Genius

[lisztisforkids]

What makes somebody a Genius? What is a Genius?

In the words of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre

            "Genius is what a man invents when he is looking for a way out"

I agree. I beleive that conflict is an essential part of art.

[prometheus]

IQ above 140.

[pianistimo]

this is slightly off topic (sorry) but i happened to read something about academically gifted children.  seems that after some guy with a phd studied many of them - some conclusions were reached.  they take an idea and try to use it or connect it to something else that they know.  so, in effect, they not only memorize, but assimilate the idea and try to use it again in a situation soon after learning it - or, if it is a vocabulary word - they actually try to use it the same day on several people.  this active type of thinking makes them more efficient on the job.  a similarity was made to salespeople - one memorizes all the details about whatever gadget and then goes on to process how they can effectively use that information to garner a sale.  they try to figure out what will most appeal to a buyer.  then you see other sales people that have to be told what the buyer is looking for - and seem a bit absent minded.

[stringoverstrung]

As many of you probably know, Arthur Schopenhauer said:

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see"

I think that sums it up. I want to add that the word genius is used way to often and often for a person with the right combination of Planning, obsession and love for the art/thing where this "genius" is good at.
When a genius comes along, the genius changes the world forever.

A good example of a genius is: Isaac Newton.

[prometheus]

Many stupid people have changed the world. Also, many people have changed the world in a bad way. Does that make them genius too?

[leahcim]

A good example of a genius is: Isaac Newton.

For services to Hooke and Leibnitz?

[quantum]

IQ above 140.

Is there a top possible limit for IQ scores, or do they keep on going up indefinately?

[prometheus]

Above 140 it becomes hard to estimate IQ's. They have special tests for people above 140 and 160 but still there will be a big inaccuracy. The people with the highest IQs often have an inaccuracy of 20 points or more.

The most important thing about IQs is that the average is always has 100.

[steve jones]

Tell you what I never understood about IQ testing...

What if you were just having a bad day, lol? Say you had a bad hang over, your head was pounding, you are having trouble concerntrating etc.

Surely you would get a very different result than if you were 100% on the ball, right?

With this in mind, it would make sense to take a series of tests and work out an average score to determine a reliable result, would it not?

[prometheus]

But IQ tests estimate intelligence. It is very hard to measure intelligence but the IQ test is one of the things that work.

Some persons may be less good at doing IQ tests than others. So their results will always be a bit lower than their 'true' intelligence. This doesn't mean they score low, just that their score is less accurate than it is on average. If you have a bad or good day your test results will differ from your intelligence. If you do a test in a language you don't really master then you will also get inaccuracy.

You can also practice IQ tests. Your intelligence may become a bit higher because of the practice but your test results will increase a lot more. If you practice IQ tests you will score better without being more intelligent. IQ tests assume you don't practice IQ tests.

There is also the highly disputed 'Mozart effect', listening to Mozart will temporarily boast your intelligencein some fields and you will score about 10 points higher. At least that is claimed by some.

I don't know how relevant an effect an off day may have on the score. But in theory it will matter.

[rc]

I don't put a lot of faith in standardized testing. It's more about convenience than actual practicality, "here I have a number of how smrt I am, look at it!". Least of all, that nobody can ever agree on what intelligence actually means .

this is slightly off topic (sorry) but i happened to read something about academically gifted children.  seems that after some guy with a phd studied many of them - some conclusions were reached.  they take an idea and try to use it or connect it to something else that they know.  so, in effect, they not only memorize, but assimilate the idea and try to use it again in a situation soon after learning it - or, if it is a vocabulary word - they actually try to use it the same day on several people.  this active type of thinking makes them more efficient on the job.  a similarity was made to salespeople - one memorizes all the details about whatever gadget and then goes on to process how they can effectively use that information to garner a sale.  they try to figure out what will most appeal to a buyer.  then you see other sales people that have to be told what the buyer is looking for - and seem a bit absent minded.

