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

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Pretty much what the title said.

 

[redbaron]

Me is a genius and yes me am one.

 

[PhoenixRising]

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.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I guess schizophrenics must be geniuses.

 

[Puffy]

I see geniuses as rare and exceptional innovators. I definitely don't consider myself one (one of my causes of frustration is the lack of originality in my thoughts) and if there are geniuses here I think they're a minority. Getting A in school doesn't count.

 

[Coolydudey]

A genius is essentially someone who can generate fresh ideas (from new perspectives) that are innovative and/or cause knowledge to progress. He is also capable of tackling difficult problems, not solvable by most people in a reasonable amount of time (or at all).

I might be something of a one, time will tell.

 

[HDINTP]

Talent can hit targets others can't or have difficulty hitting and a genius is someone who can hit targets that others can't see or just don't think about tha goes together with first I think.

I am not sure if I am one

 

[Proletar]

I have the potential to be one. As of now, I'm just a keen observer.

 

[snafupants]

I consider myself a genius. To me genius is an admixture of aptitude, audacity, abstraction, eloquence, efficiency, prescience, and imagination.

Spoiler

I see AlisaD lurking on the forum today, which makes me anticipate swift and wrongheaded rebuttals to the foregoing admission.

 

[Hawkeye]

Self-proclaimed genius is just arrogance.

It is a title given; not taken.

 

[snafupants]

Self-proclaimed genius is just arrogance.

It is a title given; not taken.

@Hawkeye

So the opening question was presumptuous. I wonder why I didn't hear from you earlier.

I feel that once the criterion of genius are established, one can claim to conform to the criterion or fall short of the criterion. Why must the appellation of genius be pure conjecture or hopeful largesse?

 

[Cognisant]

Only when I'm drunk.

 

[Vladimir]

No, I'm not a genius.

 

[intpz]

There are more than one kind of genius, a music genius for example. To me, however, a genius is the following:

I see a genius as someone who has unique ideas, can do a lot of different things without prior training. Someone who observes and sees things that are missed by others. Someone who's able to see and analyze things objectively. Someone who can be persuasive, even to people like SFJs to some point. Someone who can see others' true intentions (read people?). Someone who when thinks about the future, is able to approximately predict what will happen. Someone who can express himself perfectly in in writing, vocally or both. Someone who has a great imagination. Someone who is able to comprehend abstract thoughts. Someone who can always find something to do (provided he has the means). Someone who can get out of almost any situation. Someone who knows when to do something and when to not (I've in mind risky situations here). Someone who is quick to make decisions if he has the necessary information.

I might've missed something.

I see myself as a genius with no means to do stuff. This might be biased a lot, as it's a "self-evaluation," but I see it as that because I was born in a very righteous family that is really poor, in a very poor country where most people don't have interests other than sports, partying, smoking pot and fucking (and since the population is low, it's harder to find someone different than say the US). I have also seen myself much smarter as I was younger in the ability to do things and remember things. I theorize that this is because I have spend more time with black mold around me (which is quite toxic) and I don't get much food (especially good food). In the long run, I do feel as if I am getting dumber, not smarter. For example, I usually say "uhhh" before I answer a question nowadays, that was NEVER the case, I instantly had the answer. I used to speak really quickly, now I speak slowly most of the time. Either I'm utterly biased, or I'm correct.

On the other hand, I didn't find a viable solution, which is in my description of a genius. I, again, theorize that there isn't a good enough solution, as I've found quite a few solutions out of this situation, but all of them come with a huge price. It, once again, might be very biased...

 

[redbaron]

I didn't actually expect anyone to seriously consider themselves as (currently or potentially) a genius.

It is a title given; not taken.

Basically.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

So the opening question was presumptuous. I wonder why I didn't hear from you earlier.

I feel that once the criterion of genius are established, one can claim to conform to the criterion or fall short of the criterion. Why must the appellation of genius be pure conjecture or hopeful largesse?

It is a matter of politeness I suppose.

It's the equivalent to me correcting everyone to use Mr. Hawkeye BSc (bronze swimming certificate) when talking to me. I'd sound like a pretentious fool.

Or like in Japanese, where you never add san to your own name when introducing yourself. The only people I have seen do this are the bad guys in Japanese films.

