139 replies to this topic

[sparkk51]

I don't think anyone has a choice in how successful they become, because I also believe that free will doesn't exist. Everything happens in logical succession.

I would argue that "motivation" is also partly genetic.

Exactly, and the other part is born from environmental stress.

Edited by sparkk51, 16 April 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[Deeviant]

I don't think anyone has a choice in how successful they become, because I also believe that free will doesn't exist. Everything happens in logical succession.

I would argue that "motivation" is also partly genetic.

Exactly, and the other part is born from environmental stress.

This type of thought is almost completely useless.

The tautological thought that could be summed up by something like "There is a reality, everything that happens in the future is dependent on the present, everything in the present depends on the past, reality existed before I did, thus the chain of events consisting of my life are simply events placed in motion by external forces and are outside my control" is simply missing something.

First, it is well known in physics that even if you know the exact state of the universe, you can't not predict the next future state. In fact, it is literally impossible to even determine the exact state of the universe(see Heisenberg uncertainty principle). But say you were able to break the laws of physics and gain knowledge of the exact state of the system, the next state would still not be knowable as the next state is not discrete but is described by probability distribution functions(see wave functions in QM). So on a very physical and clear manner, our best knowledge of the universe supports the idea that we do not live in a predetermined universe.

On a more personal, and probably more useful level, believing one does not have the power to influence one's life is the most de-powering and destructive thought one could conjure up. Some people excel and some do not, a lot of people could give many reasons why some people make it, but in my experience it is willpower that is one of the most sure signs of success.

[sparkk51]

I don't think anyone has a choice in how successful they become, because I also believe that free will doesn't exist. Everything happens in logical succession.

I would argue that "motivation" is also partly genetic.

Exactly, and the other part is born from environmental stress.

This type of thought is almost completely useless.

The tautological thought that could be summed up by something like "There is a reality, everything that happens in the future is dependent on the present, everything in the present depends on the past, reality existed before I did, thus the chain of events consisting of my life are simply events placed in motion by external forces and are outside my control" is simply missing something.

First, it is well known in physics that even if you know the exact state of the universe, you can't not predict the next future state. In fact, it is literally impossible to even determine the exact state of the universe(see Heisenberg uncertainty principle). But say you were able to break the laws of physics and gain knowledge of the exact state of the system, the next state would still not be knowable as the next state is not discrete but is described by probability distribution functions(see wave functions in QM). So on a very physical and clear manner, our best knowledge of the universe supports the idea that we do not live in a predetermined universe.

On a more personal, and probably more useful level, believing one does not have the power to influence one's life is the most de-powering and destructive thought one could conjure up. Some people excel and some do not, a lot of people could give many reasons why some people make it, but in my experience it is willpower that is one of the most sure signs of success.

I agree that it is useless, but it is the simple fact that I see it and cannot... unsee it... that rids me of believing in success that isn't predisposed.

[sparkk51]

Another thing, I don't really believe IQ tests for determining much of anything. Especially this one: http://www.iqtest.dk

I took it an hour ago and scored a 110 (although I did guess the last 4 because I had to go). 30 minutes later, I take it again and score a 132. Yes, I did have a very small amount of practice, but that's a massive leap.

Edited by sparkk51, 16 April 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[arjacent]

Another thing, I don't really believe IQ tests for determining much of anything. Especially this one: http://www.iqtest.dk

I took it an hour ago and scored a 110 (although I did guess the last 4 because I had to go). 30 minutes later, I take it again and score a 132. Yes, I did have a very small amount of practice, but that's a massive leap.

Taking the same test immediately after and scoring a standard deviation higher is not surprising. It is as if you had double the time to answer all questions. Try taking the test again in a year from now and you'll see the score will be closer to 110 (or slightly higher than that if you don't rush the last 4).

