What All Great Geniuses Have in Common

[Grimstone]

I know people who's though possesses are a,b,c,d,e,f,g. there is no other way for them. I define them as linear thinking.
then there is the guy that starts at one letter and may take the most absurd path you ever seen, but in the end arrives at the destination.
this I define as abstract thinking.

wish is more intelligent? the thought that is defined and follows the path that is set before them. or the thoughts that wander around each letter looking for a new path, for the thrill of a new path?
classic example.
we live on a rock. that rock is like many other rocks in the universe. what is it that you do that can make a true difference on such a scale?

The linear thinker automatically says "nothing"
the abstract thinker will pick up a rock. and move it. "that rock will never be in the same place as before. I have made a change in the universe. small as it may be."

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

 

[brainstorm]

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

What I think you mean to do is to distinguish between conformist thought and non-conformist though. Intelligence can be expressed in both but only gets recognized as genius in non-conformist thought, I believe, because conformist thought usually leads to predictable results. Putting a lot of energy into non-conformist (i.e. independently-creative) thought and work leads to interesting results, but the reason those seem "special" is because they are defined in comparison with "normal," i.e. non-special, things. So, once again you run into the problem of normativity and conformity determining how the results of thought are labeled and viewed.

Without conformity/normativity, it wouldn't matter whether thought/work was special "genius" or not. The only issue would be utility. If something is useful, you use it. Normative evaluations form an intermediary filter between thought and action (or better said: between conception and utilization).

 

[WhoWee]

What I think you mean to do is to distinguish between conformist thought and non-conformist though. Intelligence can be expressed in both but only gets recognized as genius in non-conformist thought, I believe, because conformist thought usually leads to predictable results.

Don't most leaps occur when "predictable results" have been exhausted and a non-conformist approach yields a result?

 

[RoughRoad]

Ramanujan NEVER attended even a decent school or college in his life!

 

[PhysDrew]

Ramanujan NEVER attended even a decent school or college in his life!

Ah good example RoughRoad! Indeed Ramanujan had almost no formal trainng in maths, and was taken to Cambridge I think, and he soon died because it was said he just couldn't fit into his new life (died of malnutrition and other things I think). So the prestige school and surrounding actually killed him!
By the way his story is amazing. You should read it if you haven't heard of him.

 

[ebits21]

I really don't know where you are getting your information from?

Anyhow whether your information is true or not, you have a confusion with correlation and causation.

Are they geniuses because they are odd? Or are they odd because they are self-indulged in the world and knowledge around them that they pay less attention to what other people find as "normal"?

There is some truth in this actually. High functioning autistics, known as savants or asberger's syndrome, are often considered to be at the genius level in their area of expertise. Many have extraordinary memory for things like numbers. Kim Peek, they guy who inspired rain man, is a great example. He memorized 12,000 books, reading them two pages at a time (one with the left eye, one with the right). People with autism almost universally have a very difficult time interacting with people and understanding them, so they seem odd. Einstein also had autistic traits, such as having early speech difficulties.

I think the most common element in genius is that they are driven and fascinated to learn as much about a certain topic as they can. If they think differently I don't think it's because of conformist education, but because they seek out materials and ideas on their own and obsess over them.

 

[Isaacsname]

I know people who's though possesses are a,b,c,d,e,f,g. there is no other way for them. I define them as linear thinking.
then there is the guy that starts at one letter and may take the most absurd path you ever seen, but in the end arrives at the destination.
this I define as abstract thinking.

wish is more intelligent? the thought that is defined and follows the path that is set before them. or the thoughts that wander around each letter looking for a new path, for the thrill of a new path?
classic example.
we live on a rock. that rock is like many other rocks in the universe. what is it that you do that can make a true difference on such a scale?

The linear thinker automatically says "nothing"
the abstract thinker will pick up a rock. and move it. "that rock will never be in the same place as before. I have made a change in the universe. small as it may be."

this is not to say that a linear thinker can't be a genius, but I believe that more abstract thinkers are more likely to be so. and thus because they do not fit the "norm" of social perception. are thus, thought Odd.

When we say the " Often the best solution is the simpliest. " is that because we always tend to overcomplicate things ? Is that why they are so easily overlooked ? For me, personally, when I finally understand something in a way that relates to what I already know, and understand how it fits, it is usually so simplistic in nature, so..far removed from the original question that there is that facepalm moment.