There's a lot of merit in that, it's not so much about what information a person finds but what they do with it. Hell, everyday life throws so much information at us that our brains have to filter out most of it just so we don't explode.

I get a kick out of certain folks who are knowitalls, or trivia buffs... Just loaded with all kinds of info to end of looking smart. Information is only good in how useful it is, and for that one needs a purpose in the first place. Some seem to know things only to win arguements, which is no victory at all.

In reading biographies of the great people and genius, it seems that they had a very specific purpose in their life work in order to achieve such success. Also, a certain energy, a love of life that fuels them. Einstein was always described in his child like curiousity, his eyes that seemed to defy age and glow with life right until his last days. There's something to that.

[pianistimo]

rc, i think we're on the same wave-length.  standardized testing has made my daughter look really good and my son look really bad.  the truth is, my son can't stand to be tested and doesn't try as hard as he could (or practice for the tests much) - because test taking makes him nervous.  yet, he'll do the homework in math/science/  english (not as much) - and get decent grades if he remembers to turn in what he finished.    what pulls him down is testing.  i know he's smarter than the tests make him out to be because in real life situations he's usually faster than me in figuring a problem out.  fixing something.  remembering things.  remembering directions.  he doesn't usually panic in an emergency. and, he's genuinely kind and helpful (which, imo, is just as important as having a good iq).

so, i tell him not to get discouraged over numbers.  they're only a fast method to see approximately where a person is in their skills (with standardized testing).  he's never been a 'perfectionist' so i don't hold it against him if his spelling is off, or he gets words a little jumbled.  he types really fast - so maybe someday he'll get his wish and not have to write pages for english class. 

are genius's generally disorganized?  my husband seems like a genius to me (also my piano instructor).  my husband remembers things from years ago, people's names, places, whole manuals, reads magazines and books after work like he's on some kind of deadline, has a library in the basement, people rely on him at work to remember details, too.  my piano t. has an acute memory too for music, facts, sort of that 'spooky reading' of all his students and what would be good for them to play, a generally great ability to accurately gauge things.  my husband is a very good writer, too.  of course, people like this might have gone to more than four years of college - which can make a person dry if you let it - but they both have that 'spark' too - and enjoy what they do.

yet (trying to remember my point) my husband is always needing me to go around after him and organize things (from laundry, to papers, to whatever).  after as many years as we've been together - it doesn't bother me since he knows my problems, too, and has to explain what i mean sometimes even to me.

wires, batteries, experimetns gone wrong and right, things used for muti-purposes are what i find in my sons room.  so, i know we are dealing with some experimentation.  i'm hoping, as bill cosbey says - maybe i'll have malaria someday - and find out my son's a genius too when he starts picking up his stuff after he makes the mess.

ps forgot to say - my teacher, on the other hand, is very organized.  maybe some geniuses are and some aren't.

[rimv2]

I was stupid until the 3rd grade. Almost failed the first. I went to school and had no idea I was supposed to be learning stuff. I was never told anything as a child so I found out about the world on my own. In third grade I taught myself long division and made up problems that seem to have no solution and so I kept dividing until the paper filled up completely. When I mentally verbalize multiplication problems I always do them wrong but when I dont verbalize them I always do them right. I studied for an honors biology final exam for 15mins. Out of about a hundred questions the only one I got wrong was because I accidently bubbled the space for E instead of D (there were no E's).  People used ask me how I understand certain things or memorize things so well. I would tell them they can do it just the same way I can. Theyd look at me like I was insulting them. They thought I was some sort of genius. What they didnt know is that I have an almost photographic memory and the majority of the test was relating images to names and the I knew a large part of the material from watching the discovery channel at a young age. I got a C in French. Not genius just visual/kinesthetic dominant.

In my opinion there are no geniuses.

There are only people who learn to use what they have, and those who dont. There is no fault as a person has no control over how where and when he/she is born, and the type of family he/she is raised in.

Ironically, Einstein was an ash-hole.

