What is genius?

[DaDaMan]

Seeing as how this term is so carelessly thrown around. I have been asking myself what constitutes genius?

Is genius just talent in a specific field, if so, does it really deserve the title of genius? would a very good plumber deserve the title of genius just because he is the best plumber in the village? does an incredible memory alone give its possessor the right to be called a genius? I think its important to distinguish between mere talent at a particular art or science and genius. Surely genius deserves to be reserved for the most worthy?

So, who is a genius? a great mathematician? perhaps, but what about a great artist? or a great psychologist? It is not everyday that you come across a Gauss, Newton, Marx, Shakespeare or a Homer, so while there are many talented people, there are few who are significantly superior to their counterparts.

So it seems that there are many types of intelligence which inclines people differently and allows them to be more productive with regards to certain forms of productivity as apposed to others. Which of these deserve more esteem than others? Is it an ability see and think more abstractly? or more logically? or to have a keener intuition? or idealistic tendencies? or a keener awareness of absolutes?


If we can't come to a general definition of the concept of genius then it seems to be a useless concept. So genius must be universal and not circumscribed to a narrow ability.

If there are different types of geniuses then we are confusing mere aptitude or talent for genius.

Genius also if a person had it would be inherent (nature) and not the product of his times or nurture.

Genius would also not be dependent on the productivity or social contribution of a person as it would be something inherent. If the person were to produce something with thing of genius then it would be through the application of his\her genius potential.

If a person deserves the title of genius then their ability and potential should far exceed what any normal human is capable of. It should be unthinkable or revelatory.

How do geniuses hit the target no one else can see? how did they see it if no one else can? do they perceive the absolutes which mortals with their relative thinking have no inkling about? How is it that they get the intuitions they get?

I think a genius would be someone who has a unique way of perceiving the world which is not conditioned but intrinsic, this allows them to grasp aspects of reality that a normal person overlooks or does not have the capacity to recognize. In addition, such a person possibly has intuitive and perceptive faculties that are keener and more differentiated than an average persons. I also think the intellect of a genius would be more objective and freed from petty motives. This objectivity is necessary if the persons thinking is grasp universal and absolutes.


What are your thoughts? how would you defined genius?

 

[Teffnology]

Ive always viewed genius as a dichotomy with madness. So commonly the people in history that have been given the genius label often exhibited observable qualities of madness. Beethoven, Mozart, Einstein, etc.

Possibly it could relate to the geniuses ability to move about autonomosly on this spectrum, never able to reach their full genius potential without embracing the other end of the spectrum. Using the knowledge and insight that can only be gained on the madness side to enhance their genius thinking.

It could be that their madness, when kept in reason, fuels their genius and thus a genius cannot exist without madness.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Genius is nothing more than being in the top 2.5% of people in terms of pattern recognition. It just means you learn quicker than other people, in a more lay-way. Anyone can learn basically anything, it just takes less effort the higher your IQ is.

 

[DaDaMan]

Genius is nothing more than being in the top 2.5% of people in terms of pattern recognition. It just means you learn quicker than other people, in a more lay-way. Anyone can learn basically anything, it just takes less effort the higher your IQ is.

lol...

2.5%? thats a very exact figure, may I ask how you got to that figure?

 

[Grayman]

I feel like this was already discussed in the most recent thread about 'genius'.

"If a person deserves the title of genius then their ability and potential should far exceed what any normal human is capable of. It should be unthinkable or revelatory."

We all sit on a scale and are reading different books so who gets the have the chalk and who gets to draw the arbitrary line of what books are important and where the line should be on that scale?

 

[StevenM]

Genius is nothing more than being in the top 2.5% of people in terms of pattern recognition.

Ive always viewed genius as a dichotomy with madness.

"pattern recognition"
"madness"
"dichotomy"

I've just had an idea.

Perhaps, in a meta-like way, the whole main purpose of the workings of the brain is to identify patterns. Taking otherwise absurd and meaningless data and information, and creating meaning, structure, and predictability from that.

Even when identifying something as 'meaningless' it's still identifying it as something of structure and purpose. That structure lies in our idea of what 'meaningless' is.

But then, that makes this questionable: Are all things merely absurd, and meaningless? My tree viewed from the back window stays in it's spot, day after day, when I wake up, I can be sure it's going to be there. So surely, not all is absurd?