IQ tests are not perfect. By practicing IQ type questiosn you can score higher on them without actually having a higher IQ. They also assume you have a basic understanding of logic and arithmetic and verbal reasoning. Not everyone does. But they are the best method we have of quantifying intelligence. You can also try your luck at various brain games to see how you measure up. Even with practice, you'll find your scores plateau eventually. Sign up at http://www.cambridge...test/digit-span

If you want an accurate measure you'd need to see a psychologist who would run a battery of different tests. That would take several hours and cost you a couple thousand dollars. Only then would you see your score doesn't fluctuate wildly.

[Deeviant]

Another thing, I don't really believe IQ tests for determining much of anything. Especially this one: http://www.iqtest.dk

I took it an hour ago and scored a 110 (although I did guess the last 4 because I had to go). 30 minutes later, I take it again and score a 132. Yes, I did have a very small amount of practice, but that's a massive leap.

Taking the same test immediately after and scoring a standard deviation higher is not surprising. It is as if you had double the time to answer all questions. Try taking the test again in a year from now and you'll see the score will be closer to 110 (or slightly higher than that if you don't rush the last 4).

IQ tests are not perfect. By practicing IQ type questiosn you can score higher on them without actually having a higher IQ. They also assume you have a basic understanding of logic and arithmetic and verbal reasoning. Not everyone does. But they are the best method we have of quantifying intelligence. You can also try your luck at various brain games to see how you measure up. Even with practice, you'll find your scores plateau eventually. Sign up at http://www.cambridge...test/digit-span

If you want an accurate measure you'd need to see a psychologist who would run a battery of different tests. That would take several hours and cost you a couple thousand dollars. Only then would you see your score doesn't fluctuate wildly.

You are quite wrong in that IQ is "fixed".

Here is a refereed study that shows that mental training/exercises can increase fluid Intelligence: http://www.pnas.org/...268105.abstract, and thus IQ scores.

IQ tests are good for making some people feel smart, and others feel dumb, or perhaps just average, but are poor for just about everything else.

[arjacent]

You are quite wrong in that IQ is "fixed".

Here is a refereed study that shows that mental training/exercises can increase fluid Intelligence: http://www.pnas.org/...268105.abstract, and thus IQ scores.

IQ tests are good for making some people feel smart, and others feel dumb, or perhaps just average, but are poor for just about everything else.

I never said IQ was fixed, I said modest gains could be made with certain substances and dual-n-back which is what your study refers to. Actually dual-n-back strengthens working memory, and this can in turn lead to higher scores especially in people who have an impaired working memory. Some debunk Jaeggie and her research; I am not among them though as I've personally benefited a great deal from her game.

IQ tests are developed by psychologists who spend years in their field and are paid professionals. There are dozens of studies which show the validity of IQ in things like academic achievement and performance in school. Aptitude tests are modeled on IQ tests and are used in the real world to select candidates for different positions. These standardized tests are by far the best predictor of success in a modern industrialized society. That is what science currently believes, regardless if it is upsetting to you or others. That is not to say IQ is an all encompassing measure of your intellectual abilities. It is not - but it is measuring something significant.

Anyway this thread has veered somewhat off topic so I'm going to end my participation here. To the OP, someone with an average IQ cannot become a genius anymore than a midget can become the worlds tallest man. Sure he can stretch a lot, maybe take growth hormones, but gains will be modest. Heredity imposes a limit on your raw intelligence and all you can do is hope to utilize the upper range of this by learning and exercising your brain.

[airplanepeanuts]

I never said IQ was fixed, ...

Your IQ is largely fixed for life.

...

This ability is largely innate and can only marginally be improved (I would guess 10 points at most) by extensive supplementation and learning.

Where did you pull that guess out of. (Hint: it's not your brain)

[peakplasma]

Oh yeah, I forgot my question. Do people like Will Hunting exist? Hopefully you've seen the movie. And can you give examples of such people? Thanks!

Probably not exactly like portrayed in the movie.. but there are many brilliant people working average jobs with boring lives.

[arjacent]

I never said IQ was fixed, ...

Your IQ is largely fixed for life.

...

This ability is largely innate and can only marginally be improved (I would guess 10 points at most) by extensive supplementation and learning.