[allthumbs]

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see"

...and wives wish husbands would sit down to pee... Ya, like that would ever happen!

[rc]

rc, i think we're on the same wave-length.  standardized testing has made my daughter look really good and my son look really bad.  the truth is, my son can't stand to be tested and doesn't try as hard as he could (or practice for the tests much) - because test taking makes him nervous.  yet, he'll do the homework in math/science/  english (not as much) - and get decent grades if he remembers to turn in what he finished.    what pulls him down is testing.  i know he's smarter than the tests make him out to be because in real life situations he's usually faster than me in figuring a problem out.  fixing something.  remembering things.  remembering directions.  he doesn't usually panic in an emergency. and, he's genuinely kind and helpful (which, imo, is just as important as having a good iq).

I caught a documentary on TV a few weeks back, at about 4AM which seems to be where they hide all the interesting shows. It was about male development, and one of the first things they got into was how modern schooling is unsuited to the nature of boys. It's interesting how they test these ideas.

This teacher would have some toys, and get the children (I think they were 5 or 6yrs) to tell stories about them. The boys came up with stories involving violence and death (the horse gets angry and kills the hunter), the girls about friendship and relationships (the man and the horse go for a friendly walk). The boys story upset the girls, teacher mediated and it's decided that nobody should die in their stories, only faint, so the boys lose interest in telling stories. In the society that wants to be inoffensive to anyone and thinks that a curiousity of violence or death means a kid will grow up to be a murderer, a lot of the things that are naturally interesting to males gets supressed. Another thing they had was how boys are more physically active, while school is mostly sedentary.

What was really interesting was how different cultures handled conflict resolution in preschoolers. In western societies, the adult will immediately jump in and put an end to any kind of conflict... Then they showed some videos of preschools in Japan, where the adults would let the conflict happen and the children would learn to solve it themselves. The kid being picked on would stand up to the bully, or another child would come help, or the bully would eventually have no friends and decide to be more friendly. It was pretty cool.

[rc]

In my opinion there are no geniuses.

There are only people who learn to use what they have, and those who dont. There is no fault as a person has no control over how where and when he/she is born, and the type of family he/she is raised in.

Ironically, Einstein was an ash-hole.

I would say there are genii, it's just as stringoverstrung said, the word is thrown around a lot. There have been some people who have really changed the course of history with their ideas. Maybe also in combination with their ability to communicate those ideas.

Sometimes I get the idea that a great discovery was going to happen anyways, regardless of who was the first to figure it out. As Darwin was waiting for the right time to publish his theory of evolution, he came across some fellow who was having very much the same ideas, so it seems even if Darwin didn't come along, someone else would have come up with the theory around the same time anyways.

I think one difference between people who 'learn to use what they have and those who don't' is laziness. A lot of the more ignorant folks I've met seemed to be so because they weren't in any way inclined to open a book, watch a documentary, or learn about new things. A couch potato doesn't really need to think at all.

I wouldn't fault someone for the environment they're born into, but after someone grows out of being a child I think those reasons become excuses. I mean, we're all given that random hand when we're born, from there what matters is what you do with it. Will they make a beautiful sculpture from the clay, let someone else sculpt it, or throw it at the back of someones head?

I suspect Einstein was either a saint or an *** depending on which bio you read. He seemed like a generally good guy, but was a goof in the more ordinary things, like being a father...

[Derek]

IQ did nothing but convince me I was smarter than other kids and made me feel like I didn't have to exert any effort in elementary and high school. I got such good grades my parents thought I WAS a good student, but when I got to college I realized my brain was almost totally atrophied in the area of math and science.  Thanks, American public education. You're a real pal.

