View Full Version : A you a genius?
stoorssarg
Jun30-07, 02:19 PM
ARE you a genius*** :- )
What do you think gives a person special mental abilities? (IQ of 149+) Is it all genetics or just your environment, or a combination of the two? Do you think the IQ test really measures your mental ability? Or is there other factors that the IQ test doesn't take into consideration such as creativity and so on.
OR maybe genius is just a state of mind that we all can achieve.
Genius is the ability to elude innate human stupidity, at least in my opinion.
Genius is the ability to elude innate human stupidity, at least in my opinion.Good analogy. Creativity and imagination can trump craftsmanship and the "grind" of the trails fostered by a lack of epistemology.
ARE you a genius*** :- )
I like to think that. I have an outsanding memory. Learn advanced mathematics on my own. I can pass my exams in 1/3 the given time.
IQ tests are inaccurate.
I like Werg22's definition of genius. And last time I checked, finishing [and passing] an exam in less than half the time is not grounds for being a genius.
I like to think that. I have an outsanding memory. Learn advanced mathematics on my own. I can pass my exams in 1/3 the given time.
first sign you're not a genius? thinking you're a genius
first sign you're not a genius? thinking you're a genius
I don't know about this. Some true geniuses are very well conscious that they are geniuses.
first sign you're not a genius? thinking you're a genius
History has it that Gauss was a little of a show off. He was proud to have been the greatest mathematician of his time. I am well sure that he knew he was the genius par excellence.
Same thing with Galois.
---
Just because a quotation sounds nice does not mean it is correct (adapted from Voltaire).
But Galois died at 20 in a duel fight because he probably was too confident.
Being a show off does not mean that you think you're a genius, it just means you're arrogant. However, there's nothing wrong with a bit of arrogance in my opinion.
tacosareveryyum
Jun30-07, 07:58 PM
Who cares if you are a genius or not if you do not use your talents for the betterment of mankind.
Being smart doesn't really differentiate you from anyone else. In my personal experience, achievement isn't obtained from being smarter than everyone else. It is obtained through determination and perseverance.
Genius is a state of mind we can all achieve.
It almost takes one to know one. How often have you heard someone say "so and so is a genius", about someone who is simply educated or slightly smarter than average? It happens quite often.
Well... I can draw a perfect circle with just a pencil, if that counts for anything. =P
Being a show off does not mean that you think you're a genius, it just means you're arrogant. However, there's nothing wrong with a bit of arrogance in my opinion.
there are many things wrong with being arrogant, not the least of which is that there will always be someone who you should be humbled by.
Chi Meson
Jul1-07, 03:51 PM
first sign you're not a genius? thinking you're a genius
Perhaps more aptly: "...telling others that you're a genius."
If you have genius, it will show. If you have to tell other people that you are a genius, then it's not showing.
Math Is Hard
Jul1-07, 04:37 PM
Well... I can draw a perfect circle with just a pencil, if that counts for anything. =P
Cool - you should go up against this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
Geniuses eat cold food and wear slip on shoes:tongue2:
Cool - you should go up against this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
:surprised
fourier jr
Jul1-07, 05:34 PM
Cool - you should go up against this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
lmao that's hilarious. i can't believe people take that seriously.:rofl:
DeadWolfe
Jul1-07, 06:06 PM
I wonder how the judge this freehand circle competition.
Perhaps more aptly: "...telling others that you're a genius."
If you have genius, it will show. If you have to tell other people that you are a genius, then it's not showing.
i just kind of assume that if you're smart, you know to be humble.
Some people define gifted children by IQ scores alone, but define gifted adults by the combination of IQ and actual achievement. Seems reasonable to me.
My IQ scores are fairly high, especially verbal reasoning, but a lot of my co-workers are smarter at troubleshooting. I guess a high IQ score must mean you're good at something, but I'm not sure it's proof of intelligence except in a narrow sense.