Where did you pull that guess out of. (Hint: it's not your brain)

I never said IQ was absolutely fixed in a superlative sense. I said it was "largely" fixed and believe it can only be marginally improved. They call that a comparative adverb. Work on your reading comprehension before accusing me of contradiction. Actually, instead of being a pedant why don't you contribute to the thread. Can someone with an average IQ become a genius? In other words... can someone with an IQ of 100 bring it to 130 and beyond? I said no and supported my reasons. Let's hear your thoughts.

[SpawnMoreOverlords]

Not sure about IQ but some polish guy did an experiment with 3 of his daughters by actively training them for a specific field(chess in his case) from very early age. All 3 became grandmasters at an early age, settings records for being youngest in some categories. Beating well-established grandmasters starting their early teens and winning grown-up tournaments.

Also many kids who win collegiate computer-science championships were taught mathematics/programming by their parents from very early age.

So yeah, unless you're a biologically genius, I don't think there's much you can do at this point. Best you can do is when you have a kid to make them interested and practice a certain field from earliest of ages.

Edited by SpawnMoreOverlords, 17 April 2013 - 01:57 AM.

[Deeviant]

I never said IQ was absolutely fixed in a superlative sense. I said it was "largely" fixed and believe it can only be marginally improved. They call that a comparative adverb. Work on your reading comprehension before accusing me of contradiction. Actually, instead of being a pedant why don't you contribute to the thread. Can someone with an average IQ become a genius? In other words... can someone with an IQ of 100 bring it to 130 and beyond? I said no and supported my reasons. Let's hear your thoughts.

Did you really just lay down a semantics argument then accuse somebody of pedantry in the same breath?

[Adaptogen]

Genetics are a foundation, but i don't know why anyone would assume that intelligence is so set it stone. Take autistic savants for instance, although they were likely born autistic, they were not born savants. It is the intense focus and repetition in regards to one area that cultivated this savantism. The same is true for all geniuses. Nobody is born a god, years and years of building layer upon layer of knowledge could bring anyone to 'genius' status

[IA87]

I used to hold the view of the guy above. Sure it makes sense right? Our minds are simply a product of our biology. Yet the mind is not an epiphenemon of the brain; the two form an intricate feedback loop, and the key thing to remember is that this feedback loop is malleable. Thus it is not the physical formation of the brain which dictates your future, but the way your mind relates to your brain. Thus the biological fallacy committed above and which too many fall into in this age of the religion of reductionism is self-limiting. Your brain goes in the direction of what you believe it to be. This exact same principle underlies the incredible phenomenon of the placebo effect. An awesome book on this subject, along with many ways to harness this connection you can get here. If you're interested in how to maximize your inherent potential then I'd highly recommend it.

Now, on to your question, to become an expert requires two things; time and passion. There is an idea floating round these days that it requires 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in any skill, and 20,000 to become a master. This applies not only to obvious things such as physical tasks but also mental ones. Creativity used to be seen as some inborn skill, after all it seems to transcend being taught, so how could it be learnt? Well, it can't... The creative potential is right there within your brain right now. It is the essence of thought itself. In order to manifest it at higher levels, a framework is required within which to employ it (for example, thoery knowledge of a musical instrument, or powers of logic and reason) and also a cooking pot of related experiences or ideas that will be drawn from in the process of creation (other sounds, experiences and emotions or the ideas of those who went before).

The great masters of history started out no different than you and I. Their brains were not different, what was different was how they employed them. For instance, there was a great furore when Einstein died, because now we could peer inside his brain and see what made him tick! Confusingly, nothing out of the ordinary could be identified to distinguish his brain from an 'ordinary' specimen's, in fact his brain was 10% smaller than the average! Granted this was in the days before complex neuroimaging techniques were invented, but on later examination they found some differences, mainly in the thickness of the cortical connection running to and from the associational centres of the brain. So was it the make up of his brain that made him great? Only in so far as by directing his mind in certain ways, with passion, within a framework he had learnt over time, he had developed these cortical centres. See, how you use your brain defines its internal structure over time. This process is called neuroplasticity. Basically, wherever you direct your thoughts and experiences, whatever skills you learn, your brain adapts its micro structures (in the form of axons and dendrites) second-to-second in order to embed them. Skills can include, more generally, ways of thinking. For example, the more you practice visualization the greater your visualization ability becomes. This increases the thickness of the cortical networks within the brain that correspond to these abilities. Crucially, every single brain on the planet can do this.