[pianistimo]

dear allthumbs,  you totally made me die laughing.  yes, my husband is the absent minded sort that would have the magazine up and lid accidentally down.  (usually not).  but, he's a very sweet sort of genii and doesn't make me feel badly for not knowing things.  i have always asked him a lot of questions - and usually can't find any that he doesn't know the answer to (including 'what piece is that? i used to know it...what is it?)

dear rc,
 
very interesting what you say about how boys learn.  they do seem MUCH more physical in the preschool, and elementary and even jr high level.  seems like just now (at 16) he's not jumping around (over the couch as soon as he gets home).  i used to cringe when he'd go outside (broke his wrist, hurt his back...) because i'd think, 'oh, no  - another trip to the emergency room.'  of course, now he'll be driving.  but, last night - i went out with him and he was pretty good.  freeway, too.  guess that extra agression is sort of a 'dominance' thing.  i never understood it, but we talked about car lengths and reaction time - and, just letting people pass if they get overly agressive. 

he's never really fought or punched anyone - except in 7th or 8th grade and someone was mercilessly teasing him every day.  he came home one day and said - 'mom, i have to tell you something... - i punched this kid in the mouth.  he was teasing me.'  after i heard him say it - then i sort of understood - even though i don't agree about hitting people. 

he's really into showing his prowess at video games right now.  i can see whatever agressions that he has after school - go into the game - so he's fairly tame after a few games.  maybe guys used to hunt and fish, etc. , and now in the city are stuck with video games (and hopefully an agressive desire to make some money soon).  hope he gets a good summer job!

[zheer]

Genius and madness are not too far apart.

[lisztisforkids]

Genius and madness are not too far apart.

Yes, it seems that many, many Geniuses have a kind of madness... I find this very interesting.

[quantum]

Madness to one may be percieved as normality to another.

[leahcim]

Madness to one

The euro lottery odds?

[pianolearner]

But IQ tests estimate intelligence. It is very hard to measure intelligence but the IQ test is one of the things that work.

Some persons may be less good at doing IQ tests than others. So their results will always be a bit lower than their 'true' intelligence. This doesn't mean they score low, just that their score is less accurate than it is on average. If you have a bad or good day your test results will differ from your intelligence. If you do a test in a language you don't really master then you will also get inaccuracy.

You can also practice IQ tests. Your intelligence may become a bit higher because of the practice but your test results will increase a lot more. If you practice IQ tests you will score better without being more intelligent. IQ tests assume you don't practice IQ tests.

There is also the highly disputed 'Mozart effect', listening to Mozart will temporarily boast your intelligencein some fields and you will score about 10 points higher. At least that is claimed by some.

I don't know how relevant an effect an off day may have on the score. But in theory it will matter.

That isn't strictly true. A well designed IQ test MUST be understood by the person taking the test so there are ALWAYS practice questions to start with. Well designed IQ tests must also take into account cultural differences and guessing.  Just like any form of excercise, you get better with practice but you will hit your peak. In other words, you will improve your time running a marathon if you train but the improvements decrease the fitter you become until you hit your peak. After that there will be almost no improvement regardless of how much training you do. Your measured IQ is the same thing. Trust me, I have done MANY IQ tests and read many books on how to improve your IQ but no matter how hard I try I can't increase it . This is my true IQ reading, (I score the same on almost every test which is a good sign) even though it is not much higher than the first test I ever took. This is because I work in a technical field and I enjoy doing puzzles, so my mind was already running at peak....I suppose...

Also, most IQ's should be quoted in percentiles because "140" doesn't mean much unless you give the test taken.

Mensa quotes the top 2 % as being the following scores on different tests.

Cattell III B - 148 
Culture Fair - 132 
Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135 
Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
Wechsler Scales - 132


I think Genius is better than the top 1%, probably 0.5%

[prometheus]

That isn't strictly true. A well designed IQ test MUST be understood by the person taking the test so there are ALWAYS practice questions to start with. Well designed IQ tests must also take into account cultural differences and guessing.

The problem is that this is just not possible. Take any IQ test and you can find a reason for why some people will get a higher score without being more intelligent. Some elements of the IQ test can be cultural and knowledge independent. But those parts do not cover the total intelligence spectrum.

