What defines a Genius?

Post Reply New Topic

Genius: having a unique ability and putting forth the effort to be recognized for it.

It has nothing to do with IQ...like annual income, IQ is just another number used to categorize people.

I hate the reverse prejudice that goes with "genius". They said I am, as my IQ supposedly is 170. That's fine, but I hate that I was always expected to "live up to it", when maybe I didn't want to get a phd, or become a math professor. I never did quite live up to any of these pie-in-the-sky expectations for "genius" status. Maybe that's one reason I'm so comfortable in my second career; a farmer. I was an electronics technician, but hated it. Nobody expects a farmer to "live up to" intellectual expectations, and that has actually made me more motivated to further my education, somehow! I love to look at something (mechanical or electronic), and understand easily why & how it works, and to think how I can revise or improve on whatever it is. But I don't like it when it's a test, or when I'm required to, as with a job.

When I was 8 or 10, and the family started beating the drum on me for getting a degree and going into some sort of high-tech career, I nearly opted to be a garbage truck driver just to be difficult. As a matter of fact, I probably would have become a diesel engine mechanic if it had not been (wrongly) shunned as a lowly blue-collar job by my family.

Charles

That's just prejudice, period. The idea that highly intelligent people must be restricted to a certain class of jobs is nearly as damaging as the idea that some other class of people are restricted to some other class of jobs, like the way we used to think black people were only good for low-level service type jobs. I met a fellow who drives a bus and had his IQ tested at some ungodly-high level when he was a kid; he tried formal education but never got past high school because they took all the joy out of it. Now he drives a bus and learns languages in his free time.

What defines a genius from someone with just a high IQ is the genuis is able to come up with their own ideas. They can figure it out and create something entirely different or new. Genuises are able to invent and create, while high IQers simply aquire knowledge, but can't really apply it.

There's also something I call "collective genuis", which doesn't involve one individual genuis, but several people of mediocre intelligence producing something together, either at once or over time, that appears to be produced by an individual genuis. Corporate employees and production teams might do this, as well as many writers, musicians, artists, etc, collaborating on a project. What happens here is everyone is inspired by everyone else and they keep improving what someone else has accomplished. No one in the group is a true genuis, however, genuis-grade product is achieved.

MENSA takes folks in the top three percentiles I think, or maybe 5. Their standards aren't actually all that high as far as geniuses go. There are a lot of academic programs that are far more difficult to get into than MENSA. My youngest son is waiting to hear from an institute that only takes the top 99.9percentile from various tests. His scores are borderline by their standards. He got into MENSA with percentiles to spare.

I think that "genius" means different things to different people. I personally value achievement more than ability as ability isn't worth anything until it's used. I also think a balanced life is very important so achievement isn't just about being the best of the best in your chosen field. If a person puts so much emphasis on one area of life they can often burn out and end up under-achieving. Perfectionism can be a two edged sword. A little of it can drive a person to do great things, too much can be crippling.

The IQ only measures convergent thought, which is just one kind of intelligence. A high IQ means that a person is very good at that one thing, nothing more. There are other tests that can pick up some other kinds of intelligence and ability that aren't apparent on the IQ test, but there are still lots of kinds of intelligence that nobody knows how to measure. Tests such as the WIAT, WIAS, EXPLORE etc are useful, in their own limited way but they aren't comprehensive measures of all human abilities.

Some people are smarter than other people. Some people are a LOT smarter. Somebody has to be at the top of the percentiles...and somebody has to be at the bottom. Those percentiles are just a comparative measure of human abilities.

Being more or less smart than other people is just another way to be different. Just like having AS or other kinds of neurology, doesn't make a person better or worse it just makes them different.

Thanks Kiley. Others stated the case well too. Another factor is the opportunity &/or environment to excel. I am a PhD student - I do have that high IQ (160+) but I am cognizant that I also need others about who are encouraging and want to pursue. I am now fortunate to have this opportunity. I am analytically minded and also very creative. In some respects, I had to make my opportunity.

But I will point out.....as an anecdote here: I previously had a neighbor whom I admired/respected very much. An older man who clearly displayed superior intelligence and bright observation skills. Of course, one cannot 'know' his IQ - - but I can attest that he was really smart! However, he grew up poor (good family, by his account, but poor and disadvantaged). He only acheived a 5th grade education as a result and works successfully as a plumber/electrician. But he has a lot of curiosity in him - - he is functionally illiterate too. Hypothetically, if he had had the proper environment and opportunities, he could have achieved so much. He is quite content with his lot in life though and that's what matters. I consider him a creative genius.

Then, on the flip side - - those "good students" who study a lot (but might not be that smart) who are from a privileged home with many resources and time for good study skills who are showered with encouragement and have plenty of self-confidence (I've met them). I have a female friend (IQ ~ 120, by her account) who is an Ivy League doctor with a privileged background.