Someone in PF (I think that it was Evo or Moonbear) once pointed out the truth about IQ tests. The only thing that they prove is how good you are at taking IQ tests.
mathwonk
Jul1-07, 08:26 PM
I suspect genius has little to do with IQ. Galois apparently failed admissions exams to top unis so would likely have received low IQ scores, yet was clearly a genius.
IQ means agreeing with accepted norms of intelligence, genius seems to be the opposite.
so all us fruitcakes can claim genius!!!
Lots of people have IQ over 149, probably many on this forum, but are not even that smart, much less geniuses. i think mine was at least 85, last i checked, (but i cheated a little).
stoorssarg
Jul1-07, 08:30 PM
I wonder how the judge this freehand circle competition.
they use geometry to figure out who drew the most precise circle
Some people define gifted children by IQ scores alone, but define gifted adults by the combination of IQ and actual achievement. Seems reasonable to me.
My IQ scores are fairly high, especially verbal reasoning, but a lot of my co-workers are smarter at troubleshooting. I guess a high IQ score must mean you're good at something, but I'm not sure it's proof of intelligence except in a narrow sense.My IQ scores have been very high since childhood, and I have been compulsively drawn to the "why" and "how" of everything from a young age. As a young adult as the lead operator on the start-up of the most technologically advanced paper machine of the early 1980s (read: most oversold, most prone to failure, most speculative joint venture to that date), I puzzled out some of the most vexing problems that the engineers of our company and the engineers of the manufacturer's company (our partner) could not solve. As a result, I later worked with that paper machine manufacturer's senior troubleshooter as a technical consultant. He was 30 years my senior, neither of us had a degree, and on our first troubleshooting project together, he had me make the presentation to management/production/engineering staff since I was the one who had deduced their primary problem.
Most wet-streak problems on a paper machine arise at the wet end (where the pulp/water/additive slurry is shot onto a moving mesh wire by the headbox) and I think that he handed me that section of the machine because he knew my strengths and wanted me to score an early victory with a skittish client. Some of the senior staff at the mill tried to poo-poo my explanation of the poor practices that caused their problem (wet steaks/ poor drying/sheet breaks) until my mentor had enough and raised his hand and said "Do what he said and your problem is solved - don't and you'll lose production every day". It was a matter that involved slacking off the tension of a cable-raised breast roll mechanism after every wire change. Total cost - 5 seconds of time after the breast roll arm was raised. Total payback - the recovery of tens of thousands of dollars (at a bare minimum - more like hundreds of thousands some days) of lost production per day. The technical service we provided was free. We worked for a company that sold industrial textiles to paper mills and we solved their problems with the honest expectation that if we could help them make them a bunch of money, they would buy our textiles instead of those made by our competitors. It worked.
Genius? No. Getting the job done? The proof is in the customer loyalty and continued business. BTW, Omega (his real name) had a mentor, too. An 80+ year old gentleman who sat on the gang boxes (rolling tool cribs) and watched us try to get that paper machine running back in the '80s. Every once in a while, that old fellow would beckon me over during some trying times and give me a hint or two. That time was never wasted. Automation is a way to get things done with fewer people or with less human interaction. Sometimes the real genius is a person able to cut to the quick and pull off a fundamental improvement with little or no effort - just insight.
Am I a genius? No, not even close. But I have had the good fortune to work for one in a major discovery (being defined as something that others had spent millions of dollars and years of effort to try to do unsuccessfully). It was thrilling beyond words even though I was strickly grunt labor and my name didn't appear on the paper (rightly so). He was very aware he was brilliant beyond any of us. Not arrogantly, it was just the way it was like the sky being blue or grass green.
Y I am.
first sign you're not a genius? thinking you're a genius
Damn :mad:
I have been called genius far too numerous times to count. Usually when I did something totally boneheaded.:tongue2:
I have been called genius far too numerous times to count. Usually when I did something totally boneheaded.:tongue2:
You mean like this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/report_70_percent_of_all_praise)? :biggrin:
:biggrin:Ooo! Great work Einstein! Finding that link! (Slow applause)
(The news report about the live Hungry Hungry Hippo was hilarious!)