Just like any form of excercise, you get better with practice but you will hit your peak. In other words, you will improve your time running a marathon if you train but the improvements decrease the fitter you become until you hit your peak.

I am not sure you understand so I will build my analogy on yours. Say you are going to test someones fitness. The test is to run a marathon as fast as possible. So one person descides to train for this test. So after a while this person's body has adjusted to running marathons. But then the test gives a flawed result beause it assumed the subject wasn't used to running marathons. This person may run a marathon twice as fast as someone else. But that other person may be more fit.

Now if you train for a marathon you will get more fit on average. But if you train on IQ tests you will learn tricks to solve the puzzles of the test faster and more accurate. But your brain doesn't get more powerful. It may get more powerful by using it. But that is irrelevant compared to getting used to these tests. The tests assume the subject is going to use raw brain power to solve the test. That's what the test wants to measure, raw brain power. So when a person knows the in's and out's of IQ tests the score will be flawed.

After that there will be almost no improvement regardless of how much training you do. Your measured IQ is the same thing. Trust me, I have done MANY IQ tests and read many books on how to improve your IQ but no matter how hard I try I can't increase it . This is my true IQ reading, (I score the same on almost every test which is a good sign) even though it is not much higher than the first test I ever took. This is because I work in a technical field and I enjoy doing puzzles, so my mind was already running at peak....I suppose...

I can't comment on your personal experience.

Also, most IQ's should be quoted in percentiles because "140" doesn't mean much unless you give the test taken.

Mensa quotes the top 2 % as being the following scores on different tests.

Cattell III B - 148 
Culture Fair - 132 
Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135 
Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
Wechsler Scales - 132


I think Genius is better than the top 1%, probably 0.5%

Above 140 is often considered to be the top 2%, independent from the particular test. I don't think it is very useful to limit it to .5%. Let's face it, in every day lives people with top .5% IQ's won't appear much smarter than people in the top 2% Plus, .5% people are much much rarer. Most people in the op 2% aren't in the top .5%

[pianolearner]

IQ above 140.

As you can see from the examples, 140 on one test does not equal 140 on another. So 140 isn't always the top 2%. Saying 140 without giving as scale is like saying 32° is a warm day. In Celsius it is but in Farenheit it's freezing.

>Say you are going to test someones fitness.

The point is that the person being tested MUST understand what is involved or the results will be flawed. You said "The test is to run a marathon as fast as possible" which is different to just telling someone they must run. Even with this example, if enough people are tested you will get an average that centres around the time it takes the average person who has never trained to run a marathon. If you trained, you will end up being faster than the average person. Which is exactly what you want to find out--How your fitness compares to the average person. ie/ If you don't train you are as fit as the average person, if you do train you will be above average. As with everything the average can slowly change over time due to attitude shifts. If everyone in society began training for marathons the test would need to be standardised again to gain the new average. If everyone is extremely fit then it would be fair to say that the average person is fit enough to run a marathon in good time.

The mistake you are making is thinking that IQ is an actual measure of intelligence. It isn’t, it’s a comparison to a normative group. In theory, an IQ test should only contain questions that the majority of people should be able to answer correctly if given enough time. There should be no trick questions or complicated mental arithmetic. In other words, the average person should get an average score because they fully understand the questions asked. If the test has been properly standardised then it's highly likely to have included Rocket scientists, Physics Professors, Puzzle lovers, housewives and garbage collectors (Not that I'm stereotyping).

If the average is 100 then that is exactly what it reflects. If you score 100 then "practice" and increase it to 110, you have not become smarter or increased your intelligence, you have moved your result closer to what it really should be compared with everyone else. If you continue to "practice" and find that you can't get past 115 no matter how many different tests you try then this would is a more realistic IQ value compared to your first attempt and everyone else who has taken the test. If everyone practices and the average moves to 115 then it will need to be revised so that it is 100 again.

[prometheus]

I am sorry but you didn't understand my post. And I don't have any time to explain it again in detail. Maybe later.

