Are men more genial than women ?

  • Thread starter piercas
  • Start date
  • #26
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
hitssquad said:
Gardner does not say that there are several g's. He indirectly said there was only one g when he said a minimum IQ of about 120 was necessary for genius.
I thought we were talking about types of g, not the minimum IQ required to manifest it.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
912
0
IQ as a proxy for g

Les Sleeth said:
hitssquad said:
Gardner ... indirectly said there was only one g when he said a minimum IQ of about 120 was necessary for genius.
I thought we were talking about types of g, not the minimum IQ required to manifest it.
G does not stand for genius. IQ is used as a proxy measurement for g. It does not make sense to refer to a minimum IQ required to manifest g.
 
  • #28
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
hitssquad said:
G does not stand for genius. IQ is used as a proxy measurement for g. It does not make sense to refer to a minimum IQ required to manifest g.
You caught me being careless (I'm tired). I assumed we were talking about what the thread's author asked, and that selfAdjoint was just speaking casually about "g." If we aren't talking about learning to appreciate the varieties of genius, then I haven't anyting to say.
 
  • #29
912
0
Idiots savants and the threshold nature of g with respect to genius

Bartholomew said:
So far I've only seen you and Mandrake quote from _The g Factor_.
Apparently, enough people quote from it that it has become an http://www.isinet.com/demos/esi/h_whatis.htm [Broken] Citation Classic.

"Of special note are the citation classic commentaries, brief autobiographic vignettes on the background of breakthrough research papers that went on to be highly cited in their fields. This entire section, called in-cites, offers readers entry into a virtual community of scientists engaged in writing what is, in effect, the history of current and recent science."



Bartholomew said:
If someone who is recognized as a genius has an IQ that only puts him in the 90th percentile, then there's probably something wrong with the IQ test.
"Many psychologists would probably set the threshold at IQ 130 or more, thus excluding 98 percent of the population." (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p260.)



Bartholomew said:
Autistic savants ... may have low IQs but high abilities in certain areas, e.g. for music. It's conceivable that an autistic savant with an IQ of 80 but with a musical talent could become recognized as a genius.
"It is noteworthy that so-called idiots savants who manifest one of the multiple "intelligences" despite having a very low IQ are never considered as outstanding mathematicians, musicians, artists, or dancers; and exceedingly few, if any, are able to earn a living by their special talent. An average or above-average level of g seems an essential condition for the intellectually or artistically significant expression of any special talent in the cognitive domain." (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p260.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
517
0
hitssquad said:
Apparently, enough people quote from it that it has become an http://www.isinet.com/demos/esi/h_whatis.htm [Broken] Citation Classic.
I don't mean that you are alone in quoting from it; I mean that if you're going to bother to quote things, you shouldn't use just one source, especially if that source is controversial, i.e. not generally accepted.

Jensen is misinformed about autistic savants; I've read about at least two autistic savants who lived off their work, one of them selling paintings and the other selling music. I believe the latter actually made enough money to support himself fully; his family made his music into a business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
912
0
Eysenck's Genius, 1995

Bartholomew said:
Jensen is misinformed about autistic savants
He does not seem to be. Few idiots savants are able to make money off of their talents.



I've read about at least two autistic savants who lived off their work, one of them selling paintings and the other selling music. I believe the latter actually made enough money to support himself fully; his family made his music into a business.
Tony DeBlois.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/10/26/music_for_life/

He plays songs by request. He does not compose, but he does improvise:

"Among savants, Tony is remarkable," says Dr. Darold Treffert....

"Most savants are expert at replication.... What distinguishes Tony is his capacity to improvise...."


Tony is an elite among savants; but where is Tony's genius? Where is any savant's genius? Recognized eminently creative musicians do not just play instruments; they take control of a creative process by composing and conducting, and when they do it they forge new styles. See Hans Eysenck, Genius (1995).
 
  • #32
517
0
So you would say that the great jazz musicians of the past were not geniuses? I think many would disagree with you. I'm not saying Tony is necessarily one of them--for one thing he was born too late--but the capacity to improvise IS the capacity to compose. It's not written on a piece of paper, but it is no less a creative act.
 

Related Threads for: Are men more genial than women ?

  • Last Post
5
Replies
101
Views
18K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
128
Views
10K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Top