What's a Genius and Do You Consider Yourself One?

[intpz]

A genius is somebody who is actually capable to harness and put his/her Ni into action. Its hard as fuck to put some of my thoughts into words, which is the next step.

I used to have this problem, especially at school. I still do, but very rarely. Now 99.5% of the time I can describe what I think very well.

 

[shortbuss]

I generally score around two standard deviations above average. I'm not a genius, but I'm above average. But I often read arguments against reading too much into the results of IQ tests, and how they are incomplete measurements of human intelligence, and I tend to agree with such skeptical assessments. Perhaps skepticism is my cowardly way of never being wrong, hehe.

If I'm a genius in any matter it seems to be mostly in regards to practicing common sense and making practical decisions. I'm usually the person close friends regard when they want an objective perspective regardless of whether the answer is something they want to hear.

On an emotional, or interpersonal level, I don't think I'm very gifted at all. I am very withholding and guarded. I don't even mean to be. I'm just on edge in social environments, and I don't think it's hard to tell for those that are more observant and/or conscientious. I navigate the world of people with my preferred skills in logic and practicality, and this sometimes works, but other times it seems like I'm trying to solve a Japanese crossword in English, or fit a round peg into a circular hole. I've gotten better through trial and error, and just by gaining experience in the world, but as if to demonstrate my frail grasp of the art of socialization I sometimes sabotage my successes in sheer panic in the realization that I will actually have to take responsibility for the potential relationships I infrequently procure in these moments of unwarranted luck. The way my mind handles such occasions is worrisome, and unimpressive to make an understatement of things.

 

[Swole Silent Guy]

I have several definitions of genius. With an IQ of 147, I fit the academic one. Though I have below average emotional intelligence.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I would like to consider myself a genius but I remember that I was an alcoholic at the age of 14. That must of killed some brain cells. Look at me now! Doing a PhD. (They have really dropped their standards over the years.)

<--- look, look, look, I am also an ideologues. Geniuses can't be ideologues.

 

[kamari rised]

A genius doesnt read for learning. He reads for ideas. creative/imaginative

 

[Reluctantly]

A genius is someone who doesn't use and waste their time trying to enforce that they are a genius to other people, rather than doing something to exude genius.

AH HAH HAH HAH AHHHAAAAAAAA

And WTF is with Snafu about getting so worked up about proving/defining what is high intelligence. It's like he's out to prove something to himself and/or other people. First his IQ thread and now this. Jesus. :/

***Snafu
For what it's worth, even if you think my opinion is shit, you sound really smart. But posting on this forum probably isn't going to do anything for that. Run a corporation or something, get into politics, create something amazing with your mental focus and aptitude, write an awesome book, become a professor, I don't know, but arguing on here about intelligence is kind of silly. This forum is so pedantic and a lot of what people say no one even responds to or they ignore because they want to be right; it's like a special olympics for smart people.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I would like to consider myself a genius but I remember that I was an alcoholic at the age of 14. That must of killed some brain cells. Look at me now! Doing a PhD. (They have really dropped their standards over the years.)

<--- look, look, look, I am also an ideologues. Geniuses can't be ideologues.

Age 14, really? I don't know if you could be considered an actual alcoholic at that age. Most people haven't developed their ability to control cravings or emotions by then, so really the only way to tell would be to have a test for alcoholic enzyme concentration.

Anyway, good to hear you're achieving something despite whatever past you've had.

 

[PhoenixRising]

A genius is someone who doesn't use and waste their time trying to enforce that they are a genius to other people, rather than doing something to exude genius.

AH HAH HAH HAH AHHHAAAAAAAA

And WTF is with Snafu about getting so worked up about proving/defining what is high intelligence. It's like he's out to prove something to himself and/or other people. First his IQ thread and now this. Jesus. :/

***Snafu
For what it's worth, even if you think my opinion is shit, you sound really smart. But posting on this forum probably isn't going to do anything for that. Run a corporation or something, get into politics, create something amazing with your mental focus and aptitude, write an awesome book, become a professor, I don't know, but arguing on here about intelligence is kind of silly. This forum is so pedantic and a lot of what people say no one even responds to or they ignore because they want to be right; it's like a special olympics for smart people.