Yes perhaps, it has more likelihood to be there. But there is still chances of waking up one day, and not seeing my tree, for any of zillions of possible reasons.

Also interesting, is that perhaps Jung's cognitive functions can be applied. There could be 'thinking' genius, where a person's temperament is slightly more evolved to identify patterns of 'reasons'. For example, the day I viewed out my window, and seen my tree laying on the ground all chopped up, I could identify reason that a person using a chainsaw has done that. It would at least be the most likely explanation.

And then 'feeling' genius, where a person can identify more patterns relating to people. I find people with genius Fe, may boast of being able to pick up on people's 'energy', (or a better way to put it), their psychological mindset, and also have good abilities to influence that.

And the same for the perceiving cognitive functions.

So perhaps, it's all just making sense out of absurdity. Whether things are actually absurd, or meaningful, it's hard to tell.

The numbers 8, 2, 843, 82, 1 in that order, are supposed to have no meaning or pattern, because I just mashed the keypad. But perhaps, a genius can create a algebraic algorithm that produces those numbers in that order, and now, we have a pattern.

 

[QuickTwist]

Just because "we" may not be able to agree what constitutes what a genius is does not mean it is a useless term. Coming to a common ground will surely bring understanding. Gaining perspective from others on this subject is what this thread is about right? Genius is not to be used as a ridged term imo, but rather a more flexible definition to which everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. It is the same as MBTI/Jungian. One person can say a celebrity is INTJ and another can say INFP, and yet another can say ISFP. There are no boundaries for a term like this which was originally used to measure a child's knowledge base, but has changed over the years to something of a ambiguous term.

 

[Teffnology]

Brilliant! Genius absolutely manifests itself in a variety of forms and this helps to distinguish that pattern in an objective, relatively, manner. Nice connection sir!

 

[Teffnology]

Just because "we" may not be able to agree what constitutes what a genius is does not mean it is a useless term. Coming to a common ground will surely bring understanding. Gaining perspective from others on this subject is what this thread is about right? Genius is not to be used as a ridged term imo, but rather a more flexible definition to which everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. It is the same as MBTI/Jungian. One person can say a celebrity is INTJ and another can say INFP, and yet another can say ISFP. There are no boundaries for a term like this which was originally used to measure a child's knowledge base, but has changed over the years to something of a ambiguous term.

I agree that the concept on genius is inherently subjective but we can all atempt to gain a broader knowledge of the manifestations of genius and further investigating those that we percieve to be geniuses, and their journey to genius-hood.

 

[QuickTwist]

I do not deserve such praise. To be truthful, there was a huge amount of satire of my comment. I was actually giving the 'fuck you' to rigidness and even strict classifications for anything that has to do with measuring intelligence and MBTI at the same time.

 

[StevenM]

Damn, I forgot to add the 'madness' element.

In my opinion, madness could be caused from finding 'too many patterns'. Patterns made that shouldn't have been made.

Perhaps, that could be why madness and genius are related in some way.

 

[TBerg]

Genius is what genius does. Genius is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Just don't get the cheap kind that only fills you with sugar and doesn't have a hint of delicacy. My chocolate sucks most of the time. Be proud of your hard work. No one gets a fucking medal for minimal effort.

 

[Teffnology]

I was more praising TMills connection and lumped in your anti-rigidity of the genius concept.

In regards to madness I think that it manifests itself when consistent road blocks are encountered both intellectually in their thought processes and also in the case of interference by the outer world and percieved tempermentalism. Thus a continuum of ebbs and flows in their journey is expected

 

[QuickTwist]

I was more praising TMills connection and lumped in your anti-rigidity of the genius concept.

In regards to madness I think that it manifests itself when consistent road blocks are encountered both intellectually in their thought processes and also in the case of interference by the outer world and percieved tempermentalism. Thus a continuum of ebbs and flows in their journey is expected

Good point.

 

[Grayman]

I was more praising TMills connection and lumped in your anti-rigidity of the genius concept.

In regards to madness I think that it manifests itself when consistent road blocks are encountered both intellectually in their thought processes and also in the case of interference by the outer world and percieved tempermentalism. Thus a continuum of ebbs and flows in their journey is expected

I dont understand this madness concept either. We are all mad[or more that we are all not]. We simply assume the other is mad because we cannot make the same connections as they.

