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

[Hawkeye]

Having an IQ of 140+ only shows potential genius. This does not make one a genius.

 

[snafupants]

@snafuP
You seem to take wounded egos pretty lightly. I'm not so sure how my own ego is taking being dubbed. How would you like it if everyone went around dubbing you? Not so nice that. In any case, I will masochistically thank you for putting me in a state of dubdum.

@BigApplePi

Spoiler

To put aside that happy horse shit, how's the back today? Is the pain back?

-Back reporting- Reporting back:

Spoiler

When I took a shower this morning, after rest, the pain was isolated to a small muscle in front of that point which sticks out on my right hip. It's very small like a rotator cuff on the shoulder but I don't know its name. The way I think of it is it's a muscle you wish you didn't have. But I know that's just whining as I'd probably regret it if it were cut ... like the Achilles tendon, lol. I have to wait and see how it goes today. How are you, BTW?

@BigApplePi

Depending on the honor bestowed and people involved, I would feel apathetic or somewhat thankful about being dubbed something.

Meh, depending on the personnel, and the respect they deserve, I take affronts lightly or seriously. I suppose it's mostly circumstantial.

Spoiler

This reaction puzzles me. The foregoing was a joke, which I guess didn't translate too well.

For instance, what does "not so nice" mean? Dubbing is neither inherently good nor bad.

 

[snafupants]

Having an IQ of 140+ only shows potential genius. This does not make one a genius.

@Hawkeye

Does IQ 197 theoretically make someone an intellectual genius? I mean this seriously.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

Does IQ 197 theoretically make someone an intellectual genius? I mean this seriously.

yes it does.

Genius is a title given out of recognition for some achievement or insight (apparently).

Therefore, you would classify as a genius, but not by your own definition.

 

[snafupants]

yes it does.

Genius is a title given out of recognition for some achievement or insight (apparently).

Therefore, you would classify as a genius, but not by your own definition.

@Hawkeye

Prove it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Prove it.

There is no evidence to suggest you are. Unless, you are treating the attributes of your definition as "general" traits. In which case, we're all geniuses and the term loses any sense of value. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[snafupants]

There is no evidence to suggest you are. Unless, you are treating the attributes of your definition as "general" traits. In which case, we're all geniuses and the term loses any sense of value. It's completely irrelevant.

@Hawkeye

Isn't it your job to defend the positive assertion, which you just made in reference to my own definition of genius, that I am not a genius? Do you have evidence for this stance? Text isn't really that strong as evidence because I could purposefully be typing nonsense, and you couldn't prove otherwise. The onus is on you and unless you have cogent evidence one way or the other I can't see your viewpoint as holding much validity. The null hypothesis is that I am a genius; I have evidence to support such a claim. Shake me from this position. Please note that I haven't gone around discounting someone else's claims because I have no evidence, especially over an internet forum, to support that negation.

 

[Hawkeye]

Isn't it your job to defend the positive assertion

Hang on, it was you who self-proclaimed yourself to be a genius. Therefore it is you who has to prove it.

 

[kora]

Having an IQ of 140+ only shows potential genius. This does not make one a genius.

What moves one from being a potential genius to an actual genius?

 

[Hawkeye]

What moves one from being a potential genius to an actual genius?

Recognition based on demonstrating genius.

 

[kora]

Recognition based on demonstrating genius.

So if Shakespeare wrote all his works but never published them, he is not a genius because no one ever saw them?

 

[snafupants]

Hang on, it was you who self-proclaimed yourself to be a genius. Therefore it is you who has to prove it.

@Hawkeye

Sure. I will present my evidence and you may present your evidence. Your claim is that I am not a genius, which will require evidence, and my claim is the opposite, which I'm prepared to support. Now unless an arbitrator can be agreed upon this will keep going back and forth. What's your means of judging this data? To be sure, the terms used in my original definition of genius were kept vague.

 

[snafupants]

So if Shakespeare wrote all his works but never published them, he is not a genius because no one ever saw them?

That's fundamentally the wackiness of this criterion. Franz Kafka wanted all of his works burned posthumously; if Kafka's literary executor, Max Brod, had carried this plan out, Kafka perhaps wouldn't be recognized as a genius today. I guess, according to Hawkeye, Max Brod's decision basically dictated the death or survival of Kafka's genius for posterity.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

Sure. I will present my evidence as you may present your evidence. Your claim is that I am not a genius, which will require evidence, and my claim is the opposite, which I'm prepared to support. Now unless an arbitrator can be agreed upon this will keep going back and forth. What's your means of judging this data? To be sure, the terms used in my original definition of genius were kept vague.

now who's obfuscating?