What differentiates an Einstein from a retarded couch potato was not their neural starting point, but what they did with their brain throughout their life. Now, Einstein may have had a stimulating environment early on, and there are developmental factors that set trajectories throughout your life. But two key things to keep in mind are that 1) These are merely trajectories. Trajectories will continue unless an awareness is cultivated which can intervene to alter the course of the brain. This explains why most people never harness their brains inherent potential to adapt to anything. Most people do not think to think, do not even consider the direction of their thoughts, and are not aware that there are ways to change them. Meditation is key here. You cannot change what you are not aware of. Meditation cultivates awareness. 2) Neuroplasticity continues to occur up until the moment of death in mentally healthy subjects. This means it is never too late. You may never become an Einstein, as Genius is a category beyond the other two, it requires you be in the right place, at the right time, with the right knowledge, in order to initiate a paradigm shift. In that sense Genius is merely a label given by society. But with passion and time, you can become a master. If you're serious about this endeavour I also highly recomend the book Mastery by Robert Greene. In fact this is more important than the book I linked earlier. It lays out the tools to conquer the field you desire. It is by no means an easy path. Simply wanting to be a genius is not enough fuel to get the fire of the intellect raging. It requires absolute curiousity, which leads to a burning passion.

Einstein's brain was significantly different from the average brain. While it weighed slightly less, the prefrontal and motor cortexes were enlarged, and their convolutions were more complex. This later observation was also made of other areas of his brain, but I have forgotten the names. Einstein himself claimed that he had a very noticable physical reactions to his intuitions. This may have been crucial for his understanding complex phenomena: his brain may have been giving him hints, intuitions, as to the structure of the universe. No level of practice can mold the brain with the precision and intensity required to enlarge, and increase in complexity, the areas responsible for this in exactly the way necessary.

There is quite a lot that differs between individuals. We need look no further than Von Neumann, Ramanujan, Gauss, Leibniz, and others that displayed amazing abilities at very young ages. It is not as simple as inducing neuroplasticity in adulthood. As a child, the brain is easily molded; genetic and environmental advantages in early childhood will have a lot of influence in its later configuration. We may think of the brain as a neural network, and of this neural network as a constraint satisfaction network. The constraint satisfaction network is in chaos during the early stages of life, which allows it to change configurations easily. However, later in life the network enters a nearly-fixed state. Groups of mutually reinforcing constraints are responsible for a network that is largely unresponsive to any attempt to alter it. This helps explain why adults find learning new languages to be difficult, whereas it comes naturally to children. This also highlights the individuals, polyglots, that are able to learn languages with ease even in adulthood. I contend that these individuals, and others that show amazing learning skills, have genetic differences that allow a greater influence over the network, and an ability to create new, strong connections far more effectively than the average person. We must acknowledge that practice and direction is not sufficient to make a genius; we must investigate the other unknowns that make up the totality of the necessary and sufficient conditions for high creativity and reasoning faculties.

Edited by IA87, 18 April 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[OpaqueMind]

I read that 'fact' about Einstein's brain in the first book I linked to, which was coauthored by a harvard neurologist, so I assumed its validity. I'll definitely do more independant research on such matters next time if I feel it worthwhile to quote something. Actually as I read more of that book the less it appeals to me, although there are some interesting perspectives in there.

I don't think we can quite say absolutely that 'No level of practice can mold the brain with the precision and intensity required to enlarge, and increase in complexity, the areas responsible for this in exactly the way necessary'. Granted, in 'exactly the way necessary' to emulate the thinking of someone like Einstein, it is not possible for genetic factors do enter into it, but we do not yet know the limits of the adaptability of the brain. The age old debate of nature vs. nurture rages on, and nowhere is this more relevant yet also frustratingly difficult to penetrate than in the human brain. It has been established that neurogenesis occurs throught life in certain areas of the brain, so does that not make enlargement possible? Synaptic connections are constantly rewiring throughout the brain also, right up until the moment of death in healthy, mentally active people. Is that not an indicator of increasing complexity? I'm practically a complete layman on neuroscience (as I'm sure many are here) so correct me if I'm barking up the wrong thought-tree, but logically these seem to be so.