Or consider a school kid (such as a wayward Aspie) who is bullied, maybe whose teachers bully too. Since he's teased and taunted he may not perform as well, and may be given discouragement and short-changed of opportunities given to others. This is unfair, but it happens.

I had one (scary) professor who actually said (quote) "Autistics (he meant Aspies, but whatever) should work in government owned labs with Autistic supervisors." Yes, I did report him to the University's Office of Equal Opportunity for his outrageous statement. He may have violated the law; certainly an ethical breach. Sheer ignorance on his part and shameful.

So important to never generalize or judge based upon one's career or lot in life! I do think many of us Aspies get a raw deal, btw. But that can be overcome by sheer intelligence, hard work, and wit.

Genius is ultimate creativity.
basically it's the opposite of autism. Problem with autistics is that they focus on details. High IQ test means you did well on an IQ test nothing else...autistics can compute not create that's why they have high IQ. autistics intellectualism is limited since their thinking is too linear...their judgement is skewed too they would base achievement on a statistic, like financial reward. @ OP you have done nothing therefore you are not a genius, IQ is a statistic remember that.

quoting the guy above me...the professor said autistics should work in government labs, i can understand that since the average autistic has only a lab worker/scientist mentality. how autistic of you to assume he was wrong immediately and that you should report him...again flawed intellect, bad moral judgement. open your mind.

There are multiple different IQ tests, each with different ranges, and so raw scores cannot be compared between them.

While most IQ tests can give a general idea of a person's abilities, despite much effort, it is impossible to eliminate such things as cultural bias and error introduced by misconceptions of those who have created the test.

For example, the WAIS-III contains a sub-section where one is shown a set of pictures and asked to identify what is missing. One of these pictures is a barn. Nothing is actually missing from the barn, however the barn does not contain a weather vane, and this is the component that the test authors were under the impression should be the missing item. The barn is complete without it because most barns actually do not contain a weather vane. It was far more common to have these located on the farm house. So the researchers introduced an error based on their own limited knowledge.

Another example is, you are generally expected to know of novels that are considered classics. But this is rote knowledge, and in my opinion, it is not reasonable that one would come by it unless prompted to do so by school curriculum.

The tests can also over estimate a person's abilities through misinterpretation. For example, some tests contain a subset with a repeat back section, where the person must repeat back increasingly long sentences. A high score on this test is interpreted as good auditory abilities, however there is the unstated assumption that comprehension abilities are coupled with this. I'm sure many on here are aware that a child, especially an autistic child with echolalia, can repeat back entire movies word for word without really having much to an idea as to the meaning of what they are saying.

Another point, which isn't so much of an issue with the newer WAIS tests but certainly with many other IQ tests is, a high mathematical bias. Most people do not like math and consider those who are good at math to be more intelligent.

I can tell you that this is not the case. A very high number of individuals who are good at math are only good at math at the cost of being bad at everything else.

Critical thinking skills are far more valuable and more telling of a person's over all "intelligence" than a person's mathematical skills.

That being said, I've met just a handful of people in life who I consider, based on what I know of them, to be true geniuses. Generally these people who I consider the title applicable to...

1. Are well rounded, being good at many subjects and not just a limited area of interest.
2. Learn quickly.
3. Retain the information they learn.
4. Easily recall the information they have learned.
5. Can easily network new information to old information to create a better mental model.
6. Require little effort to understand subjects in depth.
7. Can use existing information to formulate new information.
8. Can consider multiple options and identify that which produces the best results.
9. Has good judgment and insight.

And there are probably a few more traits I could list.

Most Mensa members, while perhaps very intelligent, do not have all of these traits. They tend to excel in one, or maybe multiple subjects, be a little faster, and a little sharper than most people, but their abilities are not evenly distributed.

[img][800:600]http://iwilcope.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/genius-bar-1.jpg[/img]

A job at Apple

Originality and intelligence.

ruveyn

lol, are you the professor that just got reported for the bigoted, ignorant comment? Cause you make it clear that you love to make such comments. You also use the word "autistics" like the professor in the anecdote above you. It is also interesting you come to this forum only to flame the person above you. Man, you probably have a lot of time ...

Genius takes a lot of creativity. Yes. But since the DSM says nothing about lack of creativity, your statement is bull probably based on prejudice instead of anything with rigor. It is probably the most idiotic statement ever made in this forum, so please leave. And I am not in the spectrum plus the people I love happen not to be in the spectrum either so, before you jump in saying that I am biased, I am not.

Ultimately, it appears that some of the most creative people in history have also had terrible social skills for a reason that has been avoiding scientists for a long time. We can't tell for sure which of history's geniuses were in the spectrum, but chances are at least one was.