@Reluctantly, I found your comment about this forum being "pedantic" as being accurate. Remember, this is an INTP forum, so it's inevitable that it would be that way. I don't know what type you are, but if you're INTP, then you know we tend to be overly nit-picky and egotistical. I suppose you could say that it's part of our pretentious charm... the part that drives most people crazy (including myself sometimes).

And do try to be understanding of Snafu, most of us are on here because it's a place where we can actually talk to people who understand what we're saying.

 

[BigApplePi]

Some quotes:

This forum is so pedantic and a lot of what people say no one even responds to or they ignore because they want to be right; it's like a special olympics for smart people.

And do try to be understanding of Snafu, most of us are on here because it's a place where we can actually talk to people who understand what we're saying.

Hear! Hear! Here.

 

[Vidi]

Heated discussion about nothing.

'Genius' doesn't exist. At least not in the self centered, ego flattering & ambitious way it is usually perceived.

Genius is a conductive material, and ideas are like outside charges, signals. Whatever directs 'genius' and originates as a genius output result I see as a transmission of sorts, channeling maybe is a word. I happen to believe there are levels of consciousness, and ours being not of the highest order on this ladder, because we definitely haven't thought ourselves up. Something else did. Here we go God's issue again, but not to delve into it, the closest I can conventionally describe a genius is like that a tool of God. I hope I conveyed some reasons why I think the notion of a genius is overworked and I why I see it mostly as irrelevant.

Regarding myself, there is another reference in the Scripture... about everyone's being no matter his/hers importance still a member of the same body. Unfortunately, I begin to suspect the part my membership consists of is the part most conductive to a fart. Just seeing it from my humble perspective. Of course, I would be glad to be disabused of this idea of mine, but life is smooth here down under anyway.

 

[Irukanji]

A genius is someone who can see things other people can't. This can be a different perspective on something or physical details in the world around them. The more you open your mind to different perspectives, and focus on the things you observe, the more of a genius you are. And yes, I'm a certain type of genius.

Wearing nightvision makes you a genius now

I believe everybody has their own different intelligences, some people might be good as raising children but incapable of working out fractions or vice-versa. Judging somebody because they are incapable of doing or knowing what you know or can do is(in my opinion) incorrect. However there are some completely clueless people in the world who don't have a single ounce of logic in their brains and are unable to figure out the most basic things for themselves. I guess everybody was a weakness in one form or another, even geniuses(genii?)(assuming they exist in the first place).

Besides, no amount of intelligence will save you from the inevitable date with the incinerator or the worms/maggots slowly eating your decaying corpse, so why is the intelligence of an individual ever in question unless it is for measuring the length of your(the metaphorical narrators) proverbial cock against one another?

 

[SpaceYeti]

A genius is anyone who's IQ is within the top 2.5% of the population. Whether or not I'm one is irrelevant.

 

[BigApplePi]

A genius is anyone who's IQ is within the top 2.5% of the population. Whether or not I'm one is irrelevant.

You mean a population of idiots or a population of mensa-ites? In your case one of those would be relevant, no?

 

[SpaceYeti]

You mean a population of idiots or a population of mensa-ites? In your case one of those would be relevant, no?

Irrelevant. Idiocity and Genius are relative to the average of the population as a whole. People are stupid, ergo Geniuses are simply less stupid than other people.

 

[BigApplePi]

People are stupid, ergo Geniuses are simply less stupid than other people.

The less stupid person is a genius?
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...w=185&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:87

 

[SpaceYeti]

The less stupid person is a genius?
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...w=185&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:87

Out of the population at large, yes. They have to be significantly less stupid, but the point is that genius is relative to the population as a whole, not some sort of objective state.

 

[Swole Silent Guy]

Out of the population at large, yes. They have to be significantly less stupid, but the point is that genius is relative to the population as a whole, not some sort of objective state.

That would make an IQ of 130 the threshold for genius.

 

[Words]

Out of the population at large, yes. They have to be significantly less stupid, but the point is that genius is relative to the population as a whole, not some sort of objective state.

Does this only apply to a certain period of time? or is Prometheus or perhaps some early hominid the genius of their time? or when they invented IQ?

 

[SpaceYeti]

That would make an IQ of 130 the threshold for genius.

That depends entirely on the math of the particular test, as each of the major tests have different thresholds, but the same people meet them regardless what it is. A person with a 130 on a test with that as it's genius level will get a 145 on a test with 145 as it's genius level.