 

[Hawkeye]

So if Shakespeare wrote all his works but never published them, he is not a genius because no one ever saw them?

Would he be recognised as a genius? No.

 

[snafupants]

now who's obfuscating?

@Hawkeye

You might be attempting to troll but I was completely serious.

 

[snafupants]

Would he be recognised as a genius? No.

@higs
@intpz
@Hawkeye

That wouldn't make William Shakespeare less of a genius, though, because it doesn't change the merit of the works.

 

[Hawkeye]

@higs
@intpz
@Hawkeye

That wouldn't make William Shakespeare less of a genius, though, because it doesn't change the merit of the works.

I know

 

[kora]

Would he be recognised as a genius? No.

I'm sure there are many geniuses in the world who remain to this day unrecognised. This does not make them any less of the following:


gen·ius(j

n

y

s)
n. pl. gen·ius·es 1. a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent:
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140

 

[snafupants]

I'm sure there are many geniuses in the world who remain to this day unrecognised. This does not make them any less of the following:


gen·ius(j

n

y

s)
n. pl. gen·ius·es 1. a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent:
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140

@higs
@Hawkeye

Of course there are - this debate is silly and increasingly baseless.

Hawkeye's specialized definition of genius is a radical departure from widely accepted definitions of the same term.

 

[kora]

Case closed I believe?

 

[Hawkeye]

I'll stop the trolling now.

I am arguing specifics that are not actually relevant to what makes a genius a genius. I just wanted to see how far I could push it, but it seems almost endless and as more people are getting involved and taking me seriously...

I will stop

 

[kora]

I'll stop the trolling now.

I am arguing specifics that are not actually relevant to what makes a genius a genius. I just wanted to see how far I could push it, but it seems almost endless and as more people are getting involved and taking me seriously...

I will stop

Sure doll, admit to trolling instead of "I was wrong"

 

[snafupants]

I'll stop the trolling now.

I am arguing specifics that are not actually relevant to what makes a genius a genius. I just wanted to see how far I could push it, but it seems almost endless and as more people are getting involved and taking me seriously...

I will stop

@Hawkeye

You're a piece of crap - did you plan that copout?

 

[Hawkeye]

Sure doll, admit to trolling instead of "I was wrong"

OK

I was wrong. You clearly have access to how I think.

 

[Hawkeye]

You're a piece of crap.

This may be true. In fact... It is

 

[snafupants]

OK

I was wrong. You clearly have access to how I think.

@Hawkeye

Another endless debate - the province of trolls. Get a fucking life.

 

[Etheri]

As combobreaker :
I lol'd at the last page. Cba reading the other pages, I imagine they're the same of this last one, but hidden behind long words and sentences.

Is genius something you 'do' or something you 'are' ? As for the second question, I'll admit to thinking i'm smart on occasion. I don't seriously consider myself a genius, but I might seriously consider myself among the top few % of the intelligence curve. It's not so much about thinking i'm genuinly smart, it's more about thinking that so many people are so very stupid.
-Alright, i'll get back into my cave now. -

 

[Hawkeye]

As combobreaker :
I lol'd at the last page. Cba reading the other pages, I imagine they're the same of this last one, but hidden behind long words and sentences.

Indeed.

 

[snafupants]

Indeed.

@Hawkeye

Twenty five years old and still pulling these stunts...please forgo kids.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

Twenty five years old and still pulling these stunts...please forgo kids.

Ha!, don't try to be all mature with me all of a sudden. That would just be hilariously hypocritical.

I'm being ironic here (Yes I understand irony... who knew!?)


Anyway, I've had my fun (as have others).

I'm leaving this thread.

Byes

 

[Minuend]

If an IQ of 140 is all one needs to be a genius, then that label isn't very impressive. I don't consider people with an IQ of 140 automatically intelligent. They are as biased and fallacious as any other. But, I guess that's just what being a human means. Perhaps there are no geniuses after all.

 

[kantor1003]

Time to reboot?
Ok then.
I have some questions about the definition earlier posted.

