How Do You Define a Genius and What is One to You?

[amanda more]

Genius is, as the old saying goes, a combination of inspiration and perspiration. You must have an inclination for knowledge (inspiration) and the willingness to advance it (perspiration).

 

If you are able to combine these two traits and advance the state of scientific knowledge, then you have met the minimum requirements for consideration as a genius.

 

It's not enough to be smart. I am smart. Most people reading this science forum are smart. We are all human beings gifted with large brains; being smart is a default human condition so it's not really much of a bragging point. If you want to be a genius, you must be able to successfully apply yourself and do something novel with your brain.

 

My opinion is that, if your name is prominently attached to a successfully tested theory in your chosen discipline, then you are probably a genius.

[amanda more]

Acts of genius versus the entity of having a state of intelligence at a genius level. We are a tribal species. If an individual has a high IQ but it is not nurtured by his environment then how can he fulfill his potential? If he is raised alone practically with no one else who can talk with him then it would be very hard to learn to accomplish things in the world at large. A simple example is there must have been millions of females who had as high an IQ as their husbands but we don't hear about them. There the environment is more than just childhood socialization but a real barrier to apply what they learn and to have the resources to learn.

 

An average person can certainly have flashes of genius. In the right time and place these can even be productive and recognized.

[baric]

A simple example is there must have been millions of females who had as high an IQ as their husbands but we don't hear about them.

 

Millions? More like billions.

[Ghaz]

I think geniuses find their own paths. These paths are usually visionary - paths unseen to the rest of us - until they are illuminated by power of genius:)

Earlier I was telling people that - to me - a genius idea is one which is close but nobody thought of before. These people reacted by saying that I have exactly those type of ideas quite often which would make me - as a logical consequence - to a genius. In this moment I could not say yes or no, since I never figured out what a genius really is, I only thought about what a genius idea may be. And I have to admit I am a logical and creative thinker at the same time and think in a different way than most people, which often leads me to have ideas which many people don't see at first and become astonished after I point it out to them.

 

With this thread I'd like to ask you - the intellectuals - what a "genius" to you is and how you define it?

 

 

p.s. I know that this topic is not the typical psychology discussion, but these questions come up in psychology as well, there is no reason to sabotage this thread if you do not like it, simply keep it moving - we are on a virtual forum.

[The 321 Anomaly]

I think having cognitive abilities that are very advanced is one quality of a genius. If one is able to proficiently utilize their memory, judgment, and perception to succeed in accomplishing great intellectual feats, I believe that makes them a genius. The Encyclopedia Britannica Guide to the Brain discusses different ideas concerning what it means to be intelligent. One of these ideas was that the ability to solve analogies (a psychometric factor, as the book indicates) is one determinant of intelligence. To me this seems like a fair statement. But on the whole, I summarize a genius as one who fulfills their potential to become an intellectual powerhouse, and I believe many people have that potential.

[amanda more]

I think having cognitive abilities that are very advanced is one quality of a genius. If one is able to proficiently utilize their memory, judgment, and perception to succeed in accomplishing great intellectual feats, I believe that makes them a genius. The Encyclopedia Britannica Guide to the Brain discusses different ideas concerning what it means to be intelligent. One of these ideas was that the ability to solve analogies (a psychometric factor, as the book indicates) is one determinant of intelligence. To me this seems like a fair statement. But on the whole, I summarize a genius as one who fulfills their potential to become an intellectual powerhouse, and I believe many people have that potential.

 

I still want mathspeak. Odd there is only one web reference (which makes it suspect not that I looked hard) so the validity is in question. Because IQ is not a true gaussian function there are more people over 160 IQ than that would estimate. Thank goodness. So for one in a thousand that comes to 300,000 in the USA. Many are children. I imagine few are incarcerated. So from that and various intense occupations could we guess how many are out among us doing great stuff? I don't think it is just gumption but can also be a measure of the level of meritocracy. And diversity. I love the TV show Big Bang Theory.

[Hal.]

Are we measured in intelligence with a bias based on the method of measurement ?

 

If we include the ability to make a cup of tea and a ham sandwich in the measurement of intelligence , then a child may see an adult who does such things as intelligent . Most children in their point of view are not intelligent , as they can't do these things . If you want your plumbing fixed before it floods the ceiling , the plumber is the most intelligent person in the world . Find a Medical Doctor with 2 degrees and whatever else he/she has spent his/her time obtaining and sadly , they are no use .

 

Intelligence is simply the opposite of ignorance . Some are intelligent at some things and others at others . Narrow your method of measurement and you will not see the big picture . Make a stereotypical way to find a genius and you will find the stereotypical genius . I'm going to make my ham sandwich and cup of tea . I'm a genius if the right people are found to judge these activities as so .

