient track to genius. Stimulation is key. High IQ definitely does not denote genius: High IQ denotes how well you did on the test, that day.

 

[Jesse]

A genius is rated on his accomplishments not his/her intelligence.

 

[ApostateAbe]

What is genius, what is a genius, is genius learned, is a genius born?

The science seems to indicate something that we would rather not accept as fact, which is that genius is largely biologically innate, not to say that anyone is a born a genius. Every baby is born a moron. But, some people have an innate ability to learn well, and others do not. Any measure of intelligence is correlated with one's genes. And why not? If athletic ability, health, good looks, and so many other human characteristics can be closely associated with genes, then why not intelligence?

There is a set of books that go as far as to make the scientific case that some races of people are smarter than other races, and it is attributed to genes. It turns out that Jews are smarter than all of the rest of us, followed by east Asians, followed by Caucasians. The conclusion that whites are smarter than blacks and latinos is put on a pedestal by white supremacists, though it must surely be awkward for them that Jews are on top. The science is reviled by most everyone else, not for the reasoning nor the evidence, but for the conclusions of course. We really want to believe that everybody is equal.

 

[BigApplePi]

What is genius, what is a genius, is genius learned, is a genius born?

I'd say a genius is either.

I'd say a genius is someone who displays some attribute over and above what we can imagine to achieve ourselves. I'd say it is a definition relative, not absolute. On the other hand a teacher who shows knowledge "over our head" is not a genius if we expect expect or are not surprised the teacher to do that.

Einstein was a genius if we no way expected he could do that. On the other hand if his was just a follow on to a fellow physicist, that physicist would not be surprised. He'd just think he worked very hard and got inspired.

 

[Deridaburi]

It sounds like the general consensus is that "genius" is a relative term usually compared to all of humanity. So if you have an insight into something and no one else can see it, that makes you a genius?

 

[ApostateAbe]

It sounds like the general consensus is that "genius" is a relative term usually compared to all of humanity. So if you have an insight into something and no one else can see it, that makes you a genius?

A "genius" is someone who has a mental ability well above and beyond the ability of the middle-majority of people. Such abilities are diverse, and a genius is someone who can demonstrate extraordinary talent in any one of the many abilities. An ability for pioneering scientific insight is only one of the abilities. There is musical ability, mathematical ability, writing ability, memory ability, chess ability, business ability, and so on.

 

[Melllvar]

Before deciding that "genius" is mostly nature over nurture, or even largely nature, you might be interested in reading these articles.

 

[BigApplePi]

Before deciding that "genius" is mostly nature over nurture, or even largely nature, you might be interested in reading these articles.

If you consider the abilities of a normal non-genius person, they are great. Language is complex, motor skills, basic schooling. Now if instead of that you substitute chess and have them spend all their concentrated time on that special subject, why wouldn't they be at least as equally skilled as we are in practicing ordinary language? That would be nurture over nature. All that would needed is a capable child and a good tutor.

"Sidis "easily had an IQ between 250 and 300", meaning that at some time his intellectual age was 2.5 to 3 times his actual age"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

 

[Oblivious]

Talent only takes you so far. Genius is mostly hard work.

 

[Melllvar]

If you consider the abilities of a normal non-genius person, they are great. Language is complex, motor skills, basic schooling. Now if instead of that you substitute chess and have them spend all their concentrated time on that special subject, why wouldn't they be at least as equally skilled as we are in practicing ordinary language? That would be nurture over nature. All that would needed is a capable child and a good tutor.

Well, considering that all three of the sisters spoke between 4 and 8 languages each, and the father had originally intended to teach them mathematics, I wouldn't say it was just that they neglected everything else in preference of chess.

"Sidis "easily had an IQ between 250 and 300", meaning that at some time his intellectual age was 2.5 to 3 times his actual age"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

The idea of using 'mental age' as measure of intelligence is obsolete (not to mention flawed and pointless for obvious reasons). No one can score that high these days, and in fact the highest recorded score under that old system was in the low 200s (IIRC). I believe the highest scores currently being cited are about 6 standard devs above average, although the reliability of those tests is highly debatable (the mainstream tests most people take only go up to about 3 standard devs above average).

Talent only takes you so far. Genius is mostly hard work.

Yep. The youngest sister is by far the most proficient at chess, but the oldest claims she was a slow starter and not the most talented, she was merely the most dedicated.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You're not a genius if you're doing what's already been done.
Insanity = genius