Does this only apply to a certain period of time? or is Prometheus or perhaps some early hominid the genius of their time? or when they invented IQ?

It applies to the time the test was taken. IQ tests are adjusted to be current and apply to the current population... the people who would actually be taking the test.

 

[Irukanji]

An IQ test can't determine how much actual, viable, knowledge a person has. Considering most IQ tests I've seen recently focus on pattern recognition as its only means of determining intelligence, what if they were blind? Or could play 20 different instruments or speak just as many languages?

Somebody might be fantastic at making parts on a milling machine(from metals) yet knows nothing about history or politics or languages or music, so he/she will be rated lower accordingly whereas somebody who knows some/all of those things or are simply good at recognising patterns will score higher. How is recognising a pattern indicative of intelligence? Anybody can look at a picture and see a pattern, but that doesn't mean you are magically smarter or better than the next person.

So, in reality, somebody who takes an IQ test and then pretends they are smarter than anybody else is lacking in a few areas(humility comes to mind) so in that regard they are just as good as an animal who cares only for itself.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The thing about IQ tests, is they tend to figure out how quickly people figure stuff out... how quickly they recognize patterns. That does not mean they have spent much of their lives actually doing so. No, IQ tests do not determine knowledge, they determine a person's ability to gain knowledge.

 

[BigApplePi]

An IQ test can't determine how much actual, viable, knowledge a person has. Considering most IQ tests I've seen recently focus on pattern recognition as its only means of determining intelligence, what if they were blind? Or could play 20 different instruments or speak just as many languages?

Somebody might be fantastic at making parts on a milling machine(from metals) yet knows nothing about history or politics or languages or music, so he/she will be rated lower accordingly whereas somebody who knows some/all of those things or are simply good at recognising patterns will score higher. How is recognising a pattern indicative of intelligence? Anybody can look at a picture and see a pattern, but that doesn't mean you are magically smarter or better than the next person.

So, in reality, somebody who takes an IQ test and then pretends they are smarter than anybody else is lacking in a few areas(humility comes to mind) so in that regard they are just as good as an animal who cares only for itself.

These are all good questions because defining intelligence is elusive. You are raising interesting objections.

I think recognizing patterns is one requirement for intelligence, but not the whole thing. Pattern recogniton ability means being able to find diverse relationships. But that wouldn't do any good if it took too long or if one never heard of the things to be related. That means memory and experience are required. Experience would provide more things to relate and memory to locate them.

The blind person couldn't relate visual things, but might be a great jazz person with great pattern recognition there. Knowledge by itself wouldn't be proportional to intelligence. Supposedly though, a rocket scientist is reputed to be intelligent simply because one has to build knowledge upon knowledge. At some point, a good memory doesn't do the trick because one has to relate large volumes of information with other large volumes of information. Memory would have to be exponential whereas apparently it is merely linear.

 

[snafupants]

The thing about IQ tests, is they tend to figure out how quickly people figure stuff out... how quickly they recognize patterns. That does not mean they have spent much of their lives actually doing so. No, IQ tests do not determine knowledge, they determine a person's ability to gain knowledge.

@SpaceYeti

There is widespread acknowledgment in the psychological community that achievement tests and intelligence tests are different constructs and instruments, although they tend to correlate highly with one another because both glance the g factor. Fluid intelligence is one's theoretical ability to learn and apply inductive and deductive rules whilst dealing with novel stimuli. In some ways, fluid intelligence, especially according to Cattell, is crystalized into more hard nosed knowledge about one's culture and world. The ability to learn (fluid intelligence) is shaped into real knowledge (crystallized intelligence) according to many psychometricians; indeed, factor analysis reveals a high correlation between fluid and crystallized intelligence. When most folks colloquially use the term intelligence, however, they mean high fluid intelligence and the ability to manage abstraction and theoretical complexity.

 

[kantor1003]

Unfortunately, it is fluid intelligence that experience a marked declines with age and not so much crystalized intelligence.

 

[snafupants]

Unfortunately, it is fluid intelligence that experience a marked declines with age and not so much crystalized intelligence.

@kantor1003

That's basically true - processing speed, fluid intelligence, and short-term memory nosedive hardcore around fifty five. Crystallized intelligence doesn't start to hotly wane until seventy five. I'm not very keen on living past seventy five anyway.

