what is the point of geniusness?

Ah, but in a way, it's the smarter ones that are also emotionally resonable. Picture this, if the first humans were very smart, they wouldn't have survived. Well, If they had to be smart, by what some of you were saying, they would be more 'emotionally disfunctional'. How can that be if they were the first people to have emotion? There was nobody else's emotions to compare to!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really?

Absent-minded professor. Mad scientist. Eccentric genius.

Cliches! But a cliche is a cliche, because it's true.

Here's a cute little article ...

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1998/Aug/hour2_080798.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd like to call him my son-in-law. Let me know when you spot him.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure it would carry with it all sorts of new, improved neurological side effects. But I could be wrong.

 

Of course she is! Of course, her beauty and brains are probably just compensation for her scoliosis (corrected by surgery).

A son-in-law is probably a pipe dream for me. She says she's absolutely not having kids and I don't think marriage is a part of her plan either.

You might think I'm kidding about the compensation thing, but I'm not. My 10YO son has kidney disease and is a gifted musician. My 18YO daughter is a former model, but scoliosis does tend to strike tall girls -- then there's the 5YO with autism who is a genius.

We're sort of like the Munsters.

http://www.isoa.net/~nitetrax/dillon.htm

 

She's not into the internet much. The picture was taken at my sister's wedding.

 

Due to the fact geniusses do not produce more children than average people I have come to the conclusion they are just flukes. (A godsend for the rest of humanity, but still flukes) Perhaps they get a double expression of some gene.

Note: By fluke I do not mean liver fluke. Einstein did not inhabit the belly of a sheep.

 

That's comforting to know.

 

If you have a large enough population with varying IQs SOME of them most likely will have IQs over 200.

 

So what is emotional intellegence?
I can understan perhaps logical, but what actually lacks in the make up, or perhaps is added in the make up of the brain to allow for such though processes?

Okay that was 2 questions there.... sorry lol


And so, like for instance, I was always quite good at English, literature and so forth, but could never be stimulated enough to take an interest in math. Now, I could do it, in fact i dont think i was bad at it, but it just never really excited me the way literature does. So does this mean I have emotional intelligence of some degree?

Or am i just lazy hehehehe

 

I don't think the idea of compensation really applies to genius. A lot of the "cliches" you are pointing to (such as mad scientists or absent minded professors) are really not geniuses. Try to understand, genius is truly awesome, almost beyond conceivability. Geniuses number only a few per generation. Someone here mentioned, "a lot of geniuses I know." Let's strive for clarity here- if you are only talking about your average guy with a high IQ, ok, maybe you know a lot of those, but geniuses are the rarest of the rare, the cream of the cream of the crop. If you know a lot of geniuses you must be a few hundred years old.

That said, these cliche types are fallible men of mortal wit. The smart kid with no social intelligence is no genius. A genius is a master of all realms, including the emotional. Some of the idiosyncratic behavior of geniuses are a natural result of their undersanding more than you emotionally, rather than less. You are assuming that your means and ends are somehow the most sensible, when you judge the behavior of geniuses.

Consider that many of you strive for material wealth, many dates in youth, a high position in society, a large group of friends, etc.. Are you sure that this is an ingenious approach to your emotional life? Are these the things that actually lead to happiness? A genius is revolutionary in all realms, including the emotional. Perhaps they know something you don't. As a result, their behavior looks idiosyncratic to you, whereas is it actually revolutionary. Remember, the kid next door is not a genius, even if he got all A's during his junior year. Genius is 1,000 times more tenacious in its promise.

On the other hand, this whole discussion should really be about creativity, since that is the root of all genius. And creativity is a universal power. This talk of "math intelligence" or "english intelligence" is for us mortals. Creativity cuts across all the domains of human striving. Only limited time causes a genius to choose a specific course. Moreover, many geniuses throughout history have marked their powers in more than a single realm.

What you have all been talking about is talent, which an entirely different species from the topic at hand. Certainly talent is doled out unevenly among the many faculties, and many of us, when we introspect, notice that our talents are cut cleanly into specific areas. Yet we must not forget that our introspection is of an entirely different kind than that of a genius, who upon introspection, will hardly notice their latent talent, since like lightening their creativity is striking fire into every corner where the light of introspection shines.

fluxoid

 

Well fluxoid, I have known schizophrenics that were indeed creative but not considered genius, at least not after the onset of their disease.

The unique mechanics of creativity and other talents all lend themselves to a social definition of genius.

However there are many talents outside the normally recognized scientific and social parameters of genius. Unrecognized genius is more common than we realize.

Who is speaking is more often judged as the most important criterion of genius rather than what is being said. Who are you likely to give credence to? The nobel prize winner or the tattered poet living in a cardboard box?

The genius we recognize is simply "genius is as genius does"

 

Of course a aborigine is no less likly to be a genius than a man 1/2 mile from Oxford University. He just might not be able to properly use the high IQ.

There are only so many ways to kill a kangaroo. Of course the aborigine might go to oxford.

 

Thats right, the guy in England may not know how to properly use his IQ when he is helping to develop bio war weapons in return for a salary.

 

genius

I think you are missing my point. Obviously, some genius may be undiscovered. That does not mean that genius is not extremely rare. And in any case, there is no evidence of undiscovered genius because if there was, it would not be undiscovered anymore! Still, I grant that there probably are undiscovered geniuses. It just doesn't have to do with my point.

It also doesn't shed any light to say "schizophrenics are creative," as if that somehow precludes creativity from being the key criteria for genius! All I said was "creativity is the root of all genius." I don't see how shizophrenics either support or contradict that notion. Obviously, creativity alone is not genius. But without creativity, there is no genius. And creativity is not selective about the areas it touches. It is a universal trait.

By the way, a distinction can be made between delusion and creativity. If we want to define creativity properly, we should be careful not to confuse it with random ideas, which have no connection with or utility for reality. Although many schizophrenic ideas are original, they are random rather than creative.

But this is all beside the point. The main point here is just that genius is far far beyond the kind of normal everyday intelligence and talent that most of you have been basing your intuitions on. Genius does need to produce something to be recognized, and when we do see the products of genius they are completely different from the "good job" type of work that normal smart people do. Let's not be silly and think about how we ourselves were "good at math" or how we knew some "really smart" people, and then think that our intuitions about those things somehow extend to genius. Certainly, that would be naive.

fluxoid