Cool - you should go up against this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
Damn! Well, guess my circles are not that perfect... :uhh: o:)
I wish i was a genius :( Definitely am not though. Something I've realised over the past few months is that I'm not "good" at math like i thought i was. Terry Tao is Good at math, I'm just interested in it, somewhat well read and practiced in it. Any standard tests and exercises in textbooks I can do, but when it comes to an insight problem, like something in an Olympiad, I fall to my knees..~sigh~
To the OP, after a quick research, it seems that the IQ demarcation for genius is 140+, not 149+.
Jimmy Snyder
Jul2-07, 02:40 PM
Even though my IQ score will not support me on this, I have always considered myself to be a genius. I base this on the fact that I use a lot of big words that I don't necessarily understand. However, to be objective, I asked my family to decide this issue. My wife said that the only genius thing I ever did in my life was to marry her. My mother said that I was indeed a genius and that I had the cutest knees when I was a baby. My 15 year old daughter just rolled her eyes and said "as if". My 13 year old son said that if genius is 90% persperation, then I'm an idiot. Looks like the nays have it.
fourier jr
Jul2-07, 03:28 PM
Even though my IQ score will not support me on this, I have always considered myself to be a genius. I base this on the fact that I use a lot of big words that I don't necessarily understand.
i think the word for that is "blowhard", not genius :uhh:
I wish i was a genius :( Definitely am not though. Something I've realised over the past few months is that I'm not "good" at math like i thought i was. Terry Tao is Good at math, I'm just interested in it, somewhat well read and practiced in it. Any standard tests and exercises in textbooks I can do, but when it comes to an insight problem, like something in an Olympiad, I fall to my knees..~sigh~
yea terry tao is a genius
on someone's blog around here i read about the gifted test he took when he was eight and how he was studying linear algebra at the time and all that stuff.
i think the word for that is "blowhard", not genius :uhh:
im pretty sure he was joking
fourier jr
Jul2-07, 04:16 PM
yea terry tao is a genius
what is it with people on this forum & terence tao? i would think ANY fields medalist would have a little something that most other people don't. or to look at it another way, maybe they DON'T have something that everyone else does have.
what is it with people on this forum & terence tao? i would think ANY fields medalist would have a little something that most other people don't. or to look at it another way, maybe they DON'T have something that everyone else does have.
what i didn't say terence tao was god, i just said he's a genius?
mathwonk
Jul2-07, 10:10 PM
i think riemann was a genius, i cant think of any other clear cases. maybe archimedes.
stoorssarg
Jul2-07, 10:45 PM
I've came to conclude that after reading all of your posts. That genius isn't how good your math skills are. Or of you can get an A+ on your physics test. (Sure all those things help)
But if your able to question the world around you; and ponder new idea and willing to test those idea in real life. Thats what I think makes a genius.
fourier jr
Jul3-07, 12:19 AM
fwiw here's what georg lichtenberg thought:
"I have very often reflected on what it is that really distinguishes the great genius from the common crowd. Here are some observations I have made. The common individual always conforms to the prevailing opinion and the prevailing fashion; he regards the state in which everything now exists as the only possible one and passively accepts it all. It does not occur to him that everything from the shape of the furniture up to the subtlest hypothesis, is decided by the great council of mankind of which he is a member. He wears thin-soled shoes even though the sharp stones of the street hurt his feet, he allows fashion to dictate to him that the buckles of his shoes must extend as far as his toes even though that means the shoe is often hard to get on. He does not reflect that the form of the shoe as much upon him as it does upon the fool who first wore thin shoes on cracked pavement. To the great genius it always occurs to ask: Could this too not be false? He never first gives his vote without first reflecting..."