[musik_man]

The question I have is how do we know that 'raw brain power' even exists?  How much of genius is given to people by birth and how much is given by 'exercising' one's brain?  There's no way to get this answer scientifically.(if you know of one state it)

Of course, this assumes we even have a definition of what constitutes brain power.  All the IQ tests I've seen consist of finding and identifying patterns.  Who decided that this was what consititutes genius?  I can't see why that should be valued over the knowledge and understanding of the human spirit by say Dostoevsky or Thomas Mann, or the musical prowess of Miles Davis or Beethoven.  If the IQ system doesn't identify people like this as geniuses, it shows that the system is meaningless. 

IQ is B.S.  It's what happens when pretentious pyschologists think that they're real scientists.

[rimv2]

I think one difference between people who 'learn to use what they have and those who don't' is laziness. A lot of the more ignorant folks I've met seemed to be so because they weren't in any way inclined to open a book, watch a documentary, or learn about new things. A couch potato doesn't really need to think at all.

I wouldn't fault someone for the environment they're born into, but after someone grows out of being a child I think those reasons become excuses. I mean, we're all given that random hand when we're born, from there what matters is what you do with it. Will they make a beautiful sculpture from the clay, let someone else sculpt it, or throw it at the back of someones head?

The longer a person lives the harder it is to change. If a person grows up in an environment where learning isnt a key factor, how would that person know that something is being missed? If by chance this person did somehow discover the power of learning how would this person go about integrating itself into a pattern of learning?

Can a person who did heroine every day for ten years suddenly go cold turkey? If this person grew up in a place where sobriety was unheard of would this person be lazy for not attempting to quit? What if sobriety was heard of but the person was doing it for so long quitting would be next to impossible?

Can someone who worked a lifetime in a brothel become president? Can physically, emotionally, and sexually abused person become a concert pianist?

IS IT POSSIBLE?

YES

But tis not very likely. Reprogramming ones mind is very very hard. Some people, unfortunately, dont have the privilage of being optimistic. If they did, psychiatrists would be out of work.

[pianolearner]

The question I have is how do we know that 'raw brain power' even exists?  How much of genius is given to people by birth and how much is given by 'exercising' one's brain?  There's no way to get this answer scientifically.(if you know of one state it)

Of course, this assumes we even have a definition of what constitutes brain power.  All the IQ tests I've seen consist of finding and identifying patterns.  Who decided that this was what consititutes genius?  I can't see why that should be valued over the knowledge and understanding of the human spirit by say Dostoevsky or Thomas Mann, or the musical prowess of Miles Davis or Beethoven.  If the IQ system doesn't identify people like this as geniuses, it shows that the system is meaningless. 

IQ is B.S.  It's what happens when pretentious pyschologists think that they're real scientists.

I think it's wrong to say IQ Tests measure “RAW BRAIN” power because they don't. They compare how quickly different individuals can solve the same or similar types of problems. An IQ test is not valid until it has been tested on a normative group of at least 5000 people that represent a good cross section of society.

You are right, they usually involve pattern recognition, analogies and numerical series. Things that most if not all people should be able to comprehend. They start simple and get increasingly complicated but the idea remains the same so that anyone who can do the “easy” questions should be able to attempt the more complicated ones.

If a new IQ test is designed and given to 1 person, the score cannot be given an IQ rating. If for example, that person scores 70/100 then that’s all it is, a score out of 100. You cannot say what their IQ is OR how much “RAW BRAIN” power they have. If the same test is then given to 5000 people and the average score is 30 and only 1% of people score 70 or above, then you can give the first person an IQ rating. The more people that take the test, the more accurate the IQ rating becomes. The argument about “practice” doesn’t matter. If you “practice” to improve your IQ then it demonstrates you have an ability to learn and apply it. You would deserve a higher IQ rating then the average person who probably isn’t interested or who can’t do better no matter how hard they try.

