What do you consider genius?
|What do you consider genius?|
I've always been extremely jealous of public intellectuals and pioneers in academic fields. Guys like Chomsky, Einstein, Sagan, Pinker, Riesman, etc are what I'd consider 'genius'. Guys who develop their own theories and concepts. I'm a psych major, and I'll feel like a failure if/when I get my phd w/o doing any kind of groundbreaking research. Odd, I know.... but its whatever.
Whats your definition of genius?
|09-02-2009, 09:33 PM||away - #2|
Thats what genius is, intimacey with one's persuits.
The interest provides the rigour to continue.
I'd like to be a meaningful creator aswell!
|09-03-2009, 04:18 AM||away - #3|
^^exactly, theres geniuses of football, plenty of intelligent people arnet recognised as such because their interests arnet in the fields seen as particularly challenging or beneficial for society.
id also say that geniuses are often "odd" they see the world in a different way to most people.
but then i suppose most highly intelligent people react and percieve the world in a different way to less intelligent people, thats just my idea anyway.
|09-03-2009, 08:59 AM||away - #4|
Genius - Brilliance of mind; sagacious.
You shouldn't set the bar too high, my friend...
|09-03-2009, 04:29 PM||away - #5|
Devotion, perseverance, motivated by their failures, in whatever field they are in.
For example, not that I am comparing myself or implying that I am a genius, but when people say I am 'smart' in math, I tell them I am not smart. I just disciplined myself to practice the math and was devoted to it.
I'm no Einstein storming up theories and !!, but the principle of my little example can apply.
I'm not great in math by the way, but I can hold my on, if that even makes sense.
|09-03-2009, 08:09 PM||away - #6|
Exactly, if you practice something long enough, you'll be great at it, whether you actually enjoy it or not, but inevitably, you'll develop an interest.
People have a strong belief in inherent skill, its an especially destructive thought for a child to have, whats more destructive is the continual reinforcement of a belief, where science is considered abstruse and uncool.
|09-03-2009, 09:31 PM||away - #7|
And I think many many kids, myself included, have a very apathetic view towards science, or any kind of education. Pre-adoloesnce and well through-out adolescence. I, fortunately, have made a complete 180.
|09-03-2009, 10:08 PM||away - #8|
People consider a kid whose great a math "a natural", yet forget to acknowledge the part where this kid was reading mathematical literature when most kids were watching Pokemon.
Consequently, when he enters school, he's at a much more advanced level, and his peers will automatically characterize him as "naturally smart". That makes no sense, the kid didn't do anything that anyone else couldn't've.
This is related to the mathew effect.
A phenomenon was observed in hockey, most the great players were born on the first months of the year (Jan, Feb, March)...
This was theorized to be caused by the junoir hockey leagues, especially in Canada and their cut-off dates for age groups -- ex. the "barrier" between December and Jan would constitute a cut-off, in that Dec marks the end of an age group, and Jan, the beginning of a new group.
Obviously, those kids born on those intial months of the year are older, more matured, and thus more likey to dominate, plus they've had more time to train. Because these kids dominate, they recieve more attention from coaches and are placed in elite groups, which provides them with more training and conditioning, a positive loop ensues.
This isn't just for hockey, its been observed in almsot every sport, respective of age-group cut-off months.
Most believe Asians to be inherently good at math, they forget the part where the Asian have a completely different philosophy towards mathematics, which is illustrated in the phrase "Work hard"; many don't view math as something natural, they view it as any other skill, you work and you improve.
American philosophy is, "if I blow at it initially, then its obviously not for me", thats why most children fail at school. They have no drive, they allot a short amount of time to understanding a problem, and when things become difficult, they quit.
Gladwell touches on this extensively, in his book Outliers.
Of course, there are outliers amongst outliers, scenarios where young children are great at art (for example), for their age, there exists a certain degree of natural talent, which resides in their capacity to visualize -- Still, he worked very hard to develop the skill.
Check into the 10,000 Hour Rule.
Didn't mean to be verbose.
|09-03-2009, 10:18 PM||away - #9|
[quote=CHRONICLE;14341566]For the most part, I don't believe in inherent talent.
This is related to the mathew effect.
|09-03-2009, 11:01 PM||away - #10|
I don't think there was anything special with the guys you mentioned, scientific proficience can be achieved by most people, of course, some learn quicker than others, though learning occurs nonetheless.
IQ tests are ridiculous, imo.
It doesn't measure human intelligence, it tends to measure the depth of knowledge.
The prime benefit of an IQ test is positive reinforcement, its affords people confidence in their intelligence.
I guess IQ tests would be more effective, if they were specified to one's interests.
|09-03-2009, 11:12 PM||away - #11|
I want to say yes, there are other factors that might possibly play a role such as genes, but regardless I feel that the person still needs to be motivated and devoted to the subject matter.
I think we can all agree that no one is going to be successful aerospace engineer without practical application of the subject. One surely doesn't just have complete understanding of the topic. Rather if anything, that person is just ahead of the curb and keeps ahead of most, if not, everyone.
Those guys you mentions, Einstein, Sagan, Pinker, etc., have put in WORK. It's not like us who come home from class, bs around a little bit, later spend an hour or two and then done for the nights, and follow the same routine two days later.