 

[Teffnology]

The correlation we are making is the assumption of a pattern that genius and madness are CLOSELY related in various instances. Not asserting causality but more a painting of a picture that a percieved genius walks a finer line in these dynamics, than does a more rounded person so to speak

 

[QuickTwist]

I would say the people that are at the tippy top of intelligence often have a sort of madness about them, but there are plenty of people who are average intelligence who are mad and close to as many who are "stable" and deserve the title of genius as well. Just go to a mental institution and you will see there are plenty of geniuses there and many people who are just meh.

 

[Teffnology]

Agreed

 

[Grayman]

Even drug abusers make sense to me. If anything they are easier to read than anyone. It is the psychotics that confound me if only because I cannot share in their illusions.

 

[QuickTwist]

Even drug abusers make sense to me. If anything they are easier to read than anyone. It is the psychotics that confound me if only because I cannot share in their illusions.

The question becomes "does their addiction skew their behavior to produce a lower overall intelligence?"

 

[DaDaMan]

Just because "we" may not be able to agree what constitutes what a genius is does not mean it is a useless term. Coming to a common ground will surely bring understanding. Gaining perspective from others on this subject is what this thread is about right? Genius is not to be used as a ridged term imo, but rather a more flexible definition to which everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. It is the same as MBTI/Jungian. One person can say a celebrity is INTJ and another can say INFP, and yet another can say ISFP. There are no boundaries for a term like this which was originally used to measure a child's knowledge base, but has changed over the years to something of a ambiguous term.

I disagree, if "we" can't come up with a definite and acceptable definition of the word then it is useless to use it.

Yes, I want to gain perspective from others.

If it is a flexible term which everyone is entitled to have an opinion on, then it loses its meaning.

MBTI also suffers from poor definition and delineation hence its full or errors and subject to ambiguity, subjectivity and error.

"There are no boundaries for a term like this which was originally used to measure a child's knowledge base" ...are you merely speculating?

 

[QuickTwist]

IQ is a ratio which means Intelligence Quotient. It was used to determine the mental age of a child or adolescent through a series of questions which were knowledge based and their IQ was calculated using their score on their test compared to their age.

 

[Aerl]

If I am to provide a definition, I'd go with:

Genius is someone who shows remarkable skill in some field and works
hard in mastering it.

Or "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% hard work", to me, genius is all about mastering
a skill, because anyone can be talented, but genius is one who will or try to master it.

Edit: In other news today from yesterday, genius is a new synonim for innovative.

 

[Vrecknidj]

We could try to collectively arrive at a definition by providing examples of genius, and evidence for those examples, and then trying to ascertain the key essences of those examples.

Michael Jordan was a basketball genius.
Isaac Newton was a math/physics genius.
Bach was a musical genius.
Shakespeare was a poetry/play/dramatist genius.
Archimedes was a math/physics genius.
Machiavelli was a political genius.
Nietzsche was a language/culture/philosophy genius.

Etc.

 

[Grayman]

If it is a flexible term which everyone is entitled to have an opinion on, then it loses its meaning.

Hardly. You only realize that there was never a meaning. The meaning wasn't lost only it never existed.

When someone says that another person is a genius it 'communicates' a lot. It says that this person is impressed by this other individual and sees what this individual has done as major achievement and success that most would be unable to achieve. But these contain a multitude of subjective judgments and perceptions. The fact that it is subjective and not objective does not make it less valuable. It is important in understanding others and how they might react to each other and address this person who they deem as a genius.

The only failure and misconception one can make is in assuming that one own's objective definition of genius is not yet another definition with subjective roots.

 

[Brontosaurie]

the genius spirit requires humility and open mind so that that which comes out of megalonia of the self has been rejected from the class of genius masterwork.

and the work itself must be a pleasurable belliggerant compulsion

 

[DaDaMan]

If I am to provide a definition, I'd go with:

Genius is someone who shows remarkable skill in some field and works
hard in mastering it.

Or "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% hard work", to me, genius is all about mastering
a skill, because anyone can be talented, but genius is one who will or try to master it.

Edit: In other news today from yesterday, genius is a new synonim for innovative.

Remarkable skill in a field is just mastery or talent.