 

[BigApplePi]

@kantor1003

That's basically true - processing speed, fluid intelligence, and short-term memory nosedive hardcore around fifty five. Crystallized intelligence doesn't start to hotly wane until seventy five. I'm not very keen on living past seventy five anyway.

Holy macro! I'm on the decline. Gimme a break. Isn't there somethin' between fluid and crystal? ... Mushy intelligence? -Senile- Senior intelligence?

 

[Reluctantly]

@Reluctantly, I found your comment about this forum being "pedantic" as being accurate. Remember, this is an INTP forum, so it's inevitable that it would be that way. I don't know what type you are, but if you're INTP, then you know we tend to be overly nit-picky and egotistical. I suppose you could say that it's part of our pretentious charm... the part that drives most people crazy (including myself sometimes).

Well thanks for being honest about it; you actually bothered to acknowledge what I was saying before responding to it, rather than deny it as invalid, create a straw-man, or take it personally.
It's the pedantry where each person is just sharing their point of view and not really paying attention to what the other says that I find pointless. Why? Because it's just a contest of being right, rather than broadening and sharpening arguments and knowledge. Sure sometimes people are stupid, but calling it that way won't help change that; but it does degrade the integrity of the name-caller, turning observers away.
But maybe that's just the nature of internet forums like these (especially these) where people are much more concerned about feeling they have an outlet for their thoughts to the detriment of an inlet for what other people think.

To be honest, the only reason I never really accepted the INTP label is because of the ego thing. Being nit-picky can have many reasons and I don't really mind as its usually an articulate mind that will nit-pick for the benefit of clairvoyance where ambiguity would otherwise exist, but why do people feel it so important to put so much energy into making things an ego contest? Who do they think they are fooling, anyway, when they pretend it isn't about that, but something objective or logical? If there wasn't a desire to have their ego validated by others, they wouldn't keep pressing it when other people refuse to be receptive to it, right? And it's funny, too, for a place somewhat founded on Jungian psychology (well not really Jung, since MBTI is more like 'Jung for dummies' translated by dummies who didn't already have a dummy manual for reference) because everyone wants to know their type and know who they are, but if it means a cold hard look past the ego and into abstract and dimensionless (but highly insightful) ideas of what might motivate a lot of their behavior, they would rather stick to their simple rules and absolute ideas on typology in the name of unfathomable logic. Honestly, it's baffling. Of course, I'm not applying this to everyone, as a lot of people aren't like this. @BigApplePi and @Auburn come to mind, just off the top of my head. But, oh my God, the amount of people who present ideas as if they are absolute and treat simple generalizations as if they are objective truth and/or fact...I think some people find it entertaining to see how people react. Perhaps that's an INTP thing, but I don't identify with that at all or see it as very honest. I find it somewhat indecent, to be completely frank, even if my scruples are to have little to no meaning of argument here; it is the truth of how I feel about it.

And do try to be understanding of Snafu, most of us are on here because it's a place where we can actually talk to people who understand what we're saying.

Perhaps that's the idea, but it seems like a lot of the time people are too quick to assume they either know what they are talking about fully already or to assume they understand someone else when they don't. That seems to be a salient factor here, anyway.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

1. Start thread about IQ/intelligence ==> 2. Flame war ==> 3. ??? ==> 4. profit!

(though, to be fair, several of the comments haven't been using the kind of non-logic that seems to appear whenever a thread about relative individual ability shows up.)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Yesterday I could not spell 'genius'. Today, I are genius.

 

[kantor1003]

Holy macro! I'm on the decline. Gimme a break. Isn't there somethin' between fluid and crystal? ... Mushy intelligence? -Senile- Senior intelligence?

I've heard that the intelligence is transformed to some kind of ehm runny intelligence I think it was. Oh, and I almost forgot nocendum tergum intelligence, which is latin meaning roughly "bad back". There is wide disagreement between the scholars whether nocendum tergum is a form of intelligence, or whether it's just a byproduct of the intelligence being too runny.

 

[BigApplePi]

It's the pedantry where each person is just sharing their point of view and not really paying attention to what the other says that I find pointless.

I find it interesting to cite the Jungian concept of introvert and extrovert here. INTP's are introverted. Ti points to an internal world. At the same time Fe points externally to somebody else's world external to mine. So it's kinda natural an INTP would pay attention to their internal world. Did I say "at the same time"? Well not exactly. It alternates. Not sure how that works, lol.

