Are There Secret Geniuses Working for Governments?

[jreelawg]

There is one in my discrete math class; Always reading different advanced math books; Remembers and understands everything he reads; Pretty amazing.

 

[ThomasT]

There is one in my discrete math class; Always reading different advanced math books; Remembers and understands everything he reads; Pretty amazing.

I think memory is the key. Or, if not the key, at least an extremely important element. I have no idea how geniuses remember as well as they do. Apparently, something is persisting in their brains longer than wrt ordinary people. World class chess players, mathematicians, musicians, philosophers, physicists, etc., seem to have this ability. This sort of memory capability sets the stage for making connections that ordinary people have difficulty in making.

But, again, I think that the discerning factor is the passionate, dilligent pursuance of, and commitment to, a specific goal. For example, Bobby Fischer was considered a chess genius. From the time he was about 7 years old until his early 30's he, reportedly, spent about 12 hours a day studying chess positions. A passionate, dilligent commitment to a specific goal.

I also suppose that people of more or less ordinary IQ have emerged as geniuses in one field or another. Primarily due to their passionate, dilligent commitment to do the work required to improve wrt their chosen field.

So, I think there is hope for anyone in the sub 150 (even sub 130) IQ population to become ... an acknowledged genius at something.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think memory is the key. Or, if not the key, at least an extremely important element. I have no idea how geniuses remember as well as they do. Apparently, something is persisting in their brains longer than wrt ordinary people. World class chess players, mathematicians, musicians, philosophers, physicists, etc., seem to have this ability. This sort of memory capability sets the stage for making connections that ordinary people have difficulty in making.

There is a lot of study regarding various kinds of exceptional memory. To be honest as has been said IQ is a fairly worthless measure of intelligence, let alone if they are a good measure of what a "genius" is. Unless anyone knows of a thorough definition calling someone a genius is just a vague, subjective label we attach to people with exceptional (generally non-physical) skill in an area. A polyglot could be called a genius but be horrendous at maths, an avant-garde artist can be called a genius but in a completely different way to Richard Feynman etc.

 

[ThomasT]

There is a lot of study regarding various kinds of exceptional memory.

Thanks for the link ... interesting.

To be honest as has been said IQ is a fairly worthless measure of intelligence, let alone if they are a good measure of what a "genius" is.

Yes, IQ doesn't seem to be a necessarily discerning factor. And the word, "intelligence", seems only to be relevant wrt specific measurable criteria. Back to Forrest Gump's mom ... "stupid is as stupid does".

Unless anyone knows of a thorough definition calling someone a genius is just a vague, subjective label we attach to people with exceptional (generally non-physical) skill in an area.

That seems to be how the term is used.

A polyglot could be called a genius but be horrendous at maths, an avant-garde artist can be called a genius but in a completely different way to Richard Feynman etc.

Yeah, artists (I'm supposing you're referring primarily to visual artists) are the most difficult to assess. Eg., some people think that Van Gogh's stuff is the work of a genius. To me (and I've seen several of the originals) it just looks like the work of an ordinary, albeit perhaps emotionally disturbed, not especially talented person.

On the other hand, I never cease to be amazed at the abilities of world class concert musicians. Especially pianists. But again, these 'genius' skills don't happen overnight. There are usually decades of daily (many hours) practice behind it.

 

[Illuminerdi]

Richard Feynman scored 125.

The real question is why a bunch of grown men would obsess over the results each other got on a test designed to decide which class french kindergartners should be in.

 

[DragonPetter]

Supposedly the world's smartest man (highest IQ) is a dropout who had a career as a bouncer and is now trying to prove the existence of god. I think there are geniuses in the world, but it can't be defined as an IQ threshold level.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Supposedly the world's smartest man (highest IQ) is a dropout who had a career as a bouncer and is now trying to prove the existence of god. I think there are geniuses in the world, but it can't be defined as an IQ threshold level.

[citation needed][/color]

 

[DragonPetter]

[citation needed][/color]

If you accept wikipedia as a citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Other than that, I'm sure his name in google will find some.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you accept wikipedia as a citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Other than that, I'm sure his name in google will find some.

Further proof that IQ scores are only indicative of how good someone is at taking IQ tests;

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.[14]"

Langan explains on his website that he believes "since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God". He explains

"In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.[25]"

 

[DragonPetter]

Further proof that IQ scores are only indicative of how good someone is at taking IQ tests;

Well, I don't know if he can be discounted completely. I read through his writings, and he is at least very intelligent, but some of his ideas have crackpot written on them.

He argued that science does not further the field of mathematics; that math does not need science to progress, while science continuously borrows from mathematics.

That argument struck me as somewhat ignorant considering modern physics invented or expanded subfields of mathematics (chaos theory for example), and so I already have little faith in whatever his giant brain is thinking of.

 

[genericusrnme]

lolwut, people still believe in IQ?

 

[DragonPetter]

lolwut, people still believe in IQ?

I've always thought it was something developed back when the field of psychology was still quite naive.

But aren't there strong correlations between IQ and people's aptitudes?

 

[chaoseverlasting]

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.

 

[DragonPetter]

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'm easily a genius in video games then.

 

[turbo]

I am a genius, but I don't know in which field yet. Perhaps before I'm dead, I will have figured it out.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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 had a lecturer once state that it takes roughly 10,000 hours to go from fresher to PhD student. That seems a little low to me though; assuming 3 years undergrad and 4 years PhD (and a working year of 200 days) that only equates to 35 hours a week, less if we add another year for a masters and less if we take into account working on weekends and holidays. Given that they don't call them Piled Higher and Deepers for nothing I would suggest that number optimistic.

 

[genericusrnme]

I've always thought it was something developed back when the field of psychology was still quite naive.

But aren't there strong correlations between IQ and people's aptitudes?

I think it's more that people that get really low results in IQ tests tend to be pretty dim.
It has been a few years since I actually looked into IQ so I might be off.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

That study said that people who do something 3 hours a day and for about 10 years end up being geniuses at it. I am assuming that they mean an evolved understanding of that particular subject.

Again, I don't know the exact context of the study, but it seems relevant to the discussion. It may also be that people discard ideas of theirs that they think may be too stupid or immature to pursue but inadvertently end up subverting ideas that could have had immense payoffs?

I'm not sure of the arguments here, if genius is based on what you can accomplish, then clearly IQ is a crap measure. In my limited experience I repeatedly see that more than just pure brainpower, those who achieve the most usually have a work ethic or something else about them that let's them really get it done.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's more that people that get really low results in IQ tests tend to be pretty dim.
It has been a few years since I actually looked into IQ so I might be off.

IIRC the IQ test was developed in order to determine whether or not a child has special needs.

I'm not sure of the arguments here, if genius is based on what you can accomplish, then clearly IQ is a crap measure. In my limited experience I repeatedly see that more than just pure brainpower, those who achieve the most usually have a work ethic or something else about them that let's them really get it done.

If I had to come up with a useful definition of genius it would be:

Someone in possession of above-average intelligence who utilises this to excel in a field in a novel manner

In other words simply being intelligent does not make you a genius. Achieving does not make you a genius.

 

[Illuminerdi]

Well, I don't know if he can be discounted completely. I read through his writings, and he is at least very intelligent, but some of his ideas have crackpot written on them.

He argued that science does not further the field of mathematics; that math does not need science to progress, while science continuously borrows from mathematics.

That argument struck me as somewhat ignorant considering modern physics invented or expanded subfields of mathematics (chaos theory for example), and so I already have little faith in whatever his giant brain is thinking of.

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.

 

[DragonPetter]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[phoenix:\\]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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?