 

[Introspective]

I have no original ideas on what a genius is and therefore I am not one.

 

[snafupants]

It is a matter of politeness I suppose.

It's the equivalent to me correcting everyone to use Mr. Hawkeye BSc (bronze swimming certificate) when talking to me. I'd sound like a pretentious fool.

Or like in Japanese, where you never add san to your own name when introducing yourself. The only people I have seen do this are the bad guys in Japanese films.

@Hawkeye

Is that comparison fair? Someone asked if I considered myself a genius and I responded honestly - I didn't demand that everyone affix that to my name on a daily basis. People can think of me as retarded: that's OK with me. The equivalency (from your example), in fact, would be like unsolicitedly admitting to having earned a BSc, which sounds bogus but whatever, when asked about swimming certificates. It's not like I volunteered that information out of the blue, you know?

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

Is that comparison fair? Someone asked if I considered myself a genius and I responded honestly - I didn't demand that everyone affix that to my name on a daily basis. People can think of me as retarded: that's OK with me. The equivalency (from your example), in fact, would be like admitting to having earned a BSc, which sounds bogus but whatever, when asked about swimming certificates. It's not like I volunteered that information out of the blue, you know?

Genius is a term to describe someone or something that is beyond one's own perceived ability or understanding.

The term cannot be applied to oneself as it doesn't make sense. How can you be better than you are?

 

[snafupants]

Genius is a term to describe someone or something that is beyond one's own perceived ability or understanding.

The term cannot be applied to oneself as it doesn't make sense. How can you be better than you are?

@Hawkeye

Well, I define genius differently, as evidenced by my previous post. For this reason, the question at the end isn't even philosophically rhetorical; it's fatuous and impertinent.

 

[intpz]

@Hawkeye I was to post the same thing as @snafupants. What I say often gets "compared" like that when I'm talking to an F, my mom mostly, to be specific. I'll tell you what I once told my mom (didn't do much good to an E/ISFJ): If you're making a comparison, make it so it makes sense, don't just say something that contains the same word structure and pretend that it is correlated with what I just said. (change "I" to "he" here)

 

[redbaron]

@Hawkeye

The equivalency (from your example), in fact, would be like unsolicitedly admitting to having earned a BSc, which sounds bogus but whatever, when asked about swimming certificates. It's not like I volunteered that information out of the blue, you know?

I think it's a fair example.

I'd consider someone bragging about a swimming certificate to be less retarded than someone self-labelling themselves as a (potential or current) genius without having the ability to verify it.

The guy with the swimming certificate can back up his claims (unless he's lying), and it's not exactly a bold claim either. I wouldn't really think any more or less of someone who mentioned it.

To be honest I'd probably respect the sense of humour and playfulness of someone asking me to call them, 'Mr. Hawkeye BSC'. I'd probably even refer to them as that just for kicks.

Anyone deluded enough to seriously entertain the idea that they are or could be a genius is worthy of any contempt they receive for doing so.

 

[snafupants]

I think it's a fair example.

I'd consider someone bragging about a swimming certificate to be less retarded than someone self-labelling themselves as a (potential or current) genius without having the ability to verify it.

The guy with the swimming certificate can back up his claims (unless he's lying), and it's not exactly a bold claim either. I wouldn't really think any more or less of someone who mentioned it.

Anyone deluded enough to seriously entertain the idea that they are or could be a genius is worthy of any contempt they receive for doing so.

@redbaron

John Lennon called himself a genius. Other people happen to consider John Lennon a genius too.

 

[Hawkeye]

@redbaron

John Lennon called himself a genius. Other people happen to consider John Lennon a genius too.

Many also perceived him to be arrogant.

 

[snafupants]

I think it's a fair example.

I'd consider someone bragging about a swimming certificate to be less retarded than someone self-labelling themselves as a (potential or current) genius without having the ability to verify it.

The guy with the swimming certificate can back up his claims (unless he's lying), and it's not exactly a bold claim either. I wouldn't really think any more or less of someone who mentioned it.

To be honest I'd probably respect the sense of humour and playfulness of someone asking me to call them, 'Mr. Hawkeye BSC'. I'd probably even refer to them as that just for kicks.