or baltasar gracian:
"Have original and out-of-the-way views. These are the signs of superior ability. We do not think much of someone who never contradicts us; that is not a sign that he loves us but that he loves himself. Do not be deceived by flattery and thereby have to pay for it, rather condemn it. Besides, you may be given credit for being criticized by some, especially if they are those of whom the good speak ill. On the contrary, it should disturb us if our affairs please everyone, for that is a sign that they are of little worth. Perfection is for the few."
or jacques hadamard:
"To invent is to choose. This very remarkable conclusion appears the more striking if we compare it with what Paul Valery writes in the Nouvelle Revue Francaise: "It takes two to invent anything. The one makes up combinations; the other chooses, recognizes what he wishes and what is important to him in the mass of things which the former has imparted to him. What we call genius is much less the work of the first one than the readiness of the second one to grasp the value of what has been laid before him and to choose it.""
or baltasar gracian again re: hadamard thing
"Know how to choose well. Most of life depends on this. You need good taste and sound judgement, for which neither intellect nor study suffices. To be choice, you must choose well, and for this two things are needed: to be able to choose at all, and then to choose best. There are many people with fertile and subtle minds, of keen judgement, of much learning, and great observation who still are at a loss when it comes to choosing. They always take the worst as if they were determined to go wrong. Thus, knowing how to choose well is one of the greatest gifts."
Newton would deny this and say all his work was from pure effort, but I swear he's a genius as well.
Why are we limiting our discussion of who is a genius to scientists? Surely Van Gogh, Mozart, and a host of other artists, musicians, writers (I personally believe Jonathan Swift was a genius), and even entertainers (perhaps Frank Zappa and Henry Rollins). As fourier_jr pointed out, perhaps a genius is someone who questions that which is established. Then again, I've been called a genius (in the non-pejorative sense) by people when I tell them I have a degree in math and physics and am getting a graduate nuclear engineering degree (by no means do I consider myself a genius, however). With all this in mind, I would probably say a genius is relative. One individual may see person A as a genius but not person B while another individual sees the opposite. I think it may have something to with a perception that the so called genius achieves a level of expertise in some endeavor that very few others could also achieve.
K.J.Healey
Jul3-07, 08:00 AM
Seems that being a Genius is purely subjective, right? How often is it that two people consider eachother geniuses when one is smarter (in common ways) than the other? Seems most call people geniuses when they merely grasp things significantly quicker than themselves. When I was a child a "nuclear scientist" or "rocket scientist" must be a genius because the material they worked on was so beyond me. Now it isn't and I hold a firm belief that most people could, if they desired, learn science and physics to a depth of my own.
In my humblest of opinions, I would name someone a genius who is able to see things and understand them as no(rarely) person has prior, and then have the creativity to MOVE. To go forward with that understanding and create the unexpected. To apply their understanding.
how bout we all just admit that genius is a pretty meaningless word
Indeed. And some of its meaninglessness come from its overuse...
mathwonk
Jul3-07, 08:00 PM
my friend alan mayer said he thought michael spivak was a genius.
Even though my IQ score will not support me on this, I have always considered myself to be a genius. I base this on the fact that I use a lot of big words that I don't necessarily understand. However, to be objective, I asked my family to decide this issue. My wife said that the only genius thing I ever did in my life was to marry her. My mother said that I was indeed a genius and that I had the cutest knees when I was a baby. My 15 year old daughter just rolled her eyes and said "as if". My 13 year old son said that if genius is 90% persperation, then I'm an idiot. Looks like the nays have it.
Since all demand to know what I think, this is by far my favorite post in thread. Well alright my mother likes to know what I think. Sometimes.
I like to role this one out when this topic surfaces:
Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have lies in this; when I have a subject in hand, I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it. Then the effort that I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.
