...Is Genius Beyond Madness or....?

[Seducer of the Homeless]

my question is...Is Genius Beyond Madness, is it more extreme and extravagant than Madness, or is Madness Beyond Genius, is Madness more extreme than Genius. is it that Genius IS the boundary and beyond that boundary is just plain 'mad'...

...and which is better. would you rather be Mad or a Genius, if Madness is Beyond Genius then surely Madness is a higher, less limited form of Genius. is there such thing as Madness or Genius, are they the same?!




dammit, i am rambling, but i hope you get the idea peoples. what are your thoughts?

 

[Cogwulf]

I think genius could be described as controlled madness. It's madness that has been trapped in a box in the back of the mind and is let out at a steady rate and funnelled into a set path.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

This is a damaging stereotype. Intelligence does not equate with insanity. It may make someone on the extreme edge have difficulty relating with the norm; but that is a far cry from insanity. The media propagates that genius is a form of madness, but that is a misconception. The general populace cannot understand Genius, so they equate it with insanity. The genius cannot understand the populace(at least at first); so he/she assumes he/she is insane. It's merely a difference of perspective. If anything the problem with intelligence is being able to see too clearly.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

...is what i said. i am saying that is there such thing as Madness, in the same way normal people view Geniuses as 'insane', is it merely that Madness is a step above Genius, a higher genius that nobody (not even the madman himself) can understand? so if we think this then surely it is better to be mad than to be a genius unless you wish to be limited...right?

i don't know, normality < genius < madness?


just hypothesising...

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I don't think genius can progress into madness in the way you describe. I'd comment further, but I have class.

 

[Carnap]

...is what i said. i am saying that is there such thing as Madness, in the same way normal people view Geniuses as 'insane', is it merely that Madness is a step above Genius, a higher genius that nobody (not even the madman himself) can understand? so if we think this then surely it is better to be mad than to be a genius unless you wish to be limited...right?

i don't know, normality < genius < madness?


just hypothesising...

Beyond mortal? No. But you have a good point. Lots of mentally ill people like schizophrenics have a low latent inhibition that does not allow them to filter stimuli. It's overwhelming for them, so much so that they cannot process the stimuli and make sense of it so they become delusional. But in some highly gifted people they also have low latent inhibition but to a lesser extreme, and can process the stimuli, and coupled with a high IQ come up with new creative ideas, theories, etc.

Many mentally ill people are indeed highly intelligent. But not all. Different centers of the brain are more active (frontal lobe, dopamine) and some repressed (the prefrontal lobe, inhibition) so they have more impulsive forms of communication and more emotional, so it could be poetry or something... but not always.

Mental illness can hit anyone, it's often genetic, and it often happens to highly intelligent people, but not always. And I would not go around saying they are geniuses at all.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

not 'mortal', but as normal people see genius, even geniuses see madness.

and i am not referring to mentally ill people here, i mean artists and scientists - is it better to be labelled a genius or madman. basically, is an 'insane' scientist/artist above or below a 'genius scientist/artist?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

This is a damaging stereotype. Intelligence does not equate with insanity. It may make someone on the extreme edge have difficulty relating with the norm; but that is a far cry from insanity. The media propagates that genius is a form of madness, but that is a misconception. The general populace cannot understand Genius, so they equate it with insanity. The genius cannot understand the populace(at least at first); so he/she assumes he/she is insane. It's merely a difference of perspective. If anything the problem with intelligence is being able to see too clearly.

I dunno... as a pretty smart person, I kinda like the stereotype. It adds some sexiness and mystery to my intelligence, and it makes it okay for me to act quirky.

But down to seriousness. Between genius and madness I don't think that one is better than the other, or comes before the other. They are separate traits that tend to overlap because both come from the root cause of being able to see beyond immediate reality.

 

[Cogwulf]

They are separate traits that tend to overlap because both come from the root cause of being able to see beyond immediate reality.

Perhaps madness is seeing things from beyond reality, and genius is the ability to apply those things to reality...

 

[Claverhouse]

I'd really, really like it if you first defined Genius and Madness...



Claverhouse

 

[Beat Mango]

Pretty sure I'm both.