 

 

[amanda more]

Are we measured in intelligence with a bias based on the method of measurement ?

 

If we include the ability to make a cup of tea and a ham sandwich in the measurement of intelligence , then a child may see an adult who does such things as intelligent . Most children in their point of view are not intelligent , as they can't do these things . If you want your plumbing fixed before it floods the ceiling , the plumber is the most intelligent person in the world . Find a Medical Doctor with 2 degrees and whatever else he/she has spent his/her time obtaining and sadly , they are no use .

 

Intelligence is simply the opposite of ignorance . Some are intelligent at some things and others at others . Narrow your method of measurement and you will not see the big picture . Make a stereotypical way to find a genius and you will find the stereotypical genius . I'm going to make my ham sandwich and cup of tea . I'm a genius if the right people are found to judge these activities as so .

 

 

Gees, one would think anyone using measurement here is against mom, America and apple pie. Give me an example say in the world of herd behavior of antelope. For descriptions of natural phenomena such as the herd behavior of antelopes one would generally find very little to quibble about regarding certain defined characteristics. Few things in science really have the accuracy everyone seems to demand from IQ. Why? I am astounded at cultural differences clouding everyone's perceptions.

 

There is this very blind American Horatio Algerism. It is the American religion. Fine, but true believers don't acknowledge their religious zeal. Isn't it well known that those born even with in utero nutritional deficiencies say have the exact same chance of making six figures as those born with already paid for Ivy League educations? Really? On the flipside in England "everyone knows" that the lower classes can't really make it out of their class. Are we left with Horatio Algerism versus European fatalism?

 

So, class,money what do they have to do with anything. I ask you to acknowledge your rose colored spectacles or dark shady sunglasses. I'd like to wonder from some -quantifiable- (ah yes imperfect- and rife I suppose with lots of socio-politico-historical analysis) concept here. Like if one can see that 160 IQ people are being measured on something are there enough non-menial jobs in this country even? And perhaps do the jobs even exist for people who have this -something-?

 

If lots of these positions providing a living wage are going begging then by some measure this group of people aren't fulfilling a kind of potential that is readily available. Are we utilizing the pool of let's say -high scorers- here or letting them languish? Maybe no one will ever be convinced that genius has any relation to some list of questions. However we believe, it can be possible as an initial order of magnitude to talk about genius and IQ. Potential is a seed which has fallen on the ground. If we stick them all on a dessert we will get no green shoots. We may not have to provide well tended moist soil but we can at least see how these seeds are doing. We might also wonder if we would have genius well represented in our culture if we leave this particular group completely on parched ground. For me genius is both the seed and the future product of the flower that will have bloomed.

 

The seeds don't need a cutoff IQ. But a study may.

 

Can you guess the percent in America and then the percent in England who are able to be upwardly mobile from poverty to the middle class? More math here. Make me look this up.

 

 

[Hal.]

Isn't it slightly politically incorrect to use the term ' lower classes ' for some of the Queen of Englands subjects , while all subjects to her are the same

' lower classes ' , there is then only one place for a ' lower class ' subject to go if they were to leave this ' lower class ' and that would be to become monarch ? Mathmathical chance is against the masses becoming monarch , they'd better try to bed a royal heir to increase an offsprings chance to leave the ' lower class ' !

Edited July 17, 2011 by Hal.

[amanda more]

Isn't it slightly politically incorrect to use the term ' lower classes ' for some of the Queen of Englands subjects , while all subjects to her are the same

' lower classes ' , there is then only one place for a ' lower class ' subject to go if they were to leave this ' lower class ' and that would be to become monarch ? Mathmathical chance is against the masses becoming monarch , they'd better try to bed a royal heir to increase an offsprings chance to leave the ' lower class ' !

 

"lower classes" as in say lower middle class middle middle class and upper middle class

The study i was thinking about had something to do with those in poverty advancing to the middle class. Not being versed in England English I can't quibble on the vernacular.

 

So would you like not a wager but a guess. _______ % of Americans advancing from poverty to the middle class

________ % of Britishers advancing from poverty to the middle class

[Hal.]

Tell us Amanda , also if you could kindly spare the time of a thought , do such studies show how many billionaires are likely to join the bankrupt class ?