Spoiler

gen·ius(jnys)
n. pl. gen·ius·es 1. a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent:
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140

There seems to be a separation between intellect and intelligence quotient, am I mistaken in that?
This definition seems to exclude creativity, if not accompanied by intelligence, so, I must be mistaken in considering certain musicians and artists being genius as several of them weren't necessarily highly intelligent in the scholastic sense, but rather highly creative (original thought patterns) and individualistic, so much so as to shape the whole cultural/artistic landscape.

Can we, then, apply the term to them at all? What about calling them creative geniuses?
If I remember correctly from my readings of Genius101, it seemed that Simonton used the term somewhat liberally, in that there isn't only genius as considered psychometrically, but also historiometrically. So, writers, or musicians, for instance, belonging to our musical/cultural canon, can be considered genius, even though they doesn't necessarily qualify as far as exceptionally high intelligence is concerned.
This however, can start to open up the possibility to call Michael Jordan a genius (in basketball). But that, to me, would perhaps be a tad too liberal usage.

(Oh, if iq 140+ were required, Feynman isn't a genius. )

 

[kora]

I had fun...but now i feel a bit stupid if it was trolling.

 

[kora]

Time to reboot?
Ok then.
I have some questions about the definition earlier posted. gen·ius(jnys)
n. pl. gen·ius·es 1. a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent:
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140
There seems to be a separation between intellect and intelligence quotient, am I mistaken in that?
This definition seems to exclude creativity, if not accompanied by intelligence, so, I must be mistaken in considering certain musicians and artists as being genius as several of them weren't necessarily highly intelligent in the scholastic sense, but rather highly creative (original thought patterns) and individualistic, so much so as to shape the whole cultural/artistic landscape(?).

Can we, then, apply the term to them at all? What about calling them creative geniuses?
If I remember correctly from my readings of Genius101, it seemed that Simonton used the term somewhat liberally, in that there isn't only genius as considered psychometrically, but also historiometrically. So, writers, for instance, belonging to our cultural canon, can be considered genius, even though they doesn't necessarily qualify as far as exceptionally high intelligence is concerned.
This however, can start to open up the possibility to call michael jordan a genius (in basketball). But that, for me, would perhaps be a tad too liberal usage.

(Oh, if iq 140+ were required, Feynman isn't a genius. )

(granted, it should say and/or creative power)

Everything you say is true however

 

[kantor1003]

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure he wasn't trolling.

Edit: fuck, snafu is banned (I hope only temporarily). I really looked forward to a reply from him.

 

[kantor1003]

(granted, it should say and/or creative power)

Yes, the way I see it as of now, unless someone brings up a point to problematize it, I'd be in favor of an "and/or creative power" definition, with an emphasis on creativity. However, it's important, I think, that the creative output has to be novel and benefit society in some way, even though, as pointed out earlier, this could be problematic when considering whether Shakespeare would be a genius if his books happened not to reach the public eye. On the other hand, if it doesn't benefit society in some way, how are we supposed to discern from someone being highly creative when creating the first ever lizard blood painting, from someone that creates/invents something appreciated and enjoyed by society (thermodynamics, polyphony etc.)? As most would probably not classify the former as a genius, spite him being highly creative, but willingly accept the term being applied to the latter.

Edit: Seems like I've already problematized it. I guess this is a problem one faces every time one explores, or scrutinize an invented word (in isolation) to describe something that doesn't really exist in a strict sense. That doesn't mean, however, I think, (like perhaps most empirical/logical positivists would claim) that the term is useless.

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is where I once defined, "genius" and didn't want to do it again. Any quarrel with it?

 

[kantor1003]

Here is where I once defined, "genius" and didn't want to do it again. Any quarrel with it?

I might be grasping at straws here, but if I look at a tennis player and can't imagine myself being able to position the ball like he does, or looking at a mechanic and not being able to imagine how on earth he managed to fix that damn motor, does that make them geniuses?
Yes, it's commonly asserted that honing a particular craft for 10.000 hours will make you a master/expert (genius??) in that area. Not questioning that assertion (even though one easily could), would you say that everyone having done that would be a genius, or is there a genetical, or some other component as well to sort the experts/masters from the geniuses, as it were? (If two people spent 10.000 hours honing the same craft, would they be equally good?) Would this apply to all areas like, for instance, cleaning windows, or repairing fish rods?

