Talk:Genius

From Academic Kids

Maybe more could be written on what a genius is. The article mentions "athletic geniuses". What does that mean? A highly trained athlete? Someone at the top of a sport? Somone who is an athletic freak as Einstein was an intellectual freak? (Freak in the natural sense of being so different as to be unique) Is Tiger Woods (golf) a genius? Is Babe Ruth[sic] (baseball) a genius? Cecropia 15:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Geniuses must be dead 2 Woman Genius 3 The List 3.1 To Eliminate or Not to Eliminate 3.2 Alexander Hamilton 3.3 Steven Pinker 3.4 Alexander the Great 3.5 Noam Chomsky 3.6 Bobby Fischer 3.7 James David Abraham 3.8 Galileo Galilei 4 Justifications of old edits 5 Whats the stupidity reference for? 6 Is Genius and Gifted the Same Thing? 7 IQ 8 genius pre requisites? 9 Genius and prodigy

Geniuses must be dead

How about a general rule that no one alive goes on the list? Real geniuses are so far ahead of their time that they are often seen as wackos during their lifetimes. The passage of time seems to make it clearer who had lasting impact. ike9898 19:41, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Woman Genius

Have there been no female geniuses? There are no candidates even mentioned in the talk page --Pengo 12:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as women geniuses go, you could put Hypatia on there, and there are some others.

How about Mme. Blavatsky? lysdexia 21:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pretty surprising indeed. Seriously, I can't think of a woman that would be listed as a genius :/ There's currently Madame Blavatsky in the list, but I think I'll remove her since she apparently just invented some religion.--Chealer 15:47, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

The female version of a Genius is a "Juno". See Roman Marriage rites. Try Sappho for example of a Juno (female personal daemon). You also might find the Daemon can also be the Greek version of the Roman Genius or Juno. See Socrates' Daemon.

The List

To Eliminate or Not to Eliminate

SimonP has just removed the list of geniuses (genii?) from the article, on the basis that it is inevitably POV. I've put it back, since it seems to me that this subject could use some further poking. Why 'inevitably'? There is the risk of some questionable names appearing there, but as can be seen on this talk page that has been succesfully dealt with in the past - the current list is concise and non-controversial. Many of the people on the current list are household names, and they are often bywords for excellence in their respective fields, so for any reasonable definition of the word "genius" it should be unquestionable that such people as Da Vinci and Shakespeare are geniuses. The section helps the article by helping readers understand the topic, and by mentioning some of history's most influential geniuses, which IMAO warrants inclusion. -- Kizor 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it continually grows as each person adds their favourite genius to the list. Since there is no set definition of "genius" or of "commonly called" there is no way to stop this. A few months ago I cut it back to only a handful [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Genius&diff=5732116&oldid=5732101) and then it began growing again. - SimonP 23:02, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. It's trimmed as well as added to, though - since it does improve the article, I'd say that the point is whether or not having a list that has to be kept an eye on, with the controversies as pictured above, is better than not having one at all. I say it is. Imposing some kind of length restriction would be one option, but that'd likely just aggravate folks. I'll add something appropriate to the page's code once I wake up. -- Kizor 23:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the original list of six names, but as examples not as an attempt at a comprehensive list of geniuses. - SimonP 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Still a bit terse, but I have to agree that a larger list would have a high chance of that. Adding the notice, then. -- Kizor 10:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added a recommendation that only three names per field be included. I think a definite numerical limit might have a better chance of stemming the tide of names.

Agree. That still leaves us with deciding which fields to have. Is antiquity a field?? I'd even prefer that we keep only 1 (Leonardo da Vinci?) or 5 geniuses.--Chealer 20:42, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

The list has once again become one of the favourite intellectuals of anyone who happens to drop by. I still think such a list is hopelessly POV and should be removed. - SimonP 18:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I support Simon, here. I think it would be great to list a few true geniuses in the article, it losses meaning when everyone's favorite smart person is added to the list. ike9898 21:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Was one of the main voices calling for a constitutional convention to abolish the post-revolutionnary government and to put in place a more efficient system. The the final constitution was different from what he wanted, He nevertheless was THE figure responsible for it's[sic] acceptance, especially in his own state New York.