NB: Why define them? We'd just go round in circles. It should be apparent what he means.

 

[Fleur]

Heh, in my eyes this "genius who reminds of a madman" thing is becoming somewhat cliché.

Anyway...

Those who see new possibility of exploiting something already existing are labeled as "geniuses", but those who came up with something completely new almost out of blue air may be labeled as "madmen"? In the first case people can understand exactly how the idea was formed and admires the inventors ingenuity; in the second case others cannot grasp the inventor's way of thinking and this obstacle makes them to believe that there is something wrong about the inventor.

Or perhaps geniuses are those people who create something that it is pratically useable (more or less) now, but madmen are those who create things which may be useful after a certain period of time? A Stone Age man who invents, for example, a keyboard will be seen as being a little "cuckoo" by his peers because there is no application for his invention; meanwhile another person creates a new kind of trap which facilitates the hunting process and is acknowledged as a genius.

Shorter, inventors who contribute to society in one way or another will be seen as geniuses; inventors who create things and ideas which have no connection with society's welfare and standing are perceived as madmen.

"Genius" is a title which is given to a person by the rest of the society. We smirk in a disbelief at a person who claims her/himself a genius because nobody else has approved it.

And so is "madman".

Nowdays, when things which used to be improbable in past are becoming real, it is becoming harder to earn both of those titles.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Every once in a while, when I'm looking at two issues and trying to see their relationships, I'll turn each into an axis and then cross them.


...................Madness
........................|
Genius ------------------------Not genius
........................|
................Not madness

Now you have four quadrants to consider:
Genius & Madness
Genius & Not madness
Not genius & Madness
Not genius & not Madness

Consider what individuals of all four categories might be like. Play with the results, see what shakes out.

Dave

 

[Claverhouse]

NB: Why define them? We'd just go round in circles. It should be apparent what he means.

It's not vaguely apparent --- there are many forms of mental illness. I'm going to hypothesise that by 'madness' you mean the genial variety of high-spirited instability portrayed for film artists or the soulful fugue state portrayed for film mathematicians rather than the unfortunate soul who wanders about continually filling his pants and not noticing it.

By making this link it should be obvious that the presenter should give his estimate of what proportion of patients in mental units are frustrated geniuses.

Conversely, he might add some examples of geniuses who were mentally unstable. Plus a list of those completely rational geniuses to compare. For every psychotic Newton you would have to accept non-insane Goethe and Liebnitz and Voltaire. If you got 1>50 'more-than-sometimes-odd' geniuses to mad geniuses I would be greatly surprised.

The definition of genius is --- apart from high intelligence allied to creativity --- rather subjective. Was Picasso a genius ? or Mozart ? If the first, why not Chagall ? or if the second, why not Telemann ?



Claverhouse

 

[Beat Mango]

It's not vaguely apparent --- there are many forms of mental illness. I'm going to hypothesise that by 'madness' you mean the genial variety of high-spirited instability portrayed for film artists or the soulful fugue state portrayed for film mathematicians rather than the unfortunate soul who wanders about continually filling his pants and not noticing it.

By making this link it should be obvious that the presenter should give his estimate of what proportion of patients in mental units are frustrated geniuses.

Conversely, he might add some examples of geniuses who were mentally unstable. Plus a list of those completely rational geniuses to compare. For every psychotic Newton you would have to accept non-insane Goethe and Liebnitz and Voltaire. If you got 1>50 'more-than-sometimes-odd' geniuses to mad geniuses I would be greatly surprised.

The definition of genius is --- apart from high intelligence allied to creativity --- rather subjective. Was Picasso a genius ? or Mozart ? If the first, why not Chagall ? or if the second, why not Telemann ?



Claverhouse

I understand the problems inherent in looking for a link between genius and madness when they're not defined. I get it. But you're going to find problems too if you try to define those terms, too, as the meaning of anything can never be pinpointed. So why not just have some fun in the hypothesising, despite the imperfections and limits that exist.

I'm going to hypothesise that by 'madness' you mean the genial variety of high-spirited instability portrayed for film artists or the soulful fugue state portrayed for film mathematicians rather than the unfortunate soul who wanders about continually filling his pants and not noticing it.