Alexander Hamilton
The question is what makes a genius, if the word actually means anything? Is it his accomplishments or simply his cleverness? I know of incredibly brilliant individuals who are also incredibly unambitious and little willing to put their cleverness into use. Could an individual with these attributes possibly be a genius? I have done some research and it appears that a man named Chris Langan has the highest IQ ever recorded. What does he do? He works as a bar bouncer. You can watch a video of him on Youtube, quite an interesting guy. I have no doubt that this man is capable of incredible mental prowesses, as his IQ proves, but is he really a genius? Pointcarré apparently failed an IQ test that was administered to him but I have no hesitation calling him a genius. In the end, it seems that genius is an elusive thing; I even suspect that those who possess it do not entirely understand it.
People do not like admitting they are inferior in any way in comparison to another person, especially in intelligence. We all want to believe we are geniuses but we have doubts that we actually are. If we are "no genius," then we are simply ordinary. The looking glass self kicks in and a pang of inferiority hits, sending us insecurely flying into biased logic and analysis of what it means to be a genius.
The word "genius" has at least two main uses in the context of this thread. One is used to describe a person that is within the top 2 percentile of society as measured by an IQ test. No actual accomplishment is needed to be labeled a "genius" in this manner. The other is of a person who figured out things that nobody else did, even though others may have tried. Tese are usually complex accomplishments, but sometimes even a simple minded person who was simply lucky enough to be viewed as original and creative may be called a "genius." "Genius" existed before IQ tests, however.
The IQ sort of "genius" is an attempt to label and stratify society. The obvious reasons for this would be to cater to those with superior ability and to nurture that ability in schools, higher education, and perhaps even in the workforce. IQ tests are certainly not perfect and their validity has been disputed since the inception of the test. One common argument is that the tests only measure some forms of intelligence, and even those measurements can be quite unreliable, but it is what it is and it has been firmly entrenched into society.
The other sort of genius, which is driven more by actual accomplishment is both more superficial and a more substantiative form of genius. One must rely on their perception of a person to see whether said person is a genius or not. Why do most people believe Einstein is a genius? Did they know him? Have they studied his work? More than likely, the answer is that they have not. I prefer this usage of the word though because it does drive us to create the perception in others that we are a "genius," rather than simply vesting us with the label for accomplishing nothing. I believe this drives many to actual accomplishments, while the label of "genius" given via IQ test actually instills little more than arrogance and complacency, causing errors in judgment or simply little to no productivity. I would critique IQ tests more, but that is outside of the scope of this thread.
Now, arrogance has nothing to do with genius in terms of IQ and is only partially valid in determining genius by the second usage described here. Many like to think that arrogance invalidates a person's "genius" status, and in a way it can because the second usage of the word that I described relies upon society labeling a person with the title of genius. However, an individual does not speak for society, no one person on this forum, nor even group can remove the label of "genius" from a person given that status by society. It is society who creates the label for the person. A very arrogant person may not appear to be that way to the whole of society and in the context of society, even if he does, society in all it's complex interactions may still label him/her a genius.
Remember, the word "genius" is simply an idea created by man and it carries no meaning with it other than the meanings we attribute to it. It doesn't matter which definition you prefer personally. A person can be a type of genius, but you don't have to confuse the meanings and try to take that status away from them. If a lazy, arrogant person with the status of genius because of his IQ tells you he is a genius, what is the sense in disagreeing with him? Just tell him that he is a rather dull and complacent genius who will amount to nothing, and move on.
-Phil
Chi Meson
Jul4-07, 06:12 AM
I prefer to use the word "genius" in terms of something that certain people have, as opposed to something that certain people are. Many people you have met have a brilliance in particular areas, yet are normal in many other circumstances ("Multiple Intelligences, and all that).
Most of us agree that the measure of genius is through results rather than an IQ test.
George Jones
Jul4-07, 06:44 AM
Tony Sudbery, a mathematician at University of York in Britain, said to me: "Roger Penrose is a genuius; Stephen Hawking isn't."
Tony Sudbery, a mathematician at University of York in Britain, said to me: "Roger Penrose is a genuius; Stephen Hawking isn't."
I'd agree. I love Penrose. His book (Road to Reality) is fantastic.
mathwonk
Jul4-07, 07:24 PM
lets face it, if someone is a genius, how would any of us know?