I was the one who put him on the list in the first place. I have read 4 biographies on him, conversed with some of the authors of those books, In his time he was recognized as a genius, and still is today by admirers and haters. Of all the founding father he was the most significant, in that he made the United States more than a Jeffersonian dream. He made it functional. As secretary of treasury he put in place numerous innovative structures to prevent the republic from collapsing from tremendous debt. He created the bank of New York, the first National bank, and was the author of George washington's[sic] speeches (like his farewell address.)

In the first american[sic] cabinet he was the most powerful figure, extending his reach far beyond the responsibilities of a treasury secretary, thus making a formidable enemy out of Thomas Jefferson, who himself acknowledged Hamilton in a private letter to James Madison as "a colossus...without numbers he is an host unto himself." Jefferson and Madison along with many other republicans gave up trying to vanquish Hamilton. Jefferson and Madison were even more angray[sic] after Hamilton managed to get himself invited to a private dinner with Jefferson and Madison, and conned them into supporting his economic policies, on the condition that Hamilton used all of his influence to move the nation's capital From New York to Washington - which he did.

In Europe Hamilton was highly regarded, Talleyrand, a contemporary, considered him the greatest man of that epoch, greater than Napoleon.

Of all the founders Hamilton was the most prolific writer, And he was the founder of the New York post, which exists today still (though in a horrible state.)

His highly complex reports were beyond the comprehension of the congress, thus requiring him to perform supremely persuasive speeches.

In his own time Hamilton had numerous enemies, in every undertaking he always had to fight great opposition, especially since he was an orphan born from an impoverished mother and drunk father on an island. It was because he was not only a genius, but a great one, that he sailed to New York, and founded America. Eventualy[sic] he was shot dead in a duel in which he voluntarily shot into the air.

Alexander Hamilton (Statesman, New York Assemblymen, Congressman, Artillery Captain, Pamphleteer and chief author of Federalist papers. 1st U.S Secretary of Treasury)

So what in the above qualifies him as a genius? Looks like he was a politician and statesman. The accomplishments listed for him are not those of a polymath or person phenomenally gifted with insight and skill, mainly regarding intelligence. Is every extraodinarily successful politician and statesman going to be put on the list? ChessPlayer 01:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer gave his reason why he thinks A. Hamilton should not be on the list and removed him - this is the way it's supposed to work! A day later, an anonymous user replaced A. Hamilton without giving the slightest reason. I have no opinion on whether Hamilton belongs on the list, BUT I do think that if you are going to revert someone's changes you need to at least state your reason. The reason might be a simple statement in the edit summary ("Hamilton invented sliced bread"). This just makes for more productive debates. ike9898 22:09, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

If he were a genius, he wouldn't have let himself be killed. lysdexia 21:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Steven Pinker

Someone just added Steven Pinker to the list. I'm not familiar with him, be the Wiki article about him doesn't seem to describe a genius. Sure, he sounds like a really smart guy, Harvard Professor and all that, but I feel there is a higher standard for true genius. The term sort of loses it's[sic] meaning if it can be applied to any really smart person. World-wide I'd say there are probably thousands or even millions of really smart people. I think genius describes something really exeptional[sic];[sic] a level that is only attainable by one in, say, 10 million people. I also think true genius must have some significant impact on the world. Maybe Pinker is a genius, but it is not supported by information in Wikipedia. ike9898 14:24, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would put the bar even higher than 1 in ten million. For example, there are lots of 1 in 10 million type phycisists[sic], but not Einsteins. Pinker doesn't deserve to be on the list, as the wiki article about him says nothing about his being a world famous genius. ChessPlayer 20:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing him. If someone wants him on the list, present your case. ike9898

If that's so, then Einstein only straddles the line between really smart and "true genius". lysdexia 21:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Now I'd like to question the genius status of Alexander the Great. My personal knowledge doesn't extend beyond what I've read in Wikipedia, but based on that, he's not looking like a genius. Any thoughts? ike9898

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky more widely considered a genius than Nietzsche or Jung?