Anyone deluded enough to seriously entertain the idea that they are or could be a genius is worthy of any contempt they receive for doing so.

@redbaron

Tell me what backing up the claims of genius would look like? Be specific. The yield of genius according to your certification process should probably share some overlap with agreed upon historical geniuses. In fact, give me your list of historical geniuses. Relying on demotic opinion for genius is insane; the public is almost always beguiled in its tastes and appreciation for great works.

 

[snafupants]

Many also perceived him to be arrogant.

@Hawkeye

So what? Geniuses are sometimes arrogant. The arrogance itself doesn't repudiate genius.

 

[intpz]

Many also perceived him to be arrogant.

Many people consider those who know more than them arrogant. Go ahead, say "it's (im)possible because..." in a manly conversation at a bar about the evening news about another rocket launch.

P.S. I don't imply anything about John Lennon, I just heard the name and something about what he did. That's all.

Anyone deluded enough to seriously entertain the idea that they are or could be a genius is worthy of any contempt they receive for doing so.

With this logic, the term should be non-existent. Maybe only a couple decades after the guy dies he could be considered a genius, and only if he changed the world in some way.

 

[snafupants]

@redbaron
@Hawkeye

I didn't anticipate this turning into some race riot but I feel that according to my own definition of genius as well as conventional definitions of genius, which often include IQ scores, I'm squarely in the race. This is ridiculous. People haven't done that thorough of a job crafting an ironclad operational definition for genius yet they still hurl invective and gainsaying remarks. What are these aspersions and skepticisms predicated upon anyway? I say the burden of proof could lie with other folks: prove to me that person A is not a genius. Until it's proved that person A is not a genius, the claim stands. This would at least provide some intimation of genius via inverting the terms and decrees.

 

[hablahdoo]

Bias will keep anyone in this thread from making an accurate judgement about themselves. It seems rare to be agreeably considered a genius. It's usually reserved for people who have made some outstanding impact, being a little clever isn't enough.

It's a handy classification for society as a whole to use. But to use it on myself? I can't wrap my head around how I could judge that without compromising my supreme intellect.

 

[snafupants]

Bias will keep anyone in this thread from making an accurate judgement about themselves. It seems rare to be agreeably considered a genius. It's usually reserved for people who have made some outstanding impact, being a little clever isn't enough.

It's a handy classification for society as a whole to use. But to use it on myself? I can't wrap my head around how I could judge that without compromising my supreme intellect.

@hablahdoo

This thread is going nowhere but I actually fail to see the gravitas of the term genius, especially when the term's ill-defined. Define the term, then the term might be respected. I agree that universally being dubbed a genius is rather rare but I disagree that "outstanding impact" is the ideal criterion for genius. Solutions are best married to problems. The problems or fields someone of high aptitude addresses might not perfectly mesh with society's contemporaneous predicaments. This doesn't necessarily mean that person wasn't high functioning enough to justify the term genius. I also have an issue with the public's discernment of great works and high ability. You say that being a "little clever" isn't enough...what does a lot clever look like? Without a common verbiage on something, claims can't be disputed or upheld. Take abortion. The terms of abortion circumscribe what is and is not legally abortion in the United/States. Without an agreed upon terminology, law couldn't exist - well they could, but they would be without clout or justification - as there would be nothing tangible to call upon as proof or evidence.

 

[redbaron]

I say the burden of proof could lie with other folks: prove to me that person A is not a genius.

You can say that, doesn't change how burden of proof actually works. What you're proposing is fallacious. Burden of proof works as follows:

The person making an assertion in the affirmative is the one responsible for providing proof.

Example: If you claim you are a genius, it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to everyone else disprove the claim.

Example 2: I claim God is real. It is therefore up to me to prove that God is real. God is not real simply because everyone else can't disprove his existence.

Example 3: I claim that the leaves came first, then they grew the tree. It is up to me to now prove that leaves grow trees and not vice-versa.

As you can plainly see, reversing this line of reasoning isn't going to lead anywhere.

You are the one creating the hypothesis that you're a genius. You need to prove it.

That's how it works in the scientific, legal and philosophical methods. If you'd like to challenge the way burden of proof works in any (or all) of these formats, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

So what? Geniuses are sometimes arrogant. The arrogance itself doesn't repudiate genius.