One is used to describe a person that is within the top 2 percentile of society as measured by an IQ test.
Well, that's patently absurd. I was in the top 1% (99th percentile :tongue:) 30 years ago before I started getting smart, and I sure as hell ain't no genius even now.
To the OP, I would suggest that perhaps a genius is one who doesn't spell 'Are' as 'A'. :biggrin:
(Yeah, I noticed the all-caps cover-up in the first sentence, but really... somebody had to say it.)
Well, that's patently absurd. I was in the top 1% (99th percentile :tongue:) 30 years ago before I started getting smart, and I sure as hell ain't no genius even now.
To the OP, I would suggest that perhaps a genius is one who doesn't spell 'Are' as 'A'. :biggrin:
(Yeah, I noticed the all-caps cover-up in the first sentence, but really... somebody had to say it.)
You are technically one form of genius then, but the whole point of having this sort of "genius" status is so that you may use it towards constructive things. There is a moderate link between IQ tests and success in academia and highly technical fields. It's more of an imperfect and limited predictive status given to you with lots of bias and narrowmindedness attached. I wouldn't boast about it if I were you, but it probably isn't a bad thing.
Schrodinger's Dog
Jul5-07, 05:27 AM
ARE you a genius*** :- )
What do you think gives a person special mental abilities? (IQ of 149+) Is it all genetics or just your environment, or a combination of the two? Do you think the IQ test really measures your mental ability? Or is there other factors that the IQ test doesn't take into consideration such as creativity and so on.
OR maybe genius is just a state of mind that we all can achieve.
No it measures your level of education mostly.
And yes precisely because it does not take into account creativity it is practically redundant IMHO. :biggrin:
IQ tests(proper ones) Are a waste of money, internet ones are a joke :smile:, go buy a text book and learn instead, IQ is debunkable.
i just kind of assume that if you're smart, you know to be humble.
By some accounts I've heard Newton was an obnoxious and arrogant man, who knew he was a genius, hard to get on with.
But then who'd argue with a man who stuck a pen in his eye to work out if it would effect his visual acuity, I don't think we can draw any conclusions about personality or sanity in making an assumption.
Feynman: IQ 120: impresses me, his ideas about what it takes to develop a highly inquisitive and broad mind tend to show that he was a genius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
And Amen to the last one, it's the essence of science.
Besides being a wonderful physicist, Mr. Feynman was a wonderful person! What a joy is to watch him talking!! The world is a better place since he lived in it...
The quintesential of genius, right or wrong the world is a better place for you having been there, and there are many who fit that criteria. Even you *points*
I'd say never be satisfied with an arbitrary nonsense such as IQ, I suppose genius is in, as said, what you achieve not what you think of yourself or non correlatory tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgr...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
I never knew Feynman had such a New Yorker accent.
O my god I agree with Werg...I SWEAR his accents different in those links than in other video lectures i've seen...but either way, I can't believe I didn't say hes a genius before lol. Actually this reminds me of a book I read a few years ago when I knew pretty much nothing about mathematics, but quite alot of Physical Theory.
I underline theory because I knew the principles of many things such as relativity and quantum mechanics and even up to a point got as advanced as QED and QCD. However I realised one day that meant actually very very little, as the maths in those theories were to biggest part! And since I hadn't even heard of a logarithm then, I decided to start learning maths in pure pursuit of my dreams in physics. But i seem to have converted to a mathematician-wannabe now.
I just realised I went very off the topic, but you won't know that till you've read this far anyway so it doesn't matter :) The point was I read this very interesting book that gives shortened biographies of about 6 or so influential Physicists. And the names were the some of the biggest. Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Bohr (even though personally i don't think that he was THAT great) and and Finally who i don't agree with but the book seemed to think was the finest example of a genius, Murray Gell-Mann. It doesn't say on the wikipedia link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann , but the biography said he spoke 6 of so languages. Not just that, but his father had pioneered a technique as to learn a language and speak it without the slightest hint of an accent. He went to Yale at 15 years of age as well >.< He also was known to be an arrogant person, so perhaps people can have an arrogance about their genius but still be one..There were many other things that left me with the impression this guy was "one smart cookie" as my sister says, i just cant remember them lol.