 

 

[random]

Thank you! The language of science is math. There are two groups- scientists,technologists, mathematicians and everybody else. The everybody else keeps wanting us to use words. But they refuse to learn the baby steps of math. Why can't we have hardy discussions throwing numbers around. Or/and are we afraid some professor would be fine with logical fallacies, poor lucidity, inaccuracy with words but use some math and then powers that be come down on you if not exacting. Example: My friend wants to date and I think she should date smart men. I have always valued smart people that are in front of me. Yet, I just didn't do the math til looking at it now. If someone is so smart as to be in the 1 out of a thousand in IQ then there are 300,000 in the US. Half are male. 150,000 Then a third older than her 50,000. If half are single 25,000. Average per state is then 500. Wow. My opinion style estimate is half are drug or alcoholics so that leaves 250 actual dateable humans on average per state. Women should gravitate to silicon valley and men to Washington, DC to up their odds due to gender imbalance. So whether the word genius or not can be used she has a preference for high IQ just like someone may want a redhead (although that is like 2% of the population). It doesn't have to make brunettes feel leftout. My point- by using one objective criteria (however imperfect it is) we just figured some rather discouraging odds for her but realistic. As a twist on other dating advice- if you met in a bar, you may actually be as pretty as you are but he could have gotten dumber.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with statistics is you can make just about any number up and people will believe it "87% of all people know that!"

[amanda more]

The thing with statistics is you can make just about any number up and people will believe it "87% of all people know that!"

 

The essence of science is mathematics. Mathematics is used for logic and what is called stochastic processes. Sorry that in the real world statistics means a lot. More than hearing from one person's personal account however much your heart may go out to them. You might consider that you already use statistics. You feel exhausted but figure your odds of sleeping on the grass is safer than the highway. People can be lied to in thousands of ways. It seems a shame that a little arithmetic is somehow weighted so differently that people rather listen to George than the AMA.

 

Tell us Amanda , also if you could kindly spare the time of a thought , do such studies show how many billionaires are likely to join the bankrupt class ?

 

 

 

This is retrospective studies. They show how many have changed say from last year. The point is however poor the crystal balls are that culturally each one distorts how things are and have been getting by in the present. I am thoroughly tired of the idea that it is distortion to ever talk about the forest when we can be so exacting and more exacting about a tree. So what? My interests lie in the forest although others may jump much more quickly to the ecosystem. So lambasting real thought this way does nothing to advance what I consider on topic.

 

I will say that is one reason that educated people whatever the IQ or if genius or not can lose patience rather quickly with others.

 

Perhaps impatience is a well correlated characteristic of genius? Although not in the definition exactly.

[CharonY]

Mathematical treatment of data is essential. However, one cannot simply throw numbers around. An important part of statistics is the proper use of these values. An important part of each science is to define in which context each measurement is valid and informative. Context is everything.

[amanda more]

Mathematical treatment of data is essential. However, one cannot simply throw numbers around. An important part of statistics is the proper use of these values. An important part of each science is to define in which context each measurement is valid and informative. Context is everything.

 

"That bridge will hold 20 tons" If one is a mathematician and a pure scientist it may be considered throwing numbers around. Is there scientific proof? Have you sent trucks across identical bridges and discovered when they collapse?

 

Science is certainly a tool with some heavy mathematics underpinning what is relevant here. Arguments that belabor the lack of perfection in practical use in the real world are not of interest to me. Those individual trees.

 

on topic:

Steroids have shown that a lot of athletes who were assumed to be better than one in 100,000 in athletic ability have actually gamed the system. They might have been considered the "geniuses" of the athletic world. Baseball statistics do measure something. They may be measuring a faulty something. An IQ test could well be just as faulty. One would expect a series of questions would have all kinds of problems.

 

Still, even steroid users who make it to the big leagues do have athletic prowess.

 

IQ measures something. There will certainly we can all agree a higher potential in the upper pool of test scorers than the lower pool. Fulfilling high potential has to do with endeavors that are generally nonmenial jobs or pursuits. If we provide the environment for high productivity, if we try to at least not hang them out to dry then there are geniuses who will bloom into productive geniuses.

 

And well genius is like a lot of things- I know em when I see em.

 

 

 

I do have to admit I find it discomforting though that doctoring is as much an art as a science.

[CharonY]

""That bridge will hold 20 tons" If one is a mathematician and a pure scientist it may be considered throwing numbers around. Is there scientific proof?"

 

The context here is statics. The calculations of stability is based on well-established mechanical frame work. Just stating a value without that context is meaningless.

 

IQ measures something.

Yes. But what?

 

 

There will certainly we can all agree a higher potential in the upper pool of test scorers than the lower pool.

Potential of what?

 

And which way around is the correct association? I.e. geniuses have an easy time with IQ test hence they usually have high IQs. But then IQ may still be a lousy predictor because you can get a high score without being a genius. Or is it a cut-of? Maybe chances of being genius is lower at IQ below, say, 120 but does not scale with higher values?