You're right, it doesn't. In the context of the argument he wasn't implying that it was either.

His point was in lieu of my own; that if someone is going to self-proclaim genius, they are inviting criticism of their intelligence and personality. His point that he was perceived as arrogant is valid in this regard and supports the claim. Whether or not the criticism is valid or not can only be verified on an individual level, some of it could be, some of it might not be.

The point is that if you're going to self-proclaim genius, you're going to receive intellectual criticism unless you can prove it.

The fact you managed to take it so far out of context, as though Hawkeye's intent was to personally discredit John's intelligence is hilarious.

 

[hablahdoo]

This thread is going nowhere but I actually fail to see the gravitas of the term genius, especially when the term's ill-defined. Define the term, then the term might be respected. I agree that universally being dubbed a genius is rather rare but I disagree that "outstanding impact" is the ideal criterion for genius. Solutions are best married to problems. The problems or fields someone of high aptitude addresses might not perfectly mesh with society's current predicaments. This doesn't necessarily mean that person wasn't high functioning enough to justify the term genius. I also have an issue with the public's discernment of great works and high ability. You say that being a "little clever" isn't enough...what does a lot clever look like?

Firstly I completely agree that the term genius is vague. I don't take this description of the mind seriously, that's why I'm personally sticking to "outstanding impact" as the criterion for genius. You could instead use some measure of ability or intelligence, but why would you do that if you know what they mean? I imagine the value of intelligence derives from ability derives from actions.

 

[snafupants]

You can say that, doesn't change how burden of proof actually works. What you're proposing is fallacious. Burden of proof works as follows:

The person making an assertion in the affirmative is the one responsible for providing proof.

Example: If you claim you are a genius, it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to everyone else disprove the claim.

Example 2: I claim God is real. It is therefore up to me to prove that God is real. God is not real simply because everyone else can't disprove his existence.

Example 3: I claim that the leaves came first, then they grew the tree. It is up to me to now prove that leaves grow trees and not vice-versa.

As you can plainly see, reversing this line of reasoning isn't going to lead anywhere.

You are the one creating the hypothesis that you're a genius. You need to prove it.

That's how it works in the scientific, legal and philosophical methods. If you'd like to challenge the way burden of proof works in any (or all) of these formats, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence



You're right, it doesn't. In the context of the argument he wasn't implying that it was either.

His point was in lieu of my own; that if someone is going to self-proclaim genius, they are inviting criticism of their intelligence and personality. His point that he was perceived as arrogant is valid in this regard and supports the claim. Whether or not the criticism is valid or not can only be verified on an individual level, some of it could be, some of it might not be.

The point is that if you're going to self-proclaim genius, you're going to receive intellectual criticism unless you can prove it.

The fact you managed to take it so far out of context, as though Hawkeye's intent was to personally discredit John's intelligence is hilarious.

Craft a definition of genius first. The definition should pass the camera test, which means it must be tangible, and fully operationalized. Also, I believe according to my definition I can prove it. This is what I was asserting before. I need a definition to conform to such that my evidence isn't squandered.

 

[snafupants]

You can say that, doesn't change how burden of proof actually works. What you're proposing is fallacious. Burden of proof works as follows:

The person making an assertion in the affirmative is the one responsible for providing proof.

Example: If you claim you are a genius, it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to everyone else disprove the claim.

Example 2: I claim God is real. It is therefore up to me to prove that God is real. God is not real simply because everyone else can't disprove his existence.

Example 3: I claim that the leaves came first, then they grew the tree. It is up to me to now prove that leaves grow trees and not vice-versa.

As you can plainly see, reversing this line of reasoning isn't going to lead anywhere.

You are the one creating the hypothesis that you're a genius. You need to prove it.

That's how it works in the scientific, legal and philosophical methods. If you'd like to challenge the way burden of proof works in any (or all) of these formats, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence



You're right, it doesn't. In the context of the argument he wasn't implying that it was either.

His point was in lieu of my own; that if someone is going to self-proclaim genius, they are inviting criticism of their intelligence and personality. His point that he was perceived as arrogant is valid in this regard and supports the claim. Whether or not the criticism is valid or not can only be verified on an individual level, some of it could be, some of it might not be.