Ask any statistician and they will tell you that a truly random sample of 5000 people is a very good normative group for a population of any size. So it would be difficult to argue against the validity of the comparison. The problem is getting a truly random sample when tests are being normalised. Most people taking the test are volunteers and enjoy doing puzzles and tests. So if anything, the average might be slightly higher than the true average.

Let’s say you randomly chose 5000 people from society and asked them to take a piano test. Let’s imagine your tests showed that 50% could only play Chopsticks and 1% could play Chopin & Mozart Piano concertos. If you selected another random group of 5000 people (with the original group in the main pool again so that everyone has an equal chance of being selected), what are the chances that suddenly 50% will be able to play Chopin & Mozart and only 1% Chopsticks? I would say the chances of that are so small you may as well call it zero! I would be confident enough to say that every time you test a group of 5000 people you will find the same (or very, very close) proportion of 50:1. The results will only be different if you asked for volunteers to do a piano test because chances are you will only get people who can play the piano.

I can assure you of one thing, practice will NOT increase a person’s IQ from average to genius, it simply will not. The average range is quoted as being between 90-110. So there is room for someone making a mistake or not fully understanding a question. Mensa encourages people to “practice” and recommends books to help “boost” your IQ yet only about 30% of people who take the Mensa IQ test qualify for membership!  So let’s analyse this—Out of all the people who think they are smart enough to qualify for Mensa and practice to improve their IQ, only 30% are actually smart enough to qualify.

[stevie]

all this talk is useless, genius is trancended by genius

genius -



genius -

[rimv2]

all this talk is useless, genius is trancended by genius

Yes but genius is borne from genius and so its good to know of its roots

[tompilk]

whatever genius is, bush is the opposite...
Tom

[rimv2]

whatever genius is, bush is the opposite...
Tom

Randomly

People are ash-holes for voting for this moron. Kerry might have enslaved the world, but at least we wouldnt have to endure the worlds worse speeches and Bushisms.

[perfect_pitch]

Tell you what I never understood about IQ testing...

What if you were just having a bad day, lol? Say you had a bad hang over, your head was pounding, you are having trouble concerntrating etc.

Surely you would get a very different result than if you were 100% on the ball, right?

Dumb thought, but if you knew you were going to have an IQ test the next day, and you were really smart... WHY would you go out drinking and get trashed and get a hangover...

You couldn't really be that smart after all..... 

[perfect_pitch]

all this talk is useless, genius is trancended by genius

genius -



Far from Genius

I wouldn't consider Lang Lang a genius... Ashkenazy was a genius, Cziffra was a genius, Rachmaninoff was a genius...

Lang Lang is not a genius... there are very few who are.

[zheer]

I wouldn't consider Lang Lang a genius... Ashkenazy was a genius, Cziffra was a genius, Rachmaninoff was a genius...

 

   What do you mean Achkenazy was a genius, he is not dead is he?

[tompilk]

Dumb thought, but if you knew you were going to have an IQ test the next day, and you were really smart... WHY would you go out drinking and get trashed and get a hangover...

You couldn't really be that smart after all..... 

Actually, conditions can alter iq tests... and if you practise them, like anything, you will do better. There is no definitive IQ test but Raven's Matrices are close.. because they dont use words to ask the questions....
Tom

[pianolearner]

Actually, conditions can alter iq tests... and if you practise them, like anything, you will do better. There is no definitive IQ test but Raven's Matrices are close.. because they dont use words to ask the questions....
Tom

Neither does the Cattell or any other Culture Fair test.

[perfect_pitch]

Sorry I mean to say Horowitz instead of Ashkenazy... I have an awful cold and can hardly think straight.

[stevie]

I wouldn't consider Lang Lang a genius... Ashkenazy was a genius, Cziffra was a genius, Rachmaninoff was a genius...

Lang Lang is not a genius... there are very few who are.

and lang lang is genius

[rc]

The longer a person lives the harder it is to change. If a person grows up in an environment where learning isnt a key factor, how would that person know that something is being missed? If by chance this person did somehow discover the power of learning how would this person go about integrating itself into a pattern of learning?