I assumed he meant that too, see? In fact it's quite obvious that he did mean that.

Edit: I just realised that playing around with the definitions was part of what the OP asked. Don't mind me then.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Michael Jordan was a genius. He could do things with a basketball that not even other amazingly successful, best-in-their-region players could even attempt. There are people who can tear apart and rebuild automotive engines, without a manual, and of virtually any model of car. That seems genius to me.

I think that genius is so much more than, for example, doing well on an IQ test or having the ability to produce a great work of art.

Dave

 

[Agent Intellect]

I think the problem emerges when people think of the eccentric genius. The problem with this is, firstly, that the vast number of people that could be considered genius (which by my own definition would simply be somebody that's noticeably better at their field then their peers/colleagues) are not eccentric - it's merely a stereotype of a genius perpetuated by television shows and the famous quirkiness of people like Albert Einstein. Secondly, eccentricity is not madness, nor does it lead to madness. Obviously some famous 'geniuses' like Kurt Godel become crazy (he thought people were trying to poison him and eventually starved to death from not eating) or to a lesser degree, Alan Turing who was penalized and publicly humiliated for being a homosexual so he killed himself.

But, I would agree with the notion that, on some occasions, genius (especially eccentric genius) might look like madness (or in the case of someone like Michael Jordan, inhuman physical ability), but I don't think there is any real relationship between the two.

 

[Oblivious]

Michael Jordan was a genius. He could do things with a basketball that not even other amazingly successful, best-in-their-region players could even attempt. There are people who can tear apart and rebuild automotive engines, without a manual, and of virtually any model of car. That seems genius to me.

I think that genius is so much more than, for example, doing well on an IQ test or having the ability to produce a great work of art.

Dave

This sort of genius seems to be the results of decades of practise and perfection to me; mastery of skill and tool as extension of body. As opposed to defying the norm and the creation/discovery of a new field of thought.

I guess both require defiance of the norm. One in thought, the other in skill.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

INTP............Madness.........................
........................|.................................
Genius ------------------------Not genius
........................|.................................
INTJ............Not madness...................

Heh, just messing about.

I think we're getting genius and creativity confused, one can be brilliant without creativity.
Also creativity and insanity are essentially the same thing, just at different levels of intensity.

But who can define sanity?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Also creativity and insanity are essentially the same thing, just at different levels of intensity.

I don't see it that way. I'm curious why you think so.

But who can define sanity?

Lots of places, such as dictionary.com:

1. the state of being sane; soundness of mind. 2. soundness of judgment.


Dave

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I don't see it that way. I'm curious why you think so.

Creativity comes from the human mind making illogical connections, madness is the same thing except to the extent that one is losing the ability to make logical connections.

Anyone can program a computer to create, but it's near impossible to make it be creative.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I wonder, is 'genius' something someone can only be born with, or is it something that we can train to become?

 

[FearDunn]

The attempt to reason all or the the act of reasoning all.
There is "the fine line".
I've been tested and told I'm a genius by professionals qualified to make such claims. I can say one thing with absolute certainty; Genius and 8 quarters will get you on the bus.

 

[mke2686]

Madness to me is encrypted genius.

 

[Moocow]

Madness to me is encrypted genius.

That's good. I was about to say genius is simply the ability to articulate madness for others, but yours gets points for geekiness.

 

[mke2686]

That's good. I was about to say genius is simply the ability to articulate madness for others, but yours gets points for geekiness.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Madness to me is encrypted genius.

That's good. I was about to say genius is simply the ability to articulate madness for others, but yours gets points for geekiness.

This is madness! Madness? THIS. IS. GENIUS!


>.<

 

[Stigmata]

Genius tends to encompass madness and visa versa. One might say that in some areas to not only question, but reject what has already been accepted by society requires pieces of both. They both breed innovation.

 

[Cognisant]

*waves to Artifice*

For those of you who don't understand, there was an accident with a time machine but it all worked out because in the end a wizard fixed it.

 

[NoID10ts]

^ Easy there cowboy, just because you post something mad, doesn't mean everyone will automatically assume you're a genius.

