I’m not qualified to answer that question. All I know is that he’s good at what he does, which is to popularize astronomy and science. I suppose in that sense he’s a genius but is he a genius in the way that we usually understand the meaning of the word? Again, I am not qualified to answer that question but someone here might be.
Probably. He’s the recipient of a number of scientific awards and a doctorate in Astrophysics. The usual requirement for “genius” is a 130 IQ, which seems likely given his accomplishments and apparent breadth of knowledge. I suppose without a public IQ test, we won’t know for sure.
I guess he’s just a version of this prof - the BBC’s popular science go-to-guy: not a “genius” but a helpful combination of educated, good communicator and handsome:
Been doing stuff like this for several years now:
Yes
Argh. Don’t get me started on Brian Cox. I just want to slap his smarmy face every time he appears on my television. If I wanted to watch a rock star/astrophysicist I’d get Brian May instead. Or, even better, get Dara Ó Briain. But I digress.
NDT is unquestionably smart - his non-presenting career more than supports this. I don’t think he’s a genius in the sense of, say, Einstein in that his work will lead to a massive paradigm shift but then that’s true very, very few scientists, but he knows his stuff and has added to the sum total of scientific knowledge like most good researchers.
His prominence, of course, is because he’s also relatively telegenic and good at explaining complex concepts to a lay audience, which is a rarer skill than you’d think.
We don’t see much of NdT here in the UK - his background indicates that he is not seen as a genius, or particularly prominent academic scientist, by his peers. His prominence as a populariser and communicator of science speaks for itself.
Worth noting that it must be next to impossible to combine a serious media career with heavyweight scientific research, nowadays. You might be able to participate in both areas, but to excel in both seems like a huge stretch . Maybe there are some examples of older guys who did great work in their salad days, and are now more administrators of research, who can do it. But generally, if you’re leading a research area to the extent where you’re considered a genius by your peers then you’re all the way in. No time for anything else. So I’d never expect that a science media person needs to be recognised as a profound thinker in their area in order ot have credibility - that’s not their role or the path they have chosen.
I’m sure you’re right and neither of the names that follow could be thought of as having genius but, damn, they are/were bright and also media-friendly:
If he’s not a genius, Tyson has still done much more for science than many scientists who *are *geniuses.
He’s been a fine racial role model too, since it hasn’t been said yet.
Seriously?
Something like 2.5% of the American population has at least a 130 IQ (and that’s apparently the average for people with doctorates in the sciences). surely every one of them isn’t a genius. a 130 IQ isn’t that high.
I’d be very surprised if a practicinge astrophysicist wasn’t well above 130.
Why? What makes you think an IQ that high is required to earn a Ph.D. in astrophysics?
astrophysics is really hard
Neil Tyson is all these things, but … I don’t think he was the best choice to host the new Cosmos series.
When Carl Sagan spoke, something about his manner made his every word awe-inspiring. It was like a sermon, by the most charismatic preacher in the world – a sermon on subjects where faith was not, and should not be, involved. Every time I go back and watch that first episode where he says:
… I want to rush right out and build a space probe.
But Tyson? He’s more like Mr. Wizard. Educational, entertaining … but not really inspiring for me.
I recently listened to a podcast interview with NDT, who said someone else had asked when he realized he had a gift (meaning, presumably, the super-smarts to be an astrophysicist) and he said “gift? It has nothing to do with having a gift, I just worked really hard.”
There’s probably some modesty going on there though. No matter how hard you work, you probably need some level of above-average smarts to become an astrophysicist.
Sure, but so is advanced study in any field. You don’t have to be a genius to be good at math or physics, and you don’t even have to have a second-percentile IQ to make original contributions to either. Doesn’t mean those contributions will change the world like Einstein or Newton, but most original research doesn’t.
Above-average, definitely. But let’s keep in mind that half the people in the world are above-average (except in Lake Wobegon.) I don’t think the fact that one is an astrophysicist necessarily means you have a super-duper genius-level IQ, though.
It’s probably more a case of being a subject that would only interest someone who enjoyed mental gymnastics. (The actual doing of the astrophysics, that is – not the fruits of that labor. Everyone likes black holes.)
Yeah, but 130 is above average.
I’d heard 150 batted about, so this sent me googling. If the question is ‘what IQ is considered genius level’, the answer seems to be 140. This answer is based on the bell curve and is strictly mathematical. If the question is ‘what is a genius’, the answer is different. I like the wikipedia answer, which says that an IQ of 125 seems to be necessary for genius, but that no particular IQ guarantees it.
A genius is someone who ha made a truly groundbreaking contribution to some field of intellectual endeavor. It has little to do with IQ except that it is unlikely that one can become a genius without having a somewhat above average intelligence. The vast majority of people with very high IQs will never be geniuses, though. Many of them will never achieve much of any interest at all. The notion of “genius level” IQ is nonsense.
I see no sign whatever that Tyson is a genius. He seems to be a competent scientist in a field that does call for high IQ levels, but no more than that. (Heavily mathy fields like astrophysics tend to call for higher IQ levels than other fields, but all that shows is that IQ test measure mathy, puzzle solving aspects of intelligence better than they measure the other types of intelligence needed to excel in other sorts of fields.) Tyson’s special talents, however, are not so much in science itself, as in the communication of science and in being an engaging TV personality. Both of those are very rare talents, not to sneezed at, and are particularly rare in people who have actual scientific chops, as Tyson does, and are committed to using their communicative talents in the service of science.
And yeah, 130 IQ is really not all that high. I should have though half the regulars on this board have IQs in that range, or even higher. If any of them were geniuses, though, they wouldn’t be wasting their time around here.
Also, please add me to the list of people who absolutely cannot stand Professor Brian Cox. :vomit smiley: Tyson is way better.
I’m fine with calling the brightest couple percent of our society geniuses. It’s not like the word has a precise definition, anyway. But pick whatever IQ number, education level, intellectual achievement, or other criteria you like: NDT will be a genius by some of the definitions, and not by others. Unless we can agree on a criteria, the OP’s question can’t be answered. 130 IQ is one I hear bandied about a lot (it’s basically the criteria for Mensa), so it’s what I used.