 

[intpz]

You've misrepresented the actual point (again). He never said that a self-proclaimed genius must be a narcissist, only that it could be associated with narcissism.

Furthermore, narcissism in itself is not considered a mental illness. If he'd specifically said Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you could rebut his claim on those grounds. However he didn't. Delusions of grandeur are not necessarily a mental illness either. Simply having a degree of narcissism doesn't mean a superiority complex either, that's an assumption of what his opinion is.

I beg to differ, kind sir:

Either because of pure arrogance, delusion or insecurity. There is no reason for someone to self proclaim genius other than for attention seeking...

Why would anyone self proclaim genius other than to boast or seek attention either through sheer arrogance or some personality disorder? You seem to think there is a reason, so please enlighten me.

Why would one need to self proclaim genius?

Not sure I really want to get in the middle of this debate but, why is it a sign of personality disorder? If a widely accepted criteria for genius is IQ 140+ and you find that you exceed that, then it wouldn't be insane to consider yourself a genius, and therefore say so when asked (as the thread did) Wether it makes you believe you're worth more than the next person or not is a different matter entirely.

If someone says they're really beautiful and they are, then it isn't down to a personality disorder or even arrogance. Just accurate self-perception. And as long as they don't look down on people because of it then they aren't arrogant.

I believe that is what me and @snafupants were talking about. Welcome to the club of rationals.

Having an IQ of 140+ only shows potential genius. This does not make one a genius.

However, you can show a piece of paper saying that you're a genius.

Recognition based on demonstrating genius.

Even though @higs posted about Shakespear, I had a thought instantly after reading your post, so I'm gonna post it: if Einstein wouldn't have published any of his work, he would't have been a genius? We're moving into the viscinity of public recognition. A singer moving her lips with a turned off mic is a genius in many peoples' eyes. She has achieved a lot, she's made millions of dollars, made a lot of songs that a shitload of people have heard and know, songs that are played in movies and ads. Does that make her a genius? She's publically recognized as someone who's done a lot, a lot more than @snafupants, me, or some dude with a shitload of IQ selling burgers.

Would he be recognised as a genius? No.

We are talking about BEING a genius here, not being RECOGNIZED as a genius. Don't change your own arguments. Your posts contain more and more idiocy.

I'll stop the trolling now.

I am arguing specifics that are not actually relevant to what makes a genius a genius. I just wanted to see how far I could push it, but it seems almost endless and as more people are getting involved and taking me seriously...

I will stop

Once again, @higs posted my idea.

But hell: a lot of people have a hard time admitting that they were wrong. If I am wrong (which is quite rare, especially in real life), I admit to that, I say I was wrong and we move on. The people who don't, however, either keep clinging to their bullshit like you did, or the more creative ones (N) think of some bullshit story and just say it so they wouldn't appear wrong. Trolling my ass.

Indeed.

And a lot of ignorance. Oh, and proof that you weren't trolling.

@Minuend I don't either, however I have a pre-set idea that they may be smarter than the other guy standing nearby. And that is why I didn't say "a guy with an IQ above 140," instead I gave a description. So did @snafupants, by the way.

----------------

Well, good to see the argument has ended now. It is quite... tiring. And to think of it, once, a couple years ago, I had a thought to go to the church and talk about evolution. But then I thought - why bother? Good thing I did. Being an inactive asshole has it's ups too. I don't want my effort go to waste though, there's almost a thousand words here.

 

[BigApplePi]

I might be grasping at straws here, but if I look at a tennis player and can't imagine myself being able to position the ball like he does, or looking at a mechanic and not being able to imagine how on earth he managed to fix that damn motor, does that make them geniuses?
Yes, it's commonly asserted that honing a particular craft for 10.000 hours will make you a master/expert (genius??) in that area. Not questioning that assertion (even though one easily could), would you say that everyone having done that would be a genius, or is there a genetical, or some other component as well to sort the experts/masters from the geniuses, as it were? (If two people spent 10.000 hours honing the same craft, would they be equally good?) Would this apply to all areas like, for instance, cleaning windows, or repairing fish rods?

kantor. Good point. Picking up some straws, what I said originally will have to be modified.

To me "genius" is not a technical term. It's a "political" one. However if I were to try and make it a technical term, it would have in it something like this:

I see you as a genius (intellectual, musical, ...) if you have some ability I can't even imagine I could do. A key quality would be "emergence." However once I learned the secret, the mystery would be gone. I think the lecture will probably say that if you put in your 10,000 hours in some specialty you can become a master. Then others, having no conception of such mastery, will see you as a "genius."