I'm living proof of that.

 

[Cognisant]

Y'know what true genius is?
Letting everyone think you're an idiot.

Which only goes to show that I must really be a total fucking moron.

 

[NoID10ts]

We only think you're a total fucking moron, therefore, you're a genius! Hey, look at the big brain on Cog!

 

[Stoic Beverage]

I've heard the "genius and madness" idea thrown around many times. I don't think they're equal, by any means, though depending on the context they may be synonymous. "Madness" is being totally off your rocker, as could be confirmed by a psychiatrist. This type of madness doesn't fit.
If someone is perceived as being radically different, then they may be classified as mad by some more rude people. I think this is where it stems from.
If by mad you mean "different"... Then genius and madness are the same thing.

 

[Cognisant]

We only think you're a total fucking moron, therefore, you're a genius! Hey, look at the big brain on Cog!

Yay!

Waaaiiiitaminute

 

[NoID10ts]

Yay!

Waaaiiiitaminute

Genius! Pure Genius!

 

[Cognisant]

*sigh* I concede, I'm a genius.

 

[NoID10ts]

ehhhh ................

As soon as you proclaim yourself to be a genius, you immediately give yourself away as a total fucking moron.

I must subtract these from you:

-
-
-
-

Sorry about this, my poor dumb friend.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Well, chances of getting things like depression and anxiety disorders seem to increase the more intelligent a person is. But not things like schizophrenia/narcissism or other more severe forms of 'madness'.

 

[sroro]

As someone with bipolar I'd say there's some overlap between the two but they're not the same. I can totally see how someone in a maniac stage can come up with something extraordinarily revolutionary in a field, but 99% of the stuff they'll come up with is just nonsense. Period.

I'd say Madness is highly limited genius (more blind-insight) whereas genius is something controlled and prepared. Imo madness can be a muse and genius is studying. I'd trust studying way more.

 

[nexion]

Every once in a while, when I'm looking at two issues and trying to see their relationships, I'll turn each into an axis and then cross them.


...................Madness
........................|
Genius ------------------------Not genius
........................|
................Not madness

Now you have four quadrants to consider:
Genius & Madness
Genius & Not madness
Not genius & Madness
Not genius & not Madness

Consider what individuals of all four categories might be like. Play with the results, see what shakes out.

Dave

(Never read the thread...)

BUT, I saw this post by chance as I scrolled down to reply (yeah, only I scroll down to reply while not reading the thread even though there is a 'reply' button at the top), realized that this is the exact thing I was going to say, uttereda few expletives, and then quoted it to say all this. Entirely pointlessly, mind you.

Good day.

 

[Moocow]

Is there even a purpose to classifying someone as simply a genius or insane, other than perhaps giving ourselves a heuristic way to decide who to listen to?

 

[kantor1003]

I wonder, is 'genius' something someone can only be born with, or is it something that we can train to become?

Much depends on which field one are talking about. In music for example, someone not born with a good sense of rythm and/or a good ear, can never be a musical genius as what they was born with limit them too much. Assuming they are mediocre at both those things, from birth, they have, perhaps, a small chance, they just have to work way harder. In general I'd say that what you are being born with only constitutes a small %, or works like an enabler, and that the rest, 80-90%, is hard work. One also need to address the issue of personality and how much one is born with.. a genius must, in general, be able to spend an insane amount of time pursuing/practicing/honing one area of study only.. something not many people have the discipline, focus, or any interest doing.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A genius is a madman who got it right.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Difference between being a genius and being a "mad" is that the genious figured out something and has explained it, while the "mad" person, is on to something HUGE but he can't figure it all out, and is perplexed by it but semi-understands it. so he is aggravated, mad-enned by it.

In SUMMERY
Genious has discoverd a incrediable fact
"mad" (used in context) Has discoverd an incrediable fact but its beyond his understanding.

