Are There Secret Geniuses Working for Governments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fellupahill
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of genius, particularly in the field of physics, and the criteria for being classified as a genius. Participants debate the definition of genius, often citing an IQ threshold of 130, which suggests that around 200 million people worldwide could be classified as geniuses. However, the conversation highlights that true genius is often associated with significant achievements rather than just high IQ scores. The idea that genius can be cultivated through dedication and hard work is emphasized, with references to the "10,000 hours" rule for mastering a skill. There is skepticism about the validity of IQ tests as a measure of intelligence, with some arguing that they do not capture the full spectrum of human capability. The discussion also touches on the potential for governments to recruit geniuses for important projects, raising concerns about their safety and the secrecy surrounding their work. Overall, the thread explores the complexities of defining genius and the factors that contribute to exceptional achievement in various fields, particularly physics.
  • #51
Illuminerdi said:
Yeah, there's a concept called reification that applies doubly when talking about Langan. Reification means treating an abstract construct as though it's something that actually exists in nature. This is done with IQ all the time, in that it's assumed to be some inherent quality someone possesses rather than something someone scores on a test. In Langan's idea, there's an even greater level of reification in assuming that math is something the universe has. The universe doesn't know math—math is the tool we created to describe the universe. Why do imaginary numbers exist, for instance?—Because our math system needed to be corrected in order to describe some natural phenomena.

Langan's story is unfortunate. It's one of arrogance.

Yes, and while a lot of scientists/mathematicians could get away with false assertions like that and still have credible works, his "theory" seems to be entirely planted in false premises like this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
chaoseverlasting said:
There was a German (?) study that I read of last year which said that to be a genius at something, you have to spend roughly 10,000 hours at it...

So, anyone can be a genius at something I guess. I haven't read the whole study, however.
I think the actual claim is that it takes at least 10,000 hours to become a master of something. That's different than being a genius. All it implies is expertise, knowledge, skill. Genius is an uncanny brilliance, the likes of which can't be taught or learned.
 
  • #53
Doesn't Feynman put a wrench in that assertion? "Uncanny" brilliance isn't so uncanny if expertise, knowledge, and skill in a field practically makes the two people the same, the genius and non-genius. It would be quite difficult separating the genius from the non-genius. The only distinguishing factor would be the creativity level of both people, but an IQ test doesn't exactly test for the creativity of the individual.
 
  • #54
phoenix:\\ said:
Doesn't Feynman put a wrench in that assertion? "Uncanny" brilliance isn't so uncanny if expertise, knowledge, and skill in a field practically makes the two people the same, the genius and non-genius. It would be quite difficult separating the genius from the non-genius. The only distinguishing factor would be the creativity level of both people, but an IQ test doesn't exactly test for the creativity of the individual.

What?
 

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
7K
Replies
24
Views
7K
Replies
103
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top