Edited July 19, 2011 by CharonY

[amanda more]

The context here is statics. The calculations of stability is based on well-established mechanical frame work. Just stating a value without that context is meaningless.

 

 

CharonY

 

Wrong. Meaningless? You want truckers to do what?

 

 

 

[Stephen Tuck]

Thank you! The language of science is math. There are two groups- scientists,technologists, mathematicians and everybody else. The everybody else keeps wanting us to use words. But they refuse to learn the baby steps of math. Why can't we have hardy discussions throwing numbers around. Or/and are we afraid some professor would be fine with logical fallacies, poor lucidity, inaccuracy with words but use some math and then powers that be come down on you if not exacting. Example: My friend wants to date and I think she should date smart men. I have always valued smart people that are in front of me. Yet, I just didn't do the math til looking at it now. If someone is so smart as to be in the 1 out of a thousand in IQ then there are 300,000 in the US. Half are male. 150,000 Then a third older than her 50,000. If half are single 25,000. Average per state is then 500. Wow. My opinion style estimate is half are drug or alcoholics so that leaves 250 actual dateable humans on average per state. Women should gravitate to silicon valley and men to Washington, DC to up their odds due to gender imbalance. So whether the word genius or not can be used she has a preference for high IQ just like someone may want a redhead (although that is like 2% of the population). It doesn't have to make brunettes feel leftout. My point- by using one objective criteria (however imperfect it is) we just figured some rather discouraging odds for her but realistic. As a twist on other dating advice- if you met in a bar, you may actually be as pretty as you are but he could have gotten dumber.

 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree. The language of science is math. Over the last year and a half, I have persued and completed the "Theory of Everything" from a mathematical standpoint. Really, the equation I developed guided my efforts. I was lucky enough that my theories were initially correct, but the equation really helped to unravel the mysteries of the universe. I have really run out of mysteries to explore. The only thing that remains is expanding the equation into the Equation of Everything that unites all the fundamental forces and laws of nature. Conceptually, I know how to proceed and have seen parts of this great equation. However, it is a massive equation that would entirely fill a blackboard. It would include Deterministic Quantum Mechanics through the Dirac Equation (since the Dirac Equation is a pseudo-relativistic varient of my equation: the Tuck-Einstein Equation), Electrodynamics and Gravitation through the velocity variable, Entropy through an Entropic equation, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (since it is an equation of Special Relativity), the Standard Model of Physics, and a modified version of String Theory. What is interesting is that my equation is the base equation of the Theory of Everything and defines the very dimensions of time and space. In fact, the equation can be proven through Dimensional Analysis because it defines the very system of measurement. I have learned so much like that energy is length (since the Length Contraction equation is defined within my equation), that both matter and space consist of photons that combine together (decreasing frequency - the time-component) and increase mass (which is the space-component) through the "Lorentz Mechanism" that replaces the theoretical Higg's Mechanism. I've also learned and defined the boundaries of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and learned the geometry of the universe through my equation (which is a conic section). My work is really too much to explain in only a few pages. The most challenging thing I have now is to write a perfect manuscript teaching my knowledge from the ground up for publication in a scientific journal. Additionally, science is political and I will have to fight for recognition of my work (especially since I have never been to college).

 

The great genius of Einstein was in his DNA. Genetically, I was fortunate to share his traits. Just recently I learned from a Time magazine article that he had a occipital protuberance on the back of his head. I have the same thing on the back of mine. It is a Neanderthal genetic trait. He recieved his Neurobiological DNA from his Jewish ancestory, while I recieved mine from my red hair (a recessive gene passed down from Neanderthal origin). Therefore, I would tell your friend that if she wants a genuis then perhaps she should look for a redhead. Below is my equation and a link to my ToeQuest thread where I have documented all of my work along the way. I post it online so that if something should happen to me, that my work would not die with me (because it is too important to the technological advancement of mankind).

 

 

 

 

http://www.toequest....rything-55.html

[amanda more]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread is about IQ.

 

I,personally, have absolutely no interest in this. But I'm odd. One guy at a coffee shop thought if he talked jazzy then everyone could get their ears talked off by his views on UFOS. I do not care.

 

I told him if one landed a block away I would not be one of the ones who would go look.

 

Equation to your heart's content. Start it as a new subject line. I am not checking physics or speculations for a reason. There is a huge body of knowledge that I will never know much of and lots I just can't be bothered with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And which way around is the correct association? I.e. geniuses have an easy time with IQ test hence they usually have high IQs. But then IQ may still be a lousy predictor because you can get a high score without being a genius. Or is it a cut-of? Maybe chances of being genius is lower at IQ below, say, 120 but does not scale with higher values?