 

[dark]

...
For those who want to skip my normally large posts, skip ahead to the ***

Ok I really don't think these are even on the same playing field. I think this stereotype came from simple matters. Ok I am living proof NTs aren't the smartest of types, but since we have a tendency to chase academics we get the "smart" title a lot. Also I am sure anyone in the NT categories have been called "mad" at least a couple times, I assume this is because of our "outside the box" thinking. Which I think it is the S types that label people, but I could be wrong. So inevitably some idiot thought the saying of the thin line between genius and insanity, or madness as we are calling it here. That is absurd.

There is no fucking line! This is not a cartoon, but it would be cool. I am sure I don't need to explain this part more...

Also there have been many really stupid madmen. Fucking idiots. Genius is also illusion like. I know there are tests, but aren't those tailored to fit some form of mind set that some feels is the best? That is just bullshit.

I know many times I have been called mad, insane, crazy and many other things like that, all mostly because of my off the wall ideas and random statements. Such as once in Pre-Calc in high school I was asked to answer an equation because I wasn't paying attention, I just started to explain to the class how the wall in front of us was moving... I was called mad and a lot of people thought I was wasted, which I wasn't I loathe the idea of drugs.

Also a lot of people seem to think I am intelligent, I am not, big deal I catch onto math and science at such easy paces it makes the teachers look like Forrest Gump. Let me show you how bad I am at other subjects, like say learning a language, learning rules of these languages, trying to pronounce words I have never said but constantly write and say in my head. Grammar I am fucked in. We had health classes, I almost failed that class, had to learn some boring shit about eating better, and other useless information I never paid attention to. I can sum all my knowledge up in about 30 minutes of conversation I am sure. I have no trivial knowledge, I can't tell you one thing about any sports, I don't know much about pop culture, I listen to like 10 bands in total, I play many instruments, but am not great at any. Because I am so well versed in so many things people envy me, thinking I am smart, it really annoys me. And I realize I am ranting about how these idiots annoy me. It is just stupid of them to think I am smart, when I am not really. I just notice they don't even try to learn, big deal I can absorb knowledge like a shamwow absorbs water. I have met smart people, they can't absorb knowledge like I can, but I know real intelligence when I see it.

These same idiots that call me mad and call me smart are the same people who came up with this idea. Yeah I agree I am mad, but not a genius. I take pride in being a madman, but letting people think you are smart, now that is very ignorant, they expect to much, I tried hard to make people think I was dumb, all I succeeded in doing was making people think I was even more clever... which made them expect even more. That made high school hell for me, not to mention getting the best scores on all those useless tests in my school, I just thought they were fun, it was better taking my time on those and trying to answer everything correctly than to go play cards with people I didn't like and I found it was nice to cause other people to wait a long time for me to finish, was a good way to punish the idiots who rushed it. They thought I was crazy for taking my time and thought I was smart for making the best scores, I just took my time and I wanted to make others suffer during the quietness of doing nothing. There was nothing smart about that, albeit was crazy to make myself suffer the test to make others suffer, but it was worth it I must think.

*** Madness and genius are not similar things, they are formed on different planes of understanding. A real genius I would think is someone like Einstein. Which is why the word are interchangeable. Now I don't find the word madness or crazy interchangeable with either. Madness is more interchangeable with people like Charles Manson, or any President of the United States and this guy.

I could be very much wrong in all this I must admit. I just don't think they are the same thing because I can relate to being crazy, but genius, nope. I would be more of a normal crazy person. And if being mad meant being around the genius level, well that would just keep me out of being mad, and that would just make me mad to think about.

 

[Citizen]

To me genius has always been coupled with madness.

Madness is simply the inability to make order out of a chaotic incoming stimuli which overwhelms the individual, thus creating insanity. Instead of taking in just the important stimuli you take it all in (imagine every sound, smell and image constantly assaulting your senses, with no filter what so ever, that's a bumfuck if ever I heard of one).

However, in a highly intelligent person (as in high IQ) that same inability to filter stimuli leads to genius because of the individuals ability to sort it.

Simply put, you can be extremely intelligent and not a genius, but you can't be a genius without also having a higher risk of going mad, as evident in the many geniuses/madmen throughout history.

This is also a question of intensity as an earlier post said so well, the more intense the stimuli (less filtration, more connections but also way higher risk of going mad if you can't sort it) the higher the demand for a high IQ.