Chomsky is an ass.

"Not being a total dipshit" is not a part of being a genius. It's not a popularity contest, and in many cases, genius is an honored title for some fairly annoying people who turned out to be right. Ronabop 09:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I'd like to know how Chomsky, who is far less influential and less known than both Nietzsche and Jung, is a 'bonified' genius and deserves a mention, especially in comparison to the aforementioned.

I don't think "Chomsky is an ass.", even if this doesn't help to decide if he's genius or not, but I don't think he qualifies as a genius neither.--Chealer 15:47, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Genius? Or just a really good chess player? Personally, I don't think he qualifies.ike9898

I don't like Fischer personally, but I listed him, in that another chess master and artists like van Gogh are listed. Genius does not necessarily mean "wise". The term is very subjective. In terms of the intellectual pursuit of chess, he is definitely a genius--perhaps a preeeminent one.

Capablanca was clearly a genius. He was a child prodigy, displaying genius at the age of four. The world champions who played Capablanca all said that Capablanca was not just a good player...that Capablanca was phenominally[sic] gifted at chess, that he was the world's chess genius. Hence, Capablanca is on the list. However, Fischer, while as a player, played even better chess than Capablanca, thanks to the advance of the general level of play in Fischer's time versus Capablanca's day, Fischer does not have quite the acclaim as being mentally more gifted than other players, and I also question if Fischer should be on the list. Perhaps...but if so, I think only if the level of support among GM's giving their opinion on Fischer, is secured. Capablanca has clear support, the very greatest players, including the man who beat him, Alekhine, went on the record stating that Capablanca was a unique genius. World Champion Lasker, the man who lost to Capablanca, stated that he in his entire career had never met anyone, including himself, with Capablanca's mental powers at chess. Lasker has some claim to be considered himself a genius. Most of the world champions do. But they shouldn't all be on the list; Capablanca should be, and perhaps a couple other players; Morphy is one, he may have had as much talent as Capablanca, but lived at a time when his full powers where never needed, nobody else could give him much challenge; hence, Morphy probably should be on the list; wether Fischer is one is doubtful, in my opinion; but I'm not a chess Grandmaster, simply well-read in chess. Personally, my opinion is that Fischer does not have the raw talent of a Capablanca or Morphy, but that through complete devotion to the game, has surpassed them in skill at the game. Neither Capablanca or Morphy studied chess like Fischer did. ChessPlayer 05:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I certainly defer to your expertise on who would properly be a genius or not in terms of chess. If you were to remove Fischer's name I wouldn't personally object. However, I have a problem with listing names of geniuses at all. The term is way too objective. I could foresee a future edit war in which people from different cultures are trying to put their local favorites on the "genius" list and remove others. Cecropia 07:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I think that listing is a doubtful idea. One benefit though, is its an interesting index of exceptional people. Non-chess players, for example, probably have never heard of people like Capablanca ChessPlayer 08:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

James David Abraham

Looks like a possible self-nomination...google returns 10 results, and this guy doesn't even have a stub. -Frazzydee 20:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also note that the guy who put in his name also wrote the stub (coincidence that the stub came right after I posted this? I think not!), and if you look at his/her contrib.s, they're known for vandalism. -Frazzydee 20:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is a self-nomination, so I'm reverting. If you oppose my decision, please make a note here and on my talk page. -Frazzydee 21:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

Quite astonished how he did not feature on this list before. He refined the telescopes abilities, made the primary first law of motion, and is indeed the father of Modern science. Was killed for his discoveries and is quite justifiably seen as a champion of freedom of thought, as mentioned in the Wiki article.

--Knucmo 12:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Justifications of old edits

Firstly, why the hell was Buckminster Fuller, Bernhard Riemann, and numerous OTHER americans in there considering Copernicus, Galileo or Leibniz didn't even feature. Voltaire should be added also.