I also remember that Heisenberg is quite a genius too, and to a lesser extent his brother. They used to go on hiking trips and on the long walks Heisenberg and his brother would play chess. How they held the board you say? No need, they played in their minds >.< "Queen to B5" etc etc, and they would remember the positions of all their pieces...quite amazing.
But come on guys, at the end of the day, theres no debate that this guys a real genius :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSw1Qav0L2E&NR=1
(they spelled his name wrong ..)
IQ measures how well you do in IQ tests, not to mention denoting a 3 hour period in your life which could have been better spent watching paint dry.
As for genius it in the eye of the beholder rather than in the head of the beholdee.
snip
theres no way feynman's iq was 120
Schrodinger's Dog
Jul8-07, 03:53 PM
theres no way feynman's iq was 120
My mistake it was 124 :wink:
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/genius.htm
"On the trip home from the Nobel ceremonies in Stockholm, prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman stopped in Queens, N.Y., and looked up his high-school records. 'My grades were not as good as I remembered,' he said, 'and my I.Q. was 124, considered just above average.' "
James Gleick. (1992). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. New York: Pantheon.
Editor's note -- Richard Feynman's IQ of 124 was well above average for high school graduates and even college graduates. The average IQ of PhD/MD degree recipients is about 125, which is higher than 95 percent of the general population. Beyond a certain level of ability, other factors are certainly more important in determining an individual's chances of winning the Nobel Prize than IQ, not the least of which is the quality and reputation of the institution where the individual obtained his/her graduate degree and worked or taught. See Nobel Prize Winners and Universities. -- W.E.B.
As I said people take this nonsense far too seriously (even letting it influence there education choices or personal sense of intelligence) Genius or even intelligence isn't all that Correlatory with IQ it never has been. It may tell you how well you might do in education, but further than that it's hard to say.
"The four socially and personally most important threshold regions on the IQ scale are those that differentiate with high probability between persons who, because of their level of general mental ability, can or cannot attend a regular school (about IQ 50), can or cannot master the traditional subject matter of elementary school (about IQ 75), can or cannot succeed in the academic or college preparatory curriculum through high school (about IQ 105), can or cannot graduate from an accredited four-year college with grades that would qualify for admission to a professional or graduate school (about IQ 115). Beyond this, the IQ level becomes relatively unimportant in terms of ordinary occupational aspirations and criteria of success. That is not to say that there are not real differences between the intellectual capabilities represented by IQs of 115 and 150 or even between IQs of 150 and 180. But IQ differences in this upper part of the scale have far less personal implications than the thresholds just described and are generally of lesser importance for success in the popular sense than are certain traits of personality and character."
Arthur Jensen. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Free Press, p. 113.
"It has been said that a 140 IQ is a "genius" score, however there is no definition, as such, in either of my psychological dictionaries about "genius." Neither is there an IQ score ranked as "genius"... Genius may be in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, a true genius may not score particularly well on a standard group IQ test... And really, those who are what we may call a genius don't need a score to prove it."
The Question Of "Genius"
Abbie F. Salny, Ed.D., Supervisory psychologist, American Mensa
From my personal experience I've found people who are gifted at maths and language to score high on IQ tests, but to have little imagination or creativity sometimes, and that is what genius and intelligence is also about, a test that misses this, is missing the bigger picture. These skills in IQ tests are important, but those they miss are more important IMO.
Even a "complete" IQ test that gave weight to all the vague forms of intelligence we are able to categorize would never be accurate, simply because it gives equal weight to the differing parts. Even trying to set some sort of proportion scale wouldn't be accurate. A person may be specifically wonderful at mathematical equations, but terrible at language problems, so they would still receive a lower score. The problem is that the test generalizes everything into 1 number, which is inadequate at best and is ignorantly discriminatory.