I like your explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Could you clarify what you mean by a 'constraint satisfaction network'? Is it that the brain attempts to find a fixed stable state, analagous to some kind of conceptual framework from which it can then develop? I guess that explains how a child can begin to learn at all, with no previous ideas to build upon whereas one who has passed some critical stage of development must refer to the base neural networks which have been laid down, hence the necessity to learn through comparing and contrasting with the already established knowledge base.

[hippocampus]

Genetics are a foundation, but i don't know why anyone would assume that intelligence is so set it stone. Take autistic savants for instance, although they were likely born autistic, they were not born savants. It is the intense focus and repetition in regards to one area that cultivated this savantism. The same is true for all geniuses. Nobody is born a god, years and years of building layer upon layer of knowledge could bring anyone to 'genius' status

well, it's a bit more complicated. some people are born savants or become savants because of brain damage. We may all have a hidden savant (not genius!) in us.


From here: http://www.gwern.net...s#algernons-law (original article: http://rstb.royalsoc.../1522/1399.full)

Perhaps the clearest natural evidence for between-domain trade-offs in performance across tasks comes from savants, whose spectacular skills in one domain are associated with poor performance in other domains. Those associations are not coincidental. Savant-like skills can be induced in healthy participants by turning off particular functional areas of the brain - for example, via repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

[IA87]

I read that 'fact' about Einstein's brain in the first book I linked to, which was coauthored by a harvard neurologist, so I assumed its validity. I'll definitely do more independant research on such matters next time if I feel it worthwhile to quote something. Actually as I read more of that book the less it appeals to me, although there are some interesting perspectives in there.

I don't think we can quite say absolutely that 'No level of practice can mold the brain with the precision and intensity required to enlarge, and increase in complexity, the areas responsible for this in exactly the way necessary'. Granted, in 'exactly the way necessary' to emulate the thinking of someone like Einstein, it is not possible for genetic factors do enter into it, but we do not yet know the limits of the adaptability of the brain. The age old debate of nature vs. nurture rages on, and nowhere is this more relevant yet also frustratingly difficult to penetrate than in the human brain. It has been established that neurogenesis occurs throught life in certain areas of the brain, so does that not make enlargement possible? Synaptic connections are constantly rewiring throughout the brain also, right up until the moment of death in healthy, mentally active people. Is that not an indicator of increasing complexity? I'm practically a complete layman on neuroscience (as I'm sure many are here) so correct me if I'm barking up the wrong thought-tree, but logically these seem to be so.

I like your explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Could you clarify what you mean by a 'constraint satisfaction network'? Is it that the brain attempts to find a fixed stable state, analagous to some kind of conceptual framework from which it can then develop? I guess that explains how a child can begin to learn at all, with no previous ideas to build upon whereas one who has passed some critical stage of development must refer to the base neural networks which have been laid down, hence the necessity to learn through comparing and contrasting with the already established knowledge base.

I agree that there can be some level of plasticity. This is well-established now. What I worry about is that practice cannot induce plasticity in exactly the right areas of the brain to see levels of improvement that people are hoping for. Let us imagine someone that wishes to improve his IQ from, say, 115 to 160. This would be the person who wants to be recognized as a genius, if we go by IQ as measuring genius. (I think this thought experiment would work for something other than IQ, but I find IQ easiest to deal with since it is quantifiable.) He would engage in many different practices, e.g., playing Dual N-Back, studying LSAT exam questions, and solving puzzles. It is uncontroversial that these practices would induce some form of change in the brain, but it seems unlikely that it would be precise enough to result in massive gains in IQ. The problem, I hypothesize, is that the processes that are responsible for high performance on IQ tests, namely, meta-reasoning processes, are not directly targeted by any of these practices. Thus, what we are improving is something secondary. Further, if IQ is related to the speed and complexity that new connections are formed in the brain, then it is not clear that practice would increase either of these things. To me, these are genetically-determined parameters. This explains why some children begin speaking at a very early age in life. The people with extremely high IQs also spoke at ages as early as four months. This is not as heavily dependent on environment as one might think, either. Gauss had an absolutely terrible childhood, and no encouragement from his peers. (I am not sure he even lived with his parents, but I would have to check this.) There is something going on here that modulates the celerity with which they apprehend and retain new materials; it is an improvement perhaps an order of magnitude greater than anything we would see with practice.