It would take more than one person not being able to see how they dood it to declare them a genius. If I am baffled by how you did it, that is not enough. There has to be a consensus as "genius" is a social term. "You're a genius. You solved it!" is not enough. That's only an appearance to me. But if everyone around me and even some outsiders agree, the attribution builds a stronger case. Beethoven gets it because so many agree. What about Obama or Romney? Neither may get enough votes.

The 10,000 hours is slightly different. To be a master, one many need a lot of hours. Putting in a lot of hours may not do the trick. One has to build skill on skill on skill so that the resulting pyramid is higher than the ordinary guy can get to. Think "hierarchy."

Top sports athletes do put in a lot of hours and start young. Intellectual athletes I'm sure put in a lot of concentration. What about prodigies and savants? Well maybe the density of their brain wiring cuts down on the 10,000.

 

[Brontosaurie]

started thinking more of everyone as genious when I realized what it means.

 

[redbaron]

I beg to differ, kind sir

None of the quotations following this were made before your initial post, they were all made after. Meaning you had no specific examples at the time of your rebuttal. Establishing examples after the fact of a fallacious argument, does not turn it into a valid argument.

You have still not rebutted the specific point made.

 

[intpz]

None of the quotations following this were made before your initial post, they were all made after. Meaning you had no specific examples at the time of your rebuttal. Establishing examples after the fact of a fallacious argument, does not turn it into a valid argument.

You have still not rebutted the specific point made.

And yet I was (am! ) correct.

 

[Proletar]

This thread is spinning out of control.


Only those mad enough to think that they can change the world, or the course of history, actually end up doing it. Did Jesus or Napoleon suffer from illusions of grandeur? PROBABLY. Of course, so does many hobos and lunatics, but it's needed to have in order to advance.

I don't only see me as capable of doing anything, but everyone. Everyone is able to be a genious. If not through a built-in intuition, then by hard work. The world is full of possibilities. We are nowhere near the end of science or history.


So are you going to be sad all your life in the fact that you are a mere tool of society, or are you going to think yourself to be as great as any other genious?

 

[intpz]

Hard work associates with drones to me.

"I don't only see me as capable of doing anything, but everyone." - you realize that reading this in a specific way adds a sexual theme to it?

 

[Proletar]

Hard work associates with drones to me.

"I don't only see me as capable of doing anything, but everyone." - you realize that reading this in a specific way adds a sexual theme to it?

For the last time intpz, I'm not interested in attending an orgy along with you and your collective of vile homosexuals. (Like the ones from mad max 2)


Sorry. I was just reading your post in a specific way.


Edit: Would be cool to be a genious/innovator of sex though. What can you add, really?

 

[intpz]

I don't believe I have seen Mad Max 2, so I can't relate.

 

[Teohrn]

I consider someone a genius if they have some sort of innate cognitive talent that is far above the average. Success can shed light on the genius of an individual. However, genius does not require a product, and product does not require genius.

Then what is an innate cognitive talent far superior to the average human being? At what point is a person very intelligent? I believe that would have to be answered before genius could properly be defined.

In context of the previous. I can think of one very good example of a genius: William James Sidis. Supposedly, he had an IQ of around 250-300. Therefore, by IQ definitions of intelligence he would be considered a genius times four... or something like that. (IQ scores does not necessarily make one a genius but it is a valid measurement of intelligence to some extent. The problem is that it puts a concrete value to something very abstract that it does not have concrete understanding of. IQ is valid but not everything.) Anyway. He entered Harvard at age 11, he had learned eight different languages by himself by age of eight, and he even invented his own language. He published works on myriads of different subjects. He is hardly a recognized intellectual however, and he did not make any large contributions worth mentioning despite the fact that he was indeed extremely intelligent. All of this even though there is no questioning that he was an incredibly intelligent person.

At this point, I would simply say that a genius is a person that is very smart. What very smart is is another question. Considering that intelligence is an abstract concept yet widely and intuitively understood, is it necessary to make a very concrete definition? Intelligence is inherently a loose and abstract term as said. Why then make an effort to make it to something concrete, as if we are trying to sense intelligence? I think most people have an at least vague and common understanding of what a genius is.

 

[SLushhYYY]

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.