 

 

There is this kind of thinking. Now we could go on and on about George. He has this kind of thinking. We look on him as odd. But wait. Here is Jane. She also has this kind of thinking.

 

The struggle may be if we color coded different groups of people then maybe it would be a more neutral evaluation. Having more of the kind of thinking measured on a test does not imply higher esteem. It is like saying the red colored M and Ms are somehow more elevated than the yellow ones.

 

And is it really true that someone with athletic ability is, instead of a different category of M and M somehow the Duke, or Count or King in some kind of feudal system? A high IQ is a potential for genius. Derek Jeter could have had a test showing athletic promise. It doesn't make him a better person or a superior person and a high IQ doesn't make anyone of higher status than anyone else.

 

We are kind of OK accepting that some are born with a level of natural athletic ability. Of these most will not make the major leagues. Why not accepting that some are born with a little more of just those skills measured on IQ tests? Especially since it may also test a different outlook on life?

 

Unless George happens to run across Jane he may not fully appreciate the loneliness and lack of in depth in communication with others.

 

By virtue of this highly complicated intricate modern era, personally, I have no problem finding a way to find the Georges and at least not crush them. The Derek Jeters of another generation may be born without the ground to play and run. We then won't have any more.

 

Constant adamant consideration of George only and "that way he is" can be most counterproductive. Suppose Will liked to sit around and stare at a box every Sunday and Monday night in the fall? Although he may be surrounded by these creatures who never do it themselves, he can take heart. There are millions of others showing him that he is not alone.

 

He is thus put in the group of green M and M's that watch football this much.

 

 

 

 

[Stephen Tuck]

This thread is about IQ.

 

I,personally, have absolutely no interest in this. But I'm odd. One guy at a coffee shop thought if he talked jazzy then everyone could get their ears talked off by his views on UFOS. I do not care.

 

I told him if one landed a block away I would not be one of the ones who would go look.

 

Equation to your heart's content. Start it as a new subject line. I am not checking physics or speculations for a reason. There is a huge body of knowledge that I will never know much of and lots I just can't be bothered with it.

 

Sorry, I thought you might be interested in seeing the completion of Einstein's work on the "Theory of Everything" considering your interest in understanding what defines genius. His name is synonymous with genius because of his great abilities (which I also have due to our evolutionary, neurobiological link to Neanderthals). I am also quite certain the modern phychological diagnosis of this condition is Aspergers Syndrome.

 

I can tell you that IQ tests are quite worthless when it comes to measuring intelligence. There is the intelligence of mathematicians and engineers that can solve problems with known solutions, and then there is the intelligence that is able to figure out solutions to problems previously unknown. I think problem-solving skills are much more important than knowing large volumes of data. It is the ability to make connections that other people can't make (in which details can really matter). I can program a computer to solve problems at much greater speed, efficiency, accuracy, and lower cost of existing knowledge. However, I can't program one to solve the mysteries of the universe.

 

I can tell you that I am a slow reader and not a fast test-taker, I would probably only score above average on an IQ test, and I have absolutely no college. However, I correctly determined how the universe worked theoretically, then developed a new equation to prove it, from which I read to unravel all the mysteries of the universe. I can prove the equation through Dimensional Analysis. I know how energy correlates to length (of which I actually defined what is length), and I can even mathematically prove that time is a dimension. All that is important because it helps mankind not only technologically, but also to understand what really makes a genus such as Einstein.

 

You may have a different opinion on what makes a genus. I only know of my intellectual gift and of Einstein's. Einstein spent 30 years working on the Theory of Everything. I am 30 years old and finished it in 1.5 years. The only thing lacking is fully expanding my equation into the "Equation of Everything," which I would gladly do is I had the time, money, and environment conducive to finishing my research. Eccentric geniuses are overbalanced in certain areas and deficient in others. I am audacious because I have a passionate persuit of my work, such an incredible knowledge of the universe, and exceptional accomplishments. That gives me great strength to fight for recognition of my work for the benefit of mankind. If I lacked such confidence and boldness then I certainly couldn't overcome the obstacles for which I face in the politics of science. Nothing is above corruption, not even science. I have gone through intense mental and emotional pain and suffering that made me into what I have become (which my theories were a convenient distraction). It defined my philosophy: "Strength of Mind and Strength of Heart; Question Everything and Trust No-one." That allowed me to see the errors made in science and accomplish more than I ever thought possible!

Edited July 25, 2011 by Stephen Tuck