The proverb of " If you want to find the easiest way to do a hard job, give the job to a lazy man ", implies that the sometimes brilliant solution can come from somebody who appears mentally flaccid .

I have an interesting vantage point from this, in the respect I dropped out of high school. I had started school 2 grades early, later held back 2 years, failed 9th once, gave up and got my GED and went to earn associate's in commercial design/graphic art . Then I immedietly went to work as a chef.:tongue2:

But I always had a fascination for learning things, read at college freshman level in 3rd grade, etc, at the same time, a total pain in the rear problem child.lol. An interesting turning point for me was in 2nd grade, where I had unknowingly stumbled onto Vedic type maths, but was berated by a frustrated teacher for doing so.

I was immedietly stricken with the thoughts " Are there different modes of thought for arriving at the same results , and how exactly do we see the world , store and access the information ? " ..." Is consensual reality merely a matter of semantics ? "

Could it be...? What was to be gained by willfully accepting only that which was being taught, when I realized that by my own logical deductions, I could get the same result faster ? I knew that I was being taught by somebody who had no passion, even at that age, but this also made me very interested in actually espousing traditional learning and education to some extent, at least what I was being offered, and trying to arrive at the same logical end conclusions of the great thinkers.

It made sense to me that were I able to follow the same trains of thought, and intuitional forays into things, that there would be perhaps a deeper fundamental understanding of how things relate, and why they relate, more importantly.

Now I'm 38, and going back to school this fall after a life of working and studying things on my own. I've seen demonstrated time and time again, that unorthodox thinking is where brilliance is found, the " outside the box " thoughts, that for some reason or another is overlooked. I posit simplicity. I did quite well for myself in the restaurant business because I was so good at making things simple.

Some would say that a chef has no understanding of science or physics, I would counter that cooking is physics you can eat with a little poesis thrown into boot.

But enough about me :uhh:

I love to listen to Feynman talk about looking at things from a different perspective, this also is the outside-the-box thinking, imho.

An interesting story:

Last summer, while studying some things relating to the oil spew in the Gulf, I met a chemist omline who had worked for BP in Alaska. He told me that they had a problem on a platform with a type of automatic/manual switch mechanism of some sort that would get iced over. It was a fairly big problem, apparently detrimental to the operation.

The solution was found by a high school dropout, apparently somebody who has a name in the petroleum industry for being a self-taught genius , and is actually hired from time to time for engineering consulting purposes ( I'm not making this up :tongue2: )

* scribbled on a piece of paper *

" Remove both faceplate mounting screws of switch, pull switch out, rotate 180 degrees and reinsert into faceplate. "

40k he was paid for this...

Genius

 

[EntropicLove]

Yeah Ramanujan lived in a small farming village in India in the middle of nowhere.

Of course after he was discovered he quickly went to oxbridge where he did prolific amount of work. Mind you which considerable amount of it was wrong.

 

[Raphie]

I was immedietly stricken with the thoughts " Are there different modes of thought for arriving at the same results , and how exactly do we see the world , store and access the information ? " ..." Is consensual reality merely a matter of semantics ? "

Isaacsname, if you are not familiar wth Emile Durkheim, you ought to be, at least on the basis of the thoughts you have expressed. Key phrase: "Collective Representations."

A specific book I would recommend is his last work, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (But, to provide a proper context, you might want to read a bit about that which constitutes a "Social Fact" first.)


Raphie

 

[Isaacsname]

Isaacsname, if you are not familiar wth Emile Durkheim, you ought to be, at least on the basis of the thoughts you have expressed. Key phrase: "Collective Representations."

A specific book I would recommend is his last work, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (But, to provide a proper context, you might want to read a bit about that which constitutes a "Social Fact" first.)


Raphie

Interesting, Ralphie. Yes, this is similar to many conclusions I've had about things, I find sociology fascinating, the dynamics of societies and groups and how things are held in the public eye within them. The wax and wane of trends and beliefs is a window into how easily people are manipulated, Asch's conformity experiments are today's living for many, ie: things like flash mobs. Mirror neuron studies, I believe, will open a new door in how we understand functional societies and the subtle things that drive them. Vilayanur Ramachandran's work is fascinating, if not a little out of my scope of current understanding, but still..

Happy to have made your aquaintance on PF, I will do some reading tonight, Durkheim's first on the list.

Take care,

Isaac