Surely, the title of genius should be reserved for the rarest and most exceptional few.

We could try to collectively arrive at a definition by providing examples of genius, and evidence for those examples, and then trying to ascertain the key essences of those examples.

Michael Jordan was a basketball genius.
Isaac Newton was a math/physics genius.
Bach was a musical genius.
Shakespeare was a poetry/play/dramatist genius.
Archimedes was a math/physics genius.
Machiavelli was a political genius.
Nietzsche was a language/culture/philosophy genius.

Etc.

I like your approach.

Does Michael Jordan deserve to be in this list? surely genius refers to an ability of cerebral nature.

Hardly. You only realize that there was never a meaning. The meaning wasn't lost only it never existed.

When someone says that another person is a genius it 'communicates' a lot. It says that this person is impressed by this other individual and sees what this individual has done as major achievement and success that most would be unable to achieve. But these contain a multitude of subjective judgments and perceptions. The fact that it is subjective and not objective does not make it less valuable. It is important in understanding others and how they might react to each other and address this person who they deem as a genius.

The only failure and misconception one can make is in assuming that one own's objective definition of genius is not yet another definition with subjective roots.

I see your point, however, I think we can all atleast agree that genius refers to exceptional human cerebral ability or something along those lines. So I disagree with your statement that a meaning never existed. A vague meaning has always been implied and has existed.

I agree that there is a subjective use of the word as per the example you gave, but the point of this thread is to come up with an objective definition.

 

[QuickTwist]

Genius use to be a specific term. A term that puts an individual in the upper 2.5% of the population of people who have taken a specific test. This test was found to not be an accurate measurement of intelligence thereby making the classification of genius somewhat erroneous and now is a term open to interpretation. The human language and its classification's are a fluid rather than stagnant or static representation of what those classifications and words actually mean and they change, sometimes significantly, over time. The terminology and dichotomy we use today as a whole is quite a bit different that what it was even 100 years ago. To understand this is to know that given enough time any word or classification can change over time. With this said and given the nature of the word 'genius' it should be no surprise that at this point in time we will not either as a forum basis, nor as a universal basis, ever fully agree on this term.

If I was personally going to put a definition on the word 'genius' it would be this: a person who has a quality of greatness to them for their pursuits, which changes how or what, and even why things are done by others for a period after they have accomplished this greatness from their pursuits; the more widely spread the change is made from a universal perspective, the the more genuine the quality of the person of said genius.

 

[Grayman]

Well then...the closest thing you will get to for a objective or agreed upon defintion can be found in the dictionary so what is the point to all this?

 

[Aerl]

Well then...the closest thing you will get to for a objective or agreed upon defintion can be found in the dictionary so what is the point to all this?

Most probably entertainment in redefining things, this opens up new possibilities
and or applications, different perspective, originality.

 

[Grayman]

Most probably entertainment in redefining things, this opens up new possibilities
and or applications, different perspective, originality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm

Seems that the objective standards are based on methods that are not much more complex than this but then again maybe I just didn't read it well enough.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Does Michael Jordan deserve to be in this list? surely genius refers to an ability of cerebral nature.

I included him on the list on purpose. I don't know how many people are in the NBA at any given time, but...

Let's say there are a few million people who play basketball, and tens of thousands who play at the college level. In the history of the game, there have been tens of thousands of very highly skilled players, people good enough to be professionals. Of those, maybe one hundred have been legendary, and, of those, maybe a dozen fall into the "best ever" group.

I would argue (I'm not a basketball fan, so I'm just reaching here...) that Michael Jordan belongs in this "best ever" group, and I'm not at all convinced that his being in that group isn't, in large part, "cerebral."

The dedication, skill, study of other players, knowledge of how the game works, etc., etc., had to have been amazing.

 

[Haim]

A person that have highly useful intelligence(emotional or as tested by iq tests)
and have the creativity,imagination and will to use it in a noteworthy/highly impressive way.

Intelligence is the tool.
"creativity,imagination and will" is the person.
Knowledge is the wood,the material he work with to make his creation.
From their to nobel prize work and practice is needed.

Induction of one being a genius is being highly influential in his field/other through many many years(time test) that is not directly related to position or power.
The influence came from revolutionary looks or discovers
or achieving a special goal in a nonstandard way.