Einsteins life essentially revolved around the theory of general relativity for nearly a decade. I still stand by my earlier post that dedication, motivation, devotion, perverseness
|09-03-2009, 11:23 PM||away - #12|
[quote=CHRONICLE;14341840]Yeah, of course.
IQ tests are ridiculous, imo.
I'll give an example with baseball since I'm very familiar with it. I quickly checked the birthdates of the top players, and they were scattered through out the year. They are mostly born in warm weather parts of the country which allows them to play/practice year round. This is obviously gives them an advantage over a kid from NY or Chicago. However, as you continue to draw from a larger pool of people, or weed out the inferior kids in the warm weather parts of the country the competition is going to get stiffer. Say out of the 10 top kids from Cali in a given time period maybe 3 make the MLB. All of these kids/men all had the benefit of learning from the top coaches going to the best school, putting in their 10,000 hours, but yet still only a select few make it. Why? Did one kid put in 10,500 while the other put in 10,430? ehh.... I donno.
In general I do agree, though. People often ignore others surroundings. Ironically my younger brother today told me how much he hates ignorant dumb people. I then told him most of the time it isn't their fault, it's their surroundings.
I do still believe natural talent does exist though.
|09-03-2009, 11:27 PM||away - #13|
BTW, I apologize if some of what I'm saying may not come out right, or is worded wrong. I'm !!ing blazed[pic]
|09-03-2009, 11:30 PM||away - #14|
On Babe Ruth
|09-03-2009, 11:38 PM||away - #15|
On Albert Pujols:
Asked to place a mark through a specific letter each time it appeared on a page of randomly positioned letters, Pujols used a search strategy that White had never witnessed in 18 years of administering the test.
"What was remarkable about Mr. Pujols' performance was not his speed but his unique visual search strategy," White said. "Most people search for targets on a page from left to right, much as they would when reading. In observing Mr. Pujols' performance, I initially thought he was searching randomly. As I watched, however, I realized that he was searching as if the page were divided into sectors. After locating a single target within a sector, he moved to another sector. Only after locating a single target within each sector, did he return to previously searched sectors and continue his scan for additional targets."QUOTE]
|09-03-2009, 11:44 PM||away - #16|
I guess it's possible to train his eyes in order for them to react so quick;y, but I don't know.
|09-04-2009, 07:21 AM||away - #17|
that said, if some1 of a greater intelligence invests that into schoolwork as opposed to knowing all u can about football, or cars e.g. when i was 4ish i was an odd child i used to recognise every make and model of car, look underneath as they drove past etc.
i then somehow explained to my teacher how a int. combustion engine works, she took this as an indicator of extreme intelligence, despite the fact i was probably reading some of my dads old car manuals the night before [pic]
i could probably pinpoint that as the moment i internalised that i was more intelligent than most of the people in my class, this gives u a greater confidence in education, and in pursuing knowledge, so u eventually seem cleverer than those around you.
but not meaning to sound boastful, but i do think im at least quicker than most other people, ive always been able 2 talk my way out of trouble, to make arguments out of dust [pic]
i also think a great indicator of intelligence, real intelligence is things like empathy, as what empathy is, is the ability to understand some1 elses suffering and place yourself in their position.
genius is at its basest level, the ability to understand things which most other people cant, to comprehend the workings of the stars, the patterns of nature, the dynamics of the soul.
|09-07-2009, 09:53 PM||away - #18|
it all just deals with in what sense.
you can be by definition a genious(i.q. s.a.t.)
but if you lack the ability to put it to use then it means nothing.
|09-08-2009, 07:18 PM||away - #19|
Arthur Schopenhauer said it best: "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits targets no one else can see."
I believe that phenotypical evolutions put certain groups of people ahead of others. Such as a person with the physical adaption to run faster, or throw faster, such occurs with those whom thinker more indepth, or hold more memory than the average person.
True, perhaps it can be attained at their current level of advancement, but the same applies for gifted aswell, they make train to make their genius into levels unforseen
| NBA The Offical Eastern Conference Finals Game Thread: (3)... |
New reply 1 minute ago - 2264 comments - by Kobane
| Backward Compatibility Is 'backwards' Thinking, Says M... |
New reply 1 hour ago - 73 comments - by Jesszman
| May 21 - 12-year-old Raped At Gunpoint By Teens Who Pu... |
New reply 2 minutes ago - 73 comments - by quentyburga725
| Lupe Fiasco – Animal Pharm |
New reply 2 hours ago - 67 comments - by SM
| Url Night Of Main Events 3 Line-up Announced!! |
New reply 18 minutes ago - 66 comments - by Zaosyn
| NBA (video) 22yr Old Kobe Bryant's #classic Playoff Game 4... |
New reply 2 hours ago - 64 comments - by lefthookright
| The Official Xbox Reveal Thread |
New reply 53 minutes ago - 1562 comments - by moe4484
| Go Long Drizzy Miguel With The Interception |
New reply 2 hours ago - 74 comments - by FRESCO THE 13TH
|Join us on Facebook. Check out the BX fan page and hit the Like button.||Follow BX on Twitter to get instant hot topic alerts.||Enter your email address below and receive a daily hot topic newsletter.|
|5,314 fans of BX | none new today||4,292 following and 1 new today|