For a constraint satisfaction network (CSN), imagine a normal neural network but with each node being a hypothesis about the world. So, for example, a three node CSN would comprise {[C]=phoneme, Chant=word, Chew=word}. These would have interconnections such that the fact [C] is a phoneme (as represented by an activation value for this node) increases the activation values for Chant and Chew. These would feedback into [C], increasing its activation value. The interconnections have weights that tell us exactly how strongly correlated our hypotheses are. You may have negative weights, as well, indicating that two hypotheses conflict. So, my theory would be that a person that learns quickly and is able to learn voluminous amounts of information steadily over time would be a person that, by his very genetic and phenotypical attributes, is able to quickly create new connections in a constraint satisfaction network and find a new configuration whereby all constraints are satisfied. Further, this leads to a snowball effect: the initial ability to more quickly create connections leads to more complex CS networks that allow for the establishment of rich hypotheses, which will be less likely to conflict with existing hypotheses. This person would have an easy time of adding new hypotheses while maintaining, or slightly reshaping, existing ones. The richness and large number of hypotheses that he has available also allows much clearer rationales for rejecting a hypothesis, which is of obvious use in science and in general reasoning. Perhaps you can think of this as having an ability to establish a large number of relevant analogies to a problem that you are currently trying to solve, where each analogy helps inform the solution in its own way.

The problem with a person that does not have the abilities above is that his CSN settles into a configuration that is fairly simple, and that is very difficult to alter. Imagine his network as comprising two nodes that mutually reinforce each other. It would be very difficult to accept a new hypothesis that conflicts with one of these nodes, as it would have to overcome the existing activation value of not only the node it conflicts with, but the node that reinforces it. When it tries to do this, the node that reinforces the conflicting node would 'fight back', maintaining the activation value for the conflicting node. In turn, the conflicting node would provide 'energy' for the reinforcing node to continue fighting. Basically, you would have to hit this person over the head with the new hypothesis in order to get him to accept it. Note that this is all happen subconsciously so it is not as though the person can inhibit connection strengths in the network. The person we spoke of in the previous paragraph would avoid the problem just mentioned because he would not have these kinds of simple mutually reinforcing connections. New hypotheses could always find a fit in the network in ways that do not conflict with existing ones.

[megatron]

From what I've read on this forum thus far, I'm actually kind of shocked what small amount of narcissists there are here. I would've thought the number to be much higher.

[hippocampus]

Why do you think so (that there isn't a lot of narcissists)?

[megatron]

From all the responses to a post I made about an idea earlier, clearly I could tell that these people weren't narcissists.

[The Immortalist]

I agree as some of you have stated, that hard work should be the foundation. BUT come on guys! Don't fool yourselves into believing that dedication will make you a genius. It doesn't matter how much you want something, if you don't have the optimal genetics. A person with an IQ of 100 can be the hardest working guy on the planet, but still he won't ever be able to achieve a PhD in physics. No way on earth renfr that you can "push" your IQ from 100 to 150. That's just childish...

He might not achieve it on the first try but I don't see why a tenacious and hard working person with an IQ of 100 couldn't achieve a PhD in physics on the second or third or fourth try.

[IA87]

Perhaps he could, but then consider what he can achieve in a given time slice. The goal should be to maximize what can be apprehended in a given period of time.