The point is that if you're going to self-proclaim genius, you're going to receive intellectual criticism unless you can prove it.

The fact you managed to take it so far out of context, as though Hawkeye's intent was to personally discredit John's intelligence is hilarious.

Meh, I believe one will receive criticism even if one can "prove it," whatever the fuck that means.

Anyway wouldn't the claim that person A is intellectually subpar also require burden of proof? Isn't this precisely the de facto null hypothesis of the gainsayers?

 

[redbaron]

Craft a definition of genius first. I believe according to my definition I can prove it. This is what I was asserting before. I need a definition to conform to such that my evidence isn't squandered.

We'll use yours.

To me genius is an admixture of aptitude, audacity, abstraction, eloquence, efficiency, prescience, and imagination.

I'm not convinced of any of these qualities aside from audacity and imagination, and my conviction isn't that you have these to such a degree that I'm going to be impressed.

 

[redbaron]

Anyway wouldn't the claim that person A is intellectually subpar also require burden of proof?

I'm not claiming that you're intellectually sub-par, only what I think of someone who claims to be a genius.

 

[snafupants]

We'll use yours.



I'm not convinced of any of these qualities aside from audacity and imagination, and my conviction isn't that you have these to such a degree that I'm going to be impressed.

@redbaron

That was hilarious - why should my goal be to impress you? I could merely show you some test score to demonstrate aptitude. I wouldn't need to convince you at all. Is one benchmark for genius impressing you? This is corroding into a fucking circus!

 

[redbaron]

That was hilarious - why should my goal be to impress you?

I never said your goal should be to impress me, only that I am as yet, unimpressed by your ability to display the qualities given by your definition.

But since you mentioned it: if you possessed all the qualities given in your own definition of genius, I would think you'd impress me.

 

[snafupants]

I never said your goal should be to impress me, only that I am as yet, unimpressed by your ability to display the qualities given by your definition.

But since you mentioned it: if you possessed all the qualities given in your own definition of genius, I would think you'd impress me.

@redbaron

Please furnish me with one or two dozen examples of modern genius. How many geniuses, in your estimation, currently exist of the seven billion people on this planet?

 

[oscillatingfractal]

Only when I'm drunk.

Two thumbs up d(-_-)b

 

[oscillatingfractal]

I know I'm not a genius, but I always secretly wish I were one and just didn't know about it.

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron

Please furnish me with one or two dozen examples of modern genius. How many geniuses, in your estimation, currently exist of the seven billion people on this planet?

Maybe a handful, maybe a hundred. Possibly more, but I don't think so. Not something I bother to keep a tally of.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Bias will keep anyone in this thread from making an accurate judgement about themselves. It seems rare to be agreeably considered a genius. It's usually reserved for people who have made some outstanding impact, being a little clever isn't enough.

It's a handy classification for society as a whole to use. But to use it on myself? I can't wrap my head around how I could judge that without compromising my supreme intellect.

I might have taken that the wrong way but that made me laugh

 

[snafupants]

Maybe a handful, maybe a hundred. Possibly more, but I don't think so. Not something I bother to keep a tally of.

@redbaron

That tells me something about your asinine definition, which hasn't really been elucidated yet. There are positively more than one hundred geniuses currently living. At any rate, maybe you could give me a few names that spring to mind? I want to understand more about your conception of this oft bandied about term.

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron

That tells me something about your asinine definition, which hasn't really been elucidated yet. There are positively more than one hundred geniuses currently living. At any rate, maybe you could give me a few names that spring to mind? I want to understand more about your conception of this oft bandied about term.

• Ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person.
  
• Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other.
  
• Possesses unique qualities and talents that make the genius especially valuable to the society in which he or she operates.

Not in my words, but essentially the criteria by which I would judge someone to be a genius.

I find it amusing that you would spend so much time talking about definitions and the ambiguity of the term, 'genius' only to then call someone else's definition, asinine and then assert that there are positively more than a specific number of geniuses - apparently disregarding the fact that there is going to be differentiation between the criteria by which you judge, and the criteria by which other people judge.

 

[snafupants]

• Ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person.
  
• Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other.
  
• Possesses unique qualities and talents that make the genius especially valuable to the society in which he or she operates.

Not in my words, but essentially the criteria by which I would judge someone to be a genius.

I find it amusing that you would spend so much time talking about definitions and the ambiguity of the term, 'genius' only to then call someone else's definition, asinine and then assert that there are positively more than a specific number of geniuses - apparently disregarding the fact that there is going to be differentiation between the criteria by which you judge, and the criteria by which other people judge.

@redbaron

I provided a personal definition for genius alongside my original affirmation of genius. I'm still interested in disparate and sensible definitions of the term. I characterized your statistic ("maybe a handful, maybe a hundred") as daffy because that number or ballpark figure, irrespective of methodology, far underestimates the amount of geniuses currently inhabiting this planet. How does that criticism betray my lack of appreciation for intelligent adumbrations of the term genius? Suppose I inquired about the length of a basketball court - if someone responded with four thousand feet long, I would discount that answer regardless of its provenance or methodology because it's dumb and not even close. Wait, do you really think that only "maybe a handful, maybe a hundred" people conform to that tripartite definition of genius that you graciously presented to the forum?

 

[intpz]

@redbaron, @snafupants It's amusing to read your argument.

@redbaron If you have a problem with the general definition of "genius," it WAS mentioned specifically. And I assume you do, as otherwise it doesn't make sense. Genius can be arrogant, even the "general" definition of the word doesn't mention anything about that. He called himself a genius according to his definition of the word, not yours. And you shouldn't have a problem with someone calling themselves a genius IF they have provided you with a definition of their own. If they haven't and you have a problem with that, you have a problem with arrogance: you think that the guy's arrogant, despite the fact that he might as well be a genius. Therefore, your assumption is emotional, hence rationally wrong.

@snafupants However, the final point is that you have given your definition of a genius, by which you have classified yourself as one (so did I) - that's what the word "genius" represents in your mind. Unless you are arguing about the general definition (which is illogical), you should stop arguing now.

Something else: It SHOULD your be your "job" to prove that you, in fact, are a genius IF you care if people think that you are a genius. Otherwise, you don't have to do anything. In fact, in this case he (nor I) did say that he is a genius out of the blue, he merely answered to the topic. If the topic wouldn't have been here, he wouldn't have mentioned that he thinks that he is a genius according to his definition of the word in question. Therefore, he doesn't have to do anything. Nor do you, as you don't have to disprove it, you have a different definition of the word. Nonetheless, you CANNOT disprove it, you haven't met the guy and you won't meet him. You won't talk to him, you won't see his thought patterns in real-time, you won't observe him, you won't give him a bunch of tests on paper. Essentially, it is idiotic to even think about disproving it, as this was the reason for this thread - say if you think that you are a genius!

P.S. I think I might be repeating myself somewhere on the way, for some reason I'm really sleepy. I've no idea why.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

= ability to find humor in anything

 

[BigApplePi]

@snafuP.

This thread is going nowhere but I actually fail to see the gravitas of the term genius, especially when the term's ill-defined. Define the term, then the term might be respected.

You make a good point. (Because I can disagree with it?) I think threads like this are good for bringing out associations rather than firming up defs. Let various usages run. That's what words like "genius" do. They are good for subjectivisations.

 

[BigApplePi]

A genius is essentially someone who can generate fresh ideas (from new perspectives) that are innovative and/or cause knowledge to progress. He is also capable of tackling difficult problems, not solvable by most people in a reasonable amount of time (or at all)..

A genius is someone tall enough to see beyond what you and others can probably ever see. (And they may have to put in the required 10,000 hours.) If you think you're a genius it's going to be hard to check that out. You can't go 'round seeing how tall everyone else is.

Anyone deluded enough to seriously entertain the idea that they are or could be a genius is worthy of any contempt they receive for doing so.

You mean Beethoven wasn't allowed? What about instead of giving genius to the whole person, we allow, "genius of an idea"? Like Thomas Edison.

Was Van Morrison a genius or just a talent? Can you do what he did?

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG8E...-9AUNAYj2Z85igZHoONeeilJ&index=1&feature=plcp

Can we call him a -special- -limited- local(ugh) genius?