Riemann isn't an American. If you think those three should added, then add them. Simoes 18:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

See also: Genius & Creativity http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm

I've reworked the intro as it was a bit messy and tightened it up a bit. I've removed the reference to athletic genius (take a look at the genius entry on www.dictionary.com, they all specify a mental talent). I've also removed Alexander the Great as he doesn't really fit the bill. It could still use some more material, the stuff below is a great read, is there any way to work it back into the article? Also, there is a distinct lack of artists on the list, surely more of them are eligible, what about Picasso? Amoss 01:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The following was removed from the article, so to allow eventual volounteers to edit and wikify a however interesting addition

<addition>

Usually proceeds by friction, rather than social alignment and here again I find myself at frictive odds with what I am told. Genius comes from Greek genii, or astral imps, fairies or something that inspire people. Plato admitted to his "daimon" who inspired him, although it is more likely he had sound and verbal recall, reason why he told us that all ideas exist forever in his Ideal realm, which leaves no room for creativity which is exactly where genii excel. All geniuses are the first to admit that their knowledge came from they knew not where. By all acclaim what they wrote and did is original.

By this I do not mean original in the sense of junior discovering sex in his pants, which happens to most all of us. Nor do I mean it as culturally or historically known to be original, but as mankind original. We can fi see that Beethoven stole musical titbits from all over the place, as did Shakespeare with his plays but they were mere ingredients to their original genius. As it comes genius develops the talents needed to acquire the skills we are all taught. But they tend to teach themselves, or, rather, don't need any teaching at all.

Genius has nothing whatsoever to do with IQ which is merely culled from university textbooks and shows how well one can do as an academic parrot. Right now the validity of IQ is up for grabs and the dust has still to settle. Universal education needed a universal means to find out how well pupils can do. Genius, contrariwise - a favorite word of my favorite genius, Lewis Carroll - is either mildly or strongly at odds with the rest of us and then either rescript their society, as did Einstein with Physics, or sink into social oblivion as no-hopers.

Genius is precocious, prodigious and unpredictable as well as untestable unless they decide to come out of the woodwork of society and do their thing. Genius excels in all things except earning a living. They are relentlessly driven by their curiosity which may focus on one item or an entire field of knowledge, or like Szilard, cross so many disciplines one loses count. He made radical innovations in 17 disciplines with one article each. I was not a prodigy since there was no way for me to know from my family that such a thing is possible so I kept my mouth shut until age about twenty. In my family showing off was not the done thing, especially by children. I've made up for it since. However, I did take myself to school at age three.

Although I totally disbelieve in Gazzaniga's split brain the very pop left and right brain serves well as metaphor. Gazzaniga poked knitting needles up epilectics brains to sever the corpus callosum which resulted in each half not knowing what the other was up to. The corpus callosum connects the two halves which are overmore covered by the forebrain cortex. The hindbrain is hardly well studied and sits at the back of the head and which when well developed produces a narrow, long skull with a bony knob at the back and which takes care of our body and its sensations while the forebrain deals with the senses. The ones who lack a largish hindbrain are square heads.

From this it follows that in genius the entire five part brain is better integrated in its ways than for the rest of us. However since people like pretty patterns for theories you shall have one. The left forebrain is held in charge of words and its linear logics. The right is said worldless and more artistic and intuitive. Since our society is much into opposites and polarised dichotomies we are said to be either one or the other, as in Koestler's "The Yogi and the Commissar"

This quite ignores that Plato,in his Republic, denied poets entry. Plato's personal dislike has been held as dogma ever since. It even worse ignores that the original basis and ground rules of knowledge were invented by rsi-priests of the Vedas and shamen before that. That is why we are told that knowledge begins with the Greeks. If so they were the best thieves unhung. They got their letters from we know not whom, around 500 BCE, most likely an adaptation of Egyptian Demotic. Similarly science started off in Alchemy, as did other disciplines. The original curriculum was the trivium: poetics, crafts and battle tactics, which includes politics as the art of winning. As Marshall Wavell has it: good poetry sticks spontaneously to the mind and to make that happen takes real skill. We know those battle tactics as martial arts and rather little to do with what our generals are into.