[Consistency]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

High IQ is necessary but not sufficient for being a genius. However, that doesn't mean it has to be exactly above some value, it has to be high enough (which depends on society, working domain ...). But as everywhere in nature, there is some variation - there may be few geniuses with low IQ (but really really few).
I'll repeat it again: genius = motivation + creativity + knowledge (in some domain) + intelligence. Simplifying it.

I disagree. Your description of a genius is a basic description of a typical PHD student.

You forgot "intellect".

[Nefertiti]

I was just reading Islands of Genius, by Dr Treffert. He doesnt tell you how to become a Genius, but does explain that "acquired savants" do exist. Bad news is, we don't know why. Good news is, it's probably within all of us. The difference between a savant and a Genius is that being a savant comes as a compensatory mechanism for other abilities, whereas Genius doesn't have to (my understanding). So.... my answer is, it's probably possible but i don't know how or even who would know, without inflicting damage to the central nervous system. Edit: a Genius might also have to do with "genetic knowledge" - people who are born with information that others need to be taught, thus the term "génie = supernatural being". My understanding also is you might become a Genius through hard work, (but you might not) - and you will, in that case, be referred to as a Genius if your contribution to your field causes a significant jump in understanding. // i think that most people we think of as genuises are just really smart people with good work ethics, luck and stubbordness

Edited by Nefertiti, 19 May 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[soulfiremage]

Supposedly Feynman had an IQ of 125. If we took him as an example, there is an argument to say genius and IQ aren't particularly related.

I'd go further: I scored a so called genius score in a long IQ test when I was 19, naive and needing a badge. At time, I confess, I still hang onto this a little but with my eyes wide open. Why? Because what I really think is IQ is at best a rough statistic and questionable as to what it is predicting.

So I'm chucking out IQ as a way to define a genius.

I agree with a social label here. Like knight hood, it's post work, post results, post impact on the world.

In other words, you earn it.

This is at odds with many views here on the subject, but I believe I am right because every acknowledged genius I know of has impacted the world - generally in a positive direction, though it could be negative too-just not commonly viewed the same way.

As to becoming seriously smart I see two fallacies.

One the so called biological roof trap. This one ignores systems thinking, the feedback loops that the brain employs to adapt to the world, the balancing loops used to maintain homeostasis-plasticity out of control could be psychosis or a tumor. So I say this limit is false. There is a real limit however: time and effort.

You negate this limit with the right leverage points, though this still has other limits; qualifier - we don't know most of the possible leverage points yet. Meditation, complex exercise, the right nutrition may well be some of these; however I doubt we have enough detailed studies to say what precisely is the best protocol.

The other is the limitless genius trap. Apart from the definition issue covered earlier, there is also a naive notion that can be taken too far by newcomers to this. The extreme of it is "pop pills, become clever". Use brain training games to become clever.
With the first, you can feel more focussed, memory may be noticeably easier, mood may rise. This does make it easier to score highly on tests-I don't do these.

Games train you to be good at the games, even dual n back only helps with focus. It doesn't translate to any more than better concentration.

Of course, this has value all alone.

To become capable of being regarded as a genius is a seperate task from the task of increasing IQ.

The former is probably a lifetimes dedicated work, even obsession, for the love of what it is you do: with a critical caveat - it must be with constant learning, adapting, never settling, never actually satisfied. Persuit of more than a good result. Genius is also the act of hijacking your entire life, an act of devotion if you like. What you are doing is never out of your mind, part of your soul.

And this had nothing, nothing to do with cold, insanely high IQ scores. Hell I doubt any true genius has even considered being tested.

As for increasing IQ - first off, be happy with the so called expert definition of IQ because you'll be working towards this goal. For me, it's not real, it's an ego badge, a best guess at a quantity who's value is in great contention. It is the product of misapplied scientific methods, or perhaps the wrong ones applied before we could really see what were measuring.

You can change this, many appeared to have. It's called dedication to being IQ tested. Ive yet to hear of one person who wasn't able to contribute significantly to the world before, who then increased his or her IQ and now has.

If you like, IQ could predict some business success. It can't come close to predicting the potential contributions of genius.