Can a person who did heroine every day for ten years suddenly go cold turkey? If this person grew up in a place where sobriety was unheard of would this person be lazy for not attempting to quit? What if sobriety was heard of but the person was doing it for so long quitting would be next to impossible?

Can someone who worked a lifetime in a brothel become president? Can physically, emotionally, and sexually abused person become a concert pianist?

IS IT POSSIBLE?

YES

But tis not very likely. Reprogramming ones mind is very very hard. Some people, unfortunately, dont have the privilage of being optimistic. If they did, psychiatrists would be out of work.

These are some good points. When you get right down to it, I suppose it would be easy to understand why a person might remain in a bad state/situation.

I think that a person would know if their situation is a bad one just by comparison with others who don't have an addiction, for example. Even people who are well off are always comparing their grass to the greener. So, if a person knows they've got a problem, wouldn't the difference be how far they're willing to go to change?

Even if the odds are heavily stacked against someone, I still say it falls under their own responsibility to fix it. A person has to make the decision to seek help before a psychiatrist can do their work.

[amojoam]

For services to Hooke and Leibnitz?

Leibnitz totally invented Calculus before Newton (I've done my research). It's just too bad Leibnitz didn't publish it first, and Newton did later and so he gets all the credit. I read all the correspondences between them both. Now there's some real drama! So what about the genius who never reveals his discoveries? What happens to him?

And someone up there mentioned "Many stupid people have changed the world. Also, many people have changed the world in a bad way. Does that make them genius too?"

Stupid people, are obviously not geniuses. When you say "change the world", you are opening up the topic to all actions, besides just those resulting from intellect. Suicide bombers change the world, but not from their own discoveries, but from brainwash. If a person changes the world, he isn't necessarily a genius. If a person is a genius, he does change the world.[/color]
              adios.

[crimper]

Genius is characterized by the 10-year-old in my Calculus class.

[emmdoubleew]

Genius is my friend.

He may not get the best grades of the people I know, as a matter of fact I get better standardized test scores (critical reading and writing skills) but he is so smart in a way that he immediatly understands any mathematic, computer-programming and physics skill, yet never pays attention in math class, doesn't know how to use a computer other than email and programming, and has never done a physics reading since the beggining of this year.

But that's not it, the reason that he's a genius is because he's so lazy, yet he finds this completely logical reasoning to explain his laziness (although he's terrible at any argumentative skills, anything not related to math actually). And you think about it and it makes complete sense! It's insane, it inspires you to be lazy.

All his math teachers and science teachers admire him openly, but despise his terrible work ethic.

[I Love Xenakis]

Slitty eyes.

[BoliverAllmon]

Slitty eyes.

slitty eyes=dedication

[alejo_90]

IQ above 140

Really? I have 186 IQ and I do not consider myself a genius. Actually, most of my school teachers think I'm stupid. I want to kill myself...

[ilikepie]

Really? I have 186 IQ and I do not consider myself a genuis. Actually, most of my school teachers think I'm stupid. I want to kill myself...

Really? Then why did you spell genius, genuis?(Haha, yeah I know it's a typo )That is quite high you know, too high if you ask me. Care to spare some?
Me thinks a person is allocated "points"(lol) in everything. You can be good at something, but never everything since at some point, you run out of points.(pun?)

[alejo_90]

Really? Then why did you spell genius, genuis?(Haha, yeah I know it's a typo )That is quite high you know, too high if you ask me. Care to spare some?

Damnit ! Error corrected, thanks.
I know it's quite high, that's exactly what I find annoying you know? I have my parents telling me all day long: You are a genius and you can't get good scores on a math test...What the *** is wrong with you?...You spend too much time on the d a m n piano !!...You are being ungrateful to us !!!...etc,etc,etc.
God !! I just wish to be really stupid sometimes...

[jehangircama]

i heard a nice sentence from a sports commentator once:

Form is temporary, genius is permanent.

slightly off topic, but i thought it was a nice saying....