Given that the corpus callosum is in place the two halves can be imagined as communicating and sharing, at which juncture we can imagine creativity pops up out of the woodwork.By this we can further imagine that each half can as it were watch the other to match a Vedic image of the tree of knowledge with two birds, jiva and jivatma, one eating constantly, the other looking on. What we are not told is that they can swap roles or tasks. I have this going on in my head, as it were, because I don't think in or with words but some aniconic abstract way. The word factory, as it were transrenders what is going in while the intuitive function watches like a hawk. And most often I don't know what will be the next word coming out of my mouth. And some part of my mind sits and just watches the show.

For this reason I am also marvel of scepticism or Feuerabendian radical anarchistic thinking since I can keep track both of the parts of what goes on and the whole of it at once and together. This is more metaphor to help you imagine it as possible than what actually gives between my ears, which I don't really know. I just accept that it works fine and proceed to use it as best I can. Beethoven similarly admits he received his symphonies at once and together. The tedious job was writing down the notes. So too for Tesla who imagined the a.c. networks he invented, motors and all, in his head. He told his Mother, age 13, that he had come to bring the world light, which is exactly what he did. He also made a cockroach engine, the precursor of the electric motor, at that age. Since I read that in a book dated 1925 I doubt it's copyright.

Or, to quote from Oscar Wilde, another one, that mankind is very tolerant, except of genius. An old proverb: "Whom the gods love they punish" is very true for genius. Most geniuses readily agree that putting up with other folks is a pain, in wherever you least like it. Nietsche recommends we examine everything we know and in the case of a genius everybody else will do it for them and be most often wrong; doing which is, of course, the height of rudeness.

OR, to quote Ikkyu, who won't be bothered by trivialities like copyright:

" Why are people called Buddhas after they die?

 Because they don't grumble any more,
 Because they don't make a nuisance of themselves!

T.S. Eliot, the poet, was not enchanted by copyright either and coined paradiorthosis for stealing from one's collegues what they said ever so much better. The rest is not worth stealing. What further follows is that those three functions: verbal skills, intuitive grasp and creativity have to be in a dynamic balance, which phrase means variable, not fixed, such that anyone can play leader to the rest or they can sing in chorus, as the need may show. It necessarily follows also that this does not have to be in balance so we can get dumb geniuses and and very clever parrots and so on around the mulberry bush. High grade but imbalanced intuitives usually end up in the nuthouse whence genius is said akin to madness.

Or, again, as I recently said to a friend. I'll be delighted to take my leave of this hellhole of insanity they call earth whenever, but I'm danged if I will let that spoil any chances to have fun. Or, again, to paradiorthose from my other favorite, the reverend Laurence Sterne: Dear Reader, if you could anticipate a single word of what I've written here, I'd tear it up and start again.

</addition>

---

I added in a couple names, and removed all the "ands" from the parenthetical lists. I did this mainly for consistency (some lists were purely comma separated, others mixed), but please add them back in if you think they should be there.

--Simoes 18:47, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whats the stupidity reference for?

Looks like mockery to me. Stupidity is a completely different topic. I dont see the connection here. -- Paniq 02:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see them as being rough antonyms. - SimonP 03:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Paniq. It does look like mockery. - Eton

Is Genius and Gifted the Same Thing?

If someone is classified as gifted does that mean they are a genuis?

IQ

Does your IQ determine if you are a genius or not? Or is it something else?

genius pre requisites?

Do geniuses have pre-requisites to become geniuses? Can their environemnt help making them become genuises?

Yes. I read that everyone is born equally in mental status. It is there environment that determines their own mentality. Eton

Genius and prodigy

I believe that geniuses are persons who create/created something very new, innovative(and significant). Prodigies (and gifted people ?) are those who develop an extremely high proficiency in a short period of time. Einstein with his new Theory of Relativity was a genius. Tiger Woods is a prodigy in Golf. Fischer is a prodigy in chess unless his strategies were unique and new. John Von Neuman was more of a prodigy and less of a genius.--Jondel 01:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)