Last point. To get closer, learn widely, learn deeply, inter relate knowledge thoroughly. It's a start, that is all I can tell you.

The velocity and interconnectedness of your brains connections is probably a closer measure of your ability.

Unless my ideas or my work changes the world before I die, the IQ score I got does not make me a genius. No more than a bucket of water is an ocean.



Forgive any roughness in the text, my hands are now numb from excessive iPad touch screen typing whilst lying down!

[meth_use_lah]

The difference between genius and extremely smart boils down to if you ever had an original idea that turned out to be true.

[soulfiremage]

I don't think I'd rely on that meth. I had a bunch over the years only to find them happening, or theorised about properly. One was the multiplicity model-I lectured someone on it when I was 17-I just made it up as it seemed obvious. Rita Carters book explains it quite well now, even though I think there's something subtler going on here. To be explained another time as I'm tired of typing on my iPad.

I've seen a few inventions happen, a few years after I thought of them myself. Means nothing, except the ideas perhaps are not that genius but fairly obvious even if original.

I d like the idea of the world drifting away from IQ tests and such like for measuring ability, potential etc because really its just intellectual masturbation and IQ-penis comparison, but utterly meaningless outside of it. It gives a status where really none should exist. We should be measured more on what we do, achieve and perhaps stand for.

[snazzhands]

No such thing as genius without total obsession with a craft. Read 'Mastery' by Robert Greene and see if you can handle the life trajectory he lays out in that book.

[kassem23]

You know what predicts academic achievement and job performance FAR, far better than any IQ-test ever will by several factors? GRIT, a measure of long-term motivation and planning. Discipline, in other words. You can be the smartest person on the planet, by the measure of an IQ test, but the world does not care about a simple test; what it does care about is how you leverage the skills you have and develop over time.

--
Relying on intelligence alone to pull things off at the last minute may work for a while, but, generally speaking, at the graduate level or higher it doesn’t.
One needs to do a serious amount of reading and writing, and not just thinking, in order to get anywhere serious in mathematics; contrary to public opinion, mathematical breakthroughs are not powered solely (or even primarily) by “Eureka” moments of genius, but are in fact largely a product of hard work, directed of course by experience and intuition."
"Does one have to be a genius to do mathematics?
The answer is an emphatic NO. In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need towork hard, learn one’s field well, learn other fields and tools, ask questions, talk to other mathematicians, and think about the “big picture”. And yes, a reasonable amount of intelligence, patience, and maturity is also required. But one does not need some sort of magic “genius gene” that spontaneously generates ex nihilo deep insights, unexpected solutions to problems, or other supernatural abilities."

• Terence Tao, Fields Medal Winner, Mathematical Genius

Edited by kassem23, 21 May 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[soulfiremage]

You know what predicts academic achievement and job performance FAR, far better than any IQ-test ever will by several factors? GRIT, a measure of long-term motivation and planning. Discipline, in other words. You can be the smartest person on the planet, by the measure of an IQ test, but the world does not care about a simple test; what it does care about is how you leverage the skills you have and develop over time.

--
Relying on intelligence alone to pull things off at the last minute may work for a while, but, generally speaking, at the graduate level or higher it doesn’t.
One needs to do a serious amount of reading and writing, and not just thinking, in order to get anywhere serious in mathematics; contrary to public opinion, mathematical breakthroughs are not powered solely (or even primarily) by “Eureka” moments of genius, but are in fact largely a product of hard work, directed of course by experience and intuition."
"Does one have to be a genius to do mathematics?
The answer is an emphatic NO. In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need towork hard, learn one’s field well, learn other fields and tools, ask questions, talk to other mathematicians, and think about the “big picture”. And yes, a reasonable amount of intelligence, patience, and maturity is also required. But one does not need some sort of magic “genius gene” that spontaneously generates ex nihilo deep insights, unexpected solutions to problems, or other supernatural abilities."

• Terence Tao, Fields Medal Winner, Mathematical Genius

Thank you for plain and simple perspective. For this question, this is the truth absolutely.