40? Who had 40 posts? I put my money on 10, so I’m pleased to see that we made it as far as we did. :rolleyes:
The OP made her (subjective) criteria clear.
Little brains find it intimidating. Like if they say something stupid you will destroy them with your mind. Which I am happy to do.
I know plenty of smart people. A lot of them are “one hit wonder” smart. Like they can program a computer but can’t tie their shoes. But one of my fraternity brothers is one of the few “actual genius” type people I know. He went on to get a masters from Princeton, founded a bunch of startups and does some sort of venture capital stuff now.
I gave one a try, found it uninteresting. Not something that looked remotely like genius to me. So, I’m voting “Hollywood genius” for Delaney. Frankly, “genius” is so overused to describe people in the arts that I get suspicious whenever I see it used to describe any artist, musician, actor, director or writer.
One of my best friends and his dad are both geniuses of the stark raving variety. Amazing to talk to, but sometimes you question how their mental thought processes work. Dad is a sculptor who is routinely seen at my school, inventing and designing things (I don’t want to describe his inventions, as that’s a bit too personal). Son coasted through undergrad with a C average, before getting a 178 on his LSAT and getting into an American law school on a full scholarship.
I’ve read his books and met him and I’m firmly in the genius camp. Nice man too.
There’s one MacArthur Fellow who was in my extended circle of friends in high school; I didn’t know him very well, but he was a really nice guy and really no more socially awkward than the rest of my friends who were on the math team. (not sure what that says, really.)
I was closer with his good friend Matt Cook(listed down the page); he dated a number of my good friends way back when. Matt is another super-nice guy with quirks, but really, who among us doesn’t have quirks? Matt managed to get himself admitted to the Ph.D. program at Cal Tech without actually finishing his bachelor’s; I think he dropped out of undergrad after about a year.
i’m reading ted kaczinski’s (sp?) manifesto right now.
Kind of. Precisely whether it’s due to a real difference or confounding cultural factors is still open to debate, but males tend to skew both higher and lower on IQ tests in most cultures that do testing. Females tend to have fewer outliers, both high and low. The way it looks statistically is that on average women are smarter because they have both fewer geniuses and idiots.
The same is true of a lot of other traits between the sexes. Men show more variance in size, for example.
I’ve heard the same thing said about left-handed people, as well. They tend to be disproportionately high and low on the IQ spectrum.
Men are much more likely to be left-handed than women, though, so it’s not clear if there’s really a relationship there.
Fire
yo mama’s so smart, she gets mentioned on this thread
You’re adorable. I don’t toot my horn in public, but you can PM me if you’d like for “evidence” (insofar as it matters, or applies to claims made on a message board). :o
I disagree. Einstein was very smart, very motivated, very fucking famous, and had the luck of being born at the right time in history for his intellect (unlike, say, Galileo). There is nobody else in recent times who’s comparable, except great/famous minds like Feynman and Hawking. And I doubt many people here have interacted with them.
Yes, but the OP was not referencing the fame, or the other circumstantial aspects. The OP was simply saying “This is the level of genius I’m asking about”.
I work in a University and have known many incredibly smart people, including those who quite literally lead the world in their field, solved some incredibly hard open problem in mathematics, and so on. I’ve had lunch with the only person to ever graduate from the University of Cambridge with a PhD in mathematics without studying the subject as an undergraduate, for instance. He’s a world expert on set theory. He’s incredibly smart, but I don’t think he’s a genius. I’ll go further, and say I don’t think I’ve ever met a genius.
I further doubt that anybody in this thread has met a true genius in the “kinda like Einstein, scary smart” mould (either that, or I don’t know what a true genius is). Getting straight As as an undergraduate isn’t in the same class as single handedly revolutionising theoretical physics and ushering in a completely new way for humans to look at the universe.
While I agree that achieving grades in even the most challenging schools is not indicative of genius, I also don’t think that geniuses are so utterly rare. They are rare, but I’m betting most people have encountered one in at least a casual manner.
The trouble is that we don’t support genius, so many of them end up in the most unsuccessful of lives. If you want to narrow the set to “Geniuses who have fulfilled their potential” then that’s a very different question.
[POST=13876801]Well, maybe.[/POST] The thing about people like Feynman and Hawking, and Einstein himself (who, despite being portrayed in the current public consciousness as a jovial old guy on a bicycle in need of a haircut, was in his youth a fairly athletic, acerbic, and personally abrasive fellow who had a penchant for dealing with the media) is that they’re regarded as uncommon geniuses because of their popularity, while many of their contemporaries who made contributions of equal scientific merit but less well known among the public are relegated to relative obscurity. What percentage of the general public is even passingly familiar with, say, Linus Pauling, David Hilbert, Andrei Sakharov, Murray Gell-Man, John Archibald Wheeler, David Bohm, John Stewart Bell, Louis de Broglie, all of whom did fundamental work that significantly advanced general relativity, cosmology, and quantum mechanics and worked across multiple disciplinary fields? Pauling, a name almost unknown to the general public and one of the most cited and influential researchers in organic chemistry, is virtually responsible for the creation of analytical molecular biology and and the use of x-ray diffraction to study protein structures.
Genius is a combination of being in the right place at the right time, having a particular insight or bit of knowledge just before everyone else does, and usually being obsessive and focused about studying some problem that no one else was aware of or thought to be that interesting (or to paraphrase Steven Pinker, most geniuses are wonks).. I suspect there are a lot of people who are the intellectual equal of, say, Einstein or Galileo, but simply have not encountered the confluence of events that would elevate their capabilities and insights into the public sphere as being noted for their “genius”.
Stranger
To be honest, I don’t really care beyond the fact that I want to spread the word about how horrible online IQ tests are.
I would say most geniuses we have met are like the all-star captain of the college baseball team. The Einsteins and Hawkings of the world are like the Derek Jeter or Babe Ruth of smart people.
Me fail online smartness? That’s unpossible.
Smart enough to develop the theory of relativity if born in the same year as Einstein, you mean? Good enough at physics to become world-renowned, given luck and proper timing?
Poorly-defined criterion is poorly-defined :rolleyes:
Allow me to phrase my objection another way, based on the OP’s wording: every Albert Einstein was a genius. Not every genius is Albert Einstein. His IQ was (estimated to be) 160 and “genius” cutoff is 140.