Couperin
Jul10-07, 08:46 AM
I loved it when I read one of Feynman's biographies and discovered that his IQ was 'only' 124, because it more or less confirmed my suspicion that the concept of IQ is for the most part BS. The fact is that Feynman's intelligence probably didn't function in the terms tested by an IQ test and that's probably what made him a genius (However it should also be noted that Feynmann did very well in the maths and spatial tests, and poorly on the linguistic tests).
I once had a convo with someone to whom it was obvious that Feynman’s ‘real’ IQ was much higher than that produced by his IQ test. Personally I think that's a load of crap because what is a ‘real’ IQ? IQ is exactly what it is: the results of a very specific test. That’s literally what it is (like you needed me to say so). Gauging intelligence by a ratings system is IMO completely misunderstanding the nature of intelligence, hence why IQ tests spew out so many anomalous results.
Just some guy
Jul11-07, 06:31 PM
Nah, not really close. Come to think of it I don't think I've ever met a genius :/ I guess I'll stumble across one eventually.
But I do think that IQ tests don't really have a lot to do with genius. I once saw an article about a guy who created sculptures from a grain of sand, painted them with a hair plucked from a fly and placed them in the eye of a needle. His stuff was amazing, I would call it genius, and the guy can't even read or write and has an IQ less than 100.
But IQ tests do measure some form of brilliance. Not everyone can score a high IQ.
But IQ tests do measure some form of brilliance. Not everyone can score a high IQ.
and not everyone can roll their tongue. it's been said before an iq test measures someone's ability to take an iq test. while their might be some correlation between iq and success theres no casual relationship
and not everyone can roll their tongue. it's been said before an iq test measures someone's ability to take an iq test. while their might be some correlation between iq and success theres no casual relationship
I agree. It's a predictor since there is a correlation between IQ and job performance/success, but it's not a particularly great predictor, especially above a certain IQ. It's more one of those things that you need enough of and after that other factors start to become more important.
You might have a hard time saying IQ correlates to success depending on how you define success. Looking over the Wikipedia article, a person with an IQ < 75 is more likely to find a spouse by the age of 30 than a person with an IQ > 125. Of course, those with an IQ of 110 or less have a much higher chance of divorcing within 5 years, so maybe there's a decent trade off in the long term. :rofl:
They used to go on hiking trips and on the long walks Heisenberg and his brother would play chess. How they held the board you say? No need, they played in their minds >.< "Queen to B5" etc etc, and they would remember the positions of all their pieces...quite amazing.
Me and my brother and one of my brothers friends used to do this when we were kids, usually on long car trips. It's really hard at first and you make a lot of blunders, but after a while it gets to be second nature. As a skill, I'd say it's roughly as difficult as learning to do a handstand, or juggle 3 balls (about 20 hours required).
rewebster
Jul18-08, 10:40 AM
funny, I was never told my IQ---maybe I missed the tests from moving so often--
and now for the bad news about IQ:
"Health and IQ
Main article: Health and intelligence
Persons with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,[55] severe depression,[56][57] and schizophrenia[58] are less prevalent in higher IQ bands.
A study of 11,282 individuals in Scotland who took intelligence tests at ages 7, 9 and 11 in the 1950s and 1960s, found an "inverse linear association" between childhood IQ scores and hospital admissions for injuries in adulthood. The association between childhood IQ and the risk of later injury remained even after accounting for factors such as the child's socioeconomic background.[59] Research in Scotland has also shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of seeing their 76th birthday, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long.[60]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
its probably from being called an "egghead" and being pushed to the ground by the bully so often that it becomes a habit
thomasxc
Jul21-08, 10:02 AM
Genius is the ability to elude innate human stupidity, at least in my opinion.
amen. i think that if people sat down and tried, theyd be alot smarter than they generally are.....i think "geniuses" are genetically predisposed to a certain skill....but thats just me../
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.