Why? Because it's just a contest of being right, rather than broadening and sharpening arguments and knowledge. Sure sometimes people are stupid, but calling it that way won't help change that; but it does degrade the integrity of the name-caller, turning observers away.

Isn't anyone in their internal world, "right"? But if you are right and I am right, we will just have to combine our efforts to figure out what's going on. Stupid? Anyone can make a mistake which is different from my subjective view that you are an idiot for making it. How can I possibly make that judgment about your internal world?

Oh I almost forgot. You were talking about name-calling. Name calling is emotion (feeling). INTP's don't do feeling well. So let's get rational about it. What is behind the name calling? To heck with the name itself. The meaning of the name is not necessarily in my world. But it sure is in theirs.

why do people feel it so important to put so much energy into making things an ego contest? Who do they think they are fooling, anyway, when they pretend it isn't about that, but something objective or logical? If there wasn't a desire to have their ego validated by others, they wouldn't keep pressing it when other people refuse to be receptive to it, right?

I guess my internal world is important but somehow it's impacted like magic by the external world. I have my doubts so I want my world validated. It isn't getting validated? Well maybe I'd better push my thing harder. Since I am so right, how could you possibly be so wrong? That is a question: What explains your wrongness if you think you're right?

Perhaps that's the idea, but it seems like a lot of the time people are too quick to assume they either know what they are talking about fully already or to assume they understand someone else when they don't. That seems to be a salient factor here, anyway.

For the heck of it suppose instead of talking about another person, we talk about a spider. Dare I presume to know more about what I'm talking about than a spider? Do I know the spider's world? Can I spin a food web better than it can or is my attitude the spider has the audacity to crawl in front of me without knowing my intention is to obliterate it?

 

[addictedartist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEqq1pIa3Eo

 

[Yet]

A genius is someone who is exceptionally good at something (intelligent, artistic, inventive, social skills, etc.)

Z > +2 (IQ 2 std. dev. above IQ = 100) is just the cognitive interpretation of highly gifted & in psychology we do not call that a genius. Highly gifted scores on IQ tests I find normal in certain social circels. With a high score you have not achieved anything. And genius-dom has got to do everything with actual achieving. (ability is just a precondition for genius-dom)

I do not consider myself a genius. I do not think I am exceptionally good at something. I have not achieved stuff that is well known and recognized in society.

Usually a genius is recognized and pointed out by others than the ego.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Does doing original research in kindergarten count?

 

[Yet]

Now you mention it ... yep I do think so. Them littlin's sometimes do amazing stuff compared to their agegroup (and beyond). There are some weird talented kids. I saw a tiny piano player once that played better than most adults.

And I do love to observe little original researchers.

... you?

 

[snafupants]

A genius is someone who is exceptionally good at something (intelligent, artistic, inventive, social skills, etc.)

Z > +2 (IQ 2 std. dev. above IQ = 100) is just the cognitive interpretation of highly gifted & in psychology we do not call that a genius. Highly gifted scores on IQ tests I find normal in certain social circels. With a high score you have not achieved anything. And genius-dom has got to do everything with actual achieving. (ability is just a precondition for genius-dom)

I do not consider myself a genius. I do not think I am exceptionally good at something. I have not achieved stuff that is well known and recognized in society.

Usually a genius is recognized and pointed out by others than the ego.

@Yet

That's not even the psychological consensus on highly gifted so the genius adjudication isn't applicable. What you're describing is moderately gifted. The new tests have terribly low ceilings, especially on subtests, so they can't measure into the stratosphere of intelligence. An interesting historical factoid is that the psychological community once considered certain IQ scores near genius or genius (see Terman) when the tests were more competent in measuring genius. I'm basically done with this thread but I do consider myself exceptionally good at a few things, and combined with my aptitude and some constitutional features, this makes genius.

 

[Yet]

@ snafupants
I think you're right. I looked up the language differences interpretations of IQ scores in reports. I am not used to the english ones.

BTW --> Which new tests do you mean? Which ones are the newest ones in the US now?

-edit ... is something going wrong or did you just delete your post?
ow you just edited

 

[snafupants]

@ Snafupants
I think you're right. I looked up the language differences interpretations of IQ scores in reports. I am not used to the english ones.

BTW --> Which new tests do you mean? Which ones are the newest ones in the US now?

