Genius: Inspiration versus perspiration

[StarPhoenix]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1896721

Genius.....how much of it is innate, and how much can be acquired by way of monomaniacal dedication?

Do you think that you are a genius, or do you think you know any?


Discuss.



Wiki

[Tribble]

That article would give me hope if I didn't know that you need the "stuff" in order to be able to use it. Yes it does take hard work to excel and stand out - I will give you that. But you already need to have a starting point to work from. Ever heard the term Jack of all trades, master of none? That is me. I can do anything I set my mind to but not always very well. Perhaps that is most of us. With time and dedication we could perhaps appear to be geniuses in whatever interested us - but unlikely.

I do believe that you need to have the potential to be a genius before you can become one.

[hamin_aus]

Geniuses don't have to try. 99% inspiration 1% perspiration

If you are working your butt off in order to excel, and someone else can do the same with minimal effort... they are a genius, you are not.

That being said, most geniuses soon find that just knowing your stuff isn't enough out in the real world.

[D3PART3D]

I think genius is a lot about having the right perspective. Having the wrong perspective can be a hindrance on how efficiently you can process certain kinds of information, but most people won't realize that. They think the problem is the subject matter.

[hamin_aus]

Since none of us are geniuses here I suggest a nice hot cup of STFU until StoneIce posts his opinion.

[Hman]

Stone wait for ice post coffee why?

[D3PART3D]

"If I had an hour to save the world,I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute finding solutions." - Einstein

[KALSTER]

Having a genius IQ is also no guarantee of excelling in something, even when they think they do.

A case in point is one of the most intelligent people in the world, Chris Langan. With an IQ of over 200, he has nevertheless chosen to affiliate himself with Intelligent Design organisations and have come up with his own version of it, the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)". Looking at the CTMU though reveals a cocktail of non-sequiturs, woolly thinking and failed logic. It is kind of weird, interesting and eye opening that even those with the best minds can have their perspectives tainted by pre-existing conviction.

[hamin_aus]

Is it fair to say he is excelling as a proponent of ID

he must be since you have heard of him

[KALSTER]

Well, he has been busy with his "theory" for many years, but I only heard of him in the last month. So no, not that successful.

Neither proponents nor deniers of ID bring him up in conversation. Not on the science forum I frequent that is (only once in 4 years), also not in any Youtube videos I have watched on the subject.

One of his key claims, is that the universe has a mind and is self aware by virtue of the rules governing it. Just a bunch of fantastical, fuzzy gobbledygook.

[hamin_aus]

I think the whole concept of ID was thought up by a genius.

People who believe it are too stupid to make up fantastical theories like that.

Some genius realised science is too sciency for stupid people who want to sound smart, so he came up with ID.

Much like when L Ron dreamed up Scientology. Genius moves both.
Epic douchbaggery, but also genius.

[KALSTER]

I would hesitate to call the inventor of ID a genius. ID is basically nothing more than creationism in disguise. This was beautifully demonstrated in the Dover trial where a proposed ID textbook (Of Pandas and People) was revealed to be a creationist book where someone had literally used find and replace to exchange words like "creation" with "design" and God with "designer".

Proponents of ID also love to refer to irreducible complexity, i.e. instances where only design can be an explanation for something, as all the parts of the whole are needed to make some biological mechanism work. This, even when advocated by supposed "scientists" like Michael Behe, has also been shown to be both logically and factually fallacious, often very obviously.

To me, ID has been so successful mainly because of its creationism origin, where people already believe nonsense contrary to evidence. I refuse to classify any level of deviousness as genius.

That would go for L. Ron as well. Both are dismayingly good at deceiving the gullible, but not in the realm of genius imo.

On another note, since I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, I might simply be too stupid to understand Langan's musings.

[StarPhoenix]

On another note, since I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, I might simply be too stupid to understand Langan's musings.

Perhaps most of us are......or.....he is doing it for lulz and plans to pull a jamin on the ID movement at some time....

[CapNemo]

Oh isn't there a thread to debate that subject and if you want to be a genius in that debate you state there is insificiant evidence to support or disprove either theory and you will requiere additional funding to do further research.

Any way I don't think you should expect people who are a genius to be clever in every department of live. I know people who are brilliant at some things and a total idiot in others

[KALSTER]

Yeah. Personally I'd say I even out as pretty average; being fairly good at some things and absolutely pathetic at others, including some things the majority of people find very easy. The fact that we are nearly all pretty average over all is something too many depressed people fail to see.

Perhaps the wisest thing one can do is to recognise just how little you really know and understand.

[Hman]

pull a jamin

Surprise buttsecks?

[D3PART3D]

The fact that we are nearly all pretty average over all is something too many depressed people fail to see.

Perhaps the wisest thing one can do is to recognise just how little you really know and understand.

This is so true.

[CapNemo]

You won't get anything done if you keep on questioning your intelegence

[KALSTER]

You won't get anything done if you keep on questioning your intelegence

Not your intelligence necessarily, just what you know and understand. You can simultaneously know that you know and understand little (relative to what is knowable) and still realise that you are probably not generally below average.

Knowing how much there is to learn and understand in our complex existences is kind of exciting, isn't it? Some of the most exhilarating experiences of my life had been when I have learned something new and spectacular. It makes life decidedly not boring or banal.

[StarPhoenix]

pull a jamin

Surprise buttsecks?

No, I meant that the dude with the IQ of 200 who is promoting I.D. might be setting things up for an epic troll.

@Kalster: Might not realising how little one knows and understand lead one to conclude that one is an idiot?

[Tribble]

I don't think that knowing things and genius go hand in hand. I know lots of things (mainly regarding the programs I train or use) but I know I am not a genius. I learn them easily (am self taught) - can see solutions to problems quickly yet I am just ordinary. I think we need to distinguish here between natural ability (talent) and genius. There has to be a line. I have many friends who I would (and IQ scores agree) put into the genius category. They are not only talented in one area - but in many. They excel where most of us would fail (or barely slip through). They stand out from the crowd - are noticed.

[hamin_aus]

I have many friends who I would (and IQ scores agree) put into the genius category.

Just because people are more knowledgeable or gifted than you does NOT make them geniuses.
If we all knew people who were real contenders for the title genius then the world would be overrun with geniuses. but it's not.
The world is full of intelligent, talented people. Having those qualities distinguishes you - no doubt!
But does it make you a genius?

Genius is not simply being better than most people in a lot of stuff.
It's also not based on the results of an IQ test... which has been shown to be biased and flawed and not a definitive yardstick by any means.

A genius is someone whose ability to learn, comprehend and innovate is so far above anyone else's that it leaves a lasting mark on the world.
Einstein, da Vinci, Newton, Hawking - Geniuses

Tribble's friends, Steve Jobs, Justin Bieber - NOT Geniuses

[Tribble]

Bwahahahahaha perhaps you are right. The one started the Vernon Koekemoer meme as part of his thesis on viral marketing. Personally I think that is genius. (strangely I thought his older brother was always the genius)

What this discussion shows me is that we cannot actually qualify what a genius is - as it is subjective.

Genius (plural geniuses[1][2]) is something or someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.

Origin of the word

Main article: Genius (mythology).

In ancient Rome, the genius (plural genii) was the guiding spirit or tutelary deity of a person, family (gens), or place (genius loci).[4] The noun is related to the Latin verb gigno, genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce." Because the achievements of exceptional individuals seemed to indicate the presence of a particularly powerful genius, by the time of Augustus the word began to acquire its secondary meaning of "inspiration, talent."[5]

I dunno - I give up. This hurts my underdeveloped brain.