-edit ... is something going wrong or did you just delete your post?

Although the Stanford Binet III used ratio scores, the barometer went well past IQ scores of two hundred, especially for children. There are handy charts available online (see spoiler) for converting old (childhood) ratio scores to modern (adult) deviation scores. Well, I could be referring to the recently updated WAIS-IV that theoretically measures up to IQ 160 but nonetheless suffers from subtests that only go to the three sigma mark. Previous incarnations of the WAIS have been plagued by the same psychometrical foible. At any rate, there's evidence that stratospheric scores sharply deviate from statistical predictions based on the Gaussian curve.

Spoiler

http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/John_Scoville_Paper.htm

Spoiler

I find it fascinating that Marilyn vos Savant's Stanford Binet score (i.e., 228) almost perfectly matches her Titan Test score (i.e., 186) according to this chart.

 

[Yet]

thx

subtests that do not go further than the 3 sigma ; that would mean a TIQ is only an approach, educated guess, not a measurement.

At any rate, there's evidence that stratospheric scores sharply deviate from statistical predictions based on the Gaussian curve

yep! You do mean they are less accurate don't you?

Could only be solved (I think) if there would be made one for just the highest range (Z>+2) but you would have difficulties with the normgroup. (finding enough subjects creating norms)

-edit spoiler 2 = indeed fascinating
That is what I mean: some sort of titan test -

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Now you mention it ... yep I do think so. Them littlin's sometimes do amazing stuff compared to their agegroup (and beyond). There are some weird talented kids. I saw a tiny piano player once that played better than most adults.

And I do love to observe little original researchers.

... you?

In 2001, (kindergarten) I entered the Nevada state science fair with a project that showed that magnetic fields affected plant growth (primarily direction), and I got to be on TV for about two minutes. I haven't been able to find any research that was done on the subject in or before 2001. The next year, this happened. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/15may_maggrav/

Since then, several other experiments have been done on the topic regarding growth and germination, but I appear (tell me if I'm wrong) to have worked on this before anyone else.

 

[SpaceYeti]

... You were in kindergarten in 2001?!

Wippershnapper.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

... You were in kindergarten in 2001?!

Wippershnapper.

What age did you think I was?

 

[Yet]

@ Dr. Freeman
I have heard or read about that experiment in space ... great fun

How did you come up with your idea, your theory?
Youth is a great advantage for creative thoughts. I have lots. Somehow it is the trick to keep observing the world as a 5 year old (I mean: keep wondering about things).

You were very original. I am not surprised. I know very intelligent little ones. Even if they still lack full abstract scientific knowledge to work things out and do proper research, they sometimes seem to have talent for theoretical stuff. They connect all sorts of information that comes to them. It is some sort of hit or miss. Serendipity depends on hit and miss combined with an observant mind.

How old were you exactly?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

@ Dr. Freeman
I have heard or read about that experiment in space ... great fun

How did you come up with your idea, your theory?
Youth is a great advantage for creative thoughts. I have lots. Somehow it is the trick to keep observing the world as a 5 year old (I mean: keep wondering about things).

You were very original. I am not surprised. I know very intelligent little ones. Even if they still lack full abstract scientific knowledge to work things out and do proper research, they sometimes seem to have talent for theoretical stuff. They connect all sorts of information that comes to them. It is some sort of hit or miss. Serendipity depends on hit and miss combined with an observant mind.

How old were you exactly?

I was almost six. To be completely honest, I'm not sure how I decided to test that. I know I was fascinated with magnets, and I also knew that plants and animals had trace amounts of metal in them. I was curious if that would cause them to be affected by magnetic fields in any way. (Unfortunately, the experiment I ran only determined that plants are affected, not why. It could be for an entirely different reason, though my hypothesis only stated that they would be affected.)

 

[Yet]

yep that is kind of genius fun to read

It is no comparison to what you came up with but b.e. -->

I remember my daughter was about 5 or 6 and she was sitting on the back of the bike and we were biking over bumps. She was familiar with portable music (like we have I phones).
She proposed it would be great if you could capture the fun feeling of the bumps up and down and play it when ever you felt like it.

Made me think of virtual reality later on. It plays with audio visual senses and makes the brain send 'body experiences' it does not go through in reality.

She loves theoretical physics by the way but went for interactive media studies.