Genius

[Sundog]

I thought a bit before deciding to put this under Philosophy rather than Forum Management for two reasons: (mods, move it if you disagree)

(1) Decisions have already been made and discussion of the decisions is pointless, plus, the whole discussion is bitterly divisive; and

(2) This really is a question of philosophy, and maybe here we can talk about it rather than argue about it. Bear with me...

What is genius? What separates the successful search for and acquisition of knowledge from the quality of genius? What separates a college professor who intimately knows every detail of his or her field from the researcher who may know less, but who is able to synthesize the things he knows into an entirely new result - to create something brand-new or discover some hitherto-unnoticed correlation?

Many definitions exist and surely there are many theories - I'm no psychologist. But it seems to me that one really essential ingredient is the ability to use intuition - by which I mean nothing woo-woo, but simply the leaps into far-off brain territory that provide a new and productive insight into the problem at hand. People wityh this capacity aren't satisfied to know everything about a single subject - they want to know it all.

The "opposite" of this is the linear thinker - the brilliant plodder. The guy who can crunch numbers all night but will never have an insight that lets him break new ground.

What made me start thinking along these lines was a couple of things. The first was the rather outrageous slander that by far most of the postings here a waste of time and had nothing to do with the JREF mission. Surely there is a lot of junk, but anyone who isn't impressed by the amount of "business done" here hasn't been around very much. I contend that in some way, the vast majority of topics here manage to tickle that part of the brain that says, "well, what do I think about this subject" and forces it to connect to that other part of the brain that actually creates arguments to justify what we think.

The other thing was Pillory.

Pillory posts a lot of junk. But now and then while reading him, neurons from one extreme side of my brain link up with others in faraway spots to give me that "Eureka" feeling. Others feel the same; he may be the most-quoted poster in a SIG line here.

So I guess my point is that a forum which seeks to explore the outlands of the human mind hampers itself immensely by closing down the intellectual bandwidth to decrease the "noise level", because without meaning to insult any moderator past, present or future, I haven't yet come across one who was prescient enough to really tell what is worthwhile from what is not.

That is the nature of genius - one never knows in what unexpected places we may find it.

I beg that this thread not be used for argument - the decisions have been made. What do you think fosters intellectual growth and what doesn't?

 

[scribble]

I don't have much to add, except that some of the smartest thinkers I've *personally* known (so it's anecdotal, skip to the next post if that's worthless) would have to vastly alter their style of communication to post on a heavily moderated forum.

That said, I often wonder if the genius I also see in posters such as Pillory is like the genius I find in any sufficiently large peice of otherwise incoherent babble. Sometimes the brain, an excellent pattern-matcher, finds sense where none was intended.

 

[Sundog]

I don't have much to add, except that some of the smartest thinkers I've *personally* known (so it's anecdotal, skip to the next post if that's worthless) would have to vastly alter their style of communication to post on a heavily moderated forum.

That said, I often wonder if the genius I also see in posters such as Pillory is like the genius I find in any sufficiently large peice of otherwise incoherent babble. Sometimes the brain, an excellent pattern-matcher, finds sense where none was intended.

Exactly the point. I don't know whether Pillory is a genius or not, but I want him around. He makes ME think.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "Some people, who are not themselves luminous, have the gift of inspiring luminosity in others."

 

[EGarrett]

I don't have much to add, except that some of the smartest thinkers I've *personally* known (so it's anecdotal, skip to the next post if that's worthless) would have to vastly alter their style of communication to post on a heavily moderated forum.

I disagree with that.

It's easy to get confused when someone posts some jargon filled rant and think it might just be because they are smarter than you. But when someone is *really* intelligent, no one doubts it. That's because they don't tell you things that are complicated, but tell you things that make great sense, but that you just hadn't thought of yet.

From my experience...genius is the ability to take the complex (ex. Relativity) and make it simple. (E=Mc2).

Posting on a forum full of average people for a super-genius might try their patience (as everything would go a step slower than you'd like it to)...but it's not like they wouldn't be able to communicate.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

Genius

somebody which possibly creates something so far out of the ordinary it ultimately effects all mankind

But it does then raise many questions such as should we consider some people as genius's when in truth they and their idea's heralded from a time when gin and drugs actually where responsible for their inspirational creations
________________________________________

The Brilliant Plodder

somebody who can churn out great things constantly, certainly not somebody to class as a genius whose one or maybe few creations over a lifetime have had a greater impact
_________________________________________

As for Pillory i'm new here hence i dont know who your talking about

 

[EGarrett]

I just searched up a bunch of pillory's posts.

If you think THAT is genius...you are very confused, to put it mildly. It's nonsense.

(And before you claim that I just don't understand...Read something Albert Einstein, John Wooden or even Bobby Fischer wrote and compare it to that. Freakish intelligence is clearly indentifiable. Nonsense is also.)

 

[Brian]

I just searched up a bunch of pillory's posts.

If you think THAT is genius...you are very confused, to put it mildly. It's nonsense.

(And before you claim that I just don't understand...Read something Albert Einstein, John Wooden or even Bobby Fischer wrote and compare it to that. Freakish intelligence is clearly indentifiable. Nonsense is also.)

But then read some Bukowski, and make a judgement call.

 

[evildave]

Generally within our culture, genius is defined by acclaim. A bunch of people say a person is a 'genius', and the label sticks. Simple as that.

Most people apply the label 'genius' pretty liberally. Most people aren't very bright to begin with. Anyone who is slightly more 'luminous' than average is prone to be slapped with the 'genius' label by these aforementioned not-so-bright people before they know what's happening to them.

You can't believe how often people claim that Bill Gates is a 'programming genius', and give him credit for 'inventing' various software packages that Microsoft bought outright from other companies (i.e. obviously impossible for Bill to have invented). Perhaps he's a marketing genius (though I doubt most of this marketing was his work), or a business genius (a lot of other people run the business), but perhaps more than anything else, he was already a millionare to start with when he built his company, and got very lucky, and was at least bright enough to exploit his extraordinarily lucky opportunity when it came.

------------------

Personally, I believe that genius is measured by results, and these results are not always measurable in one lifetime.

If you do nothing, move nothing, accomplish nothing, you can only really be 'average', no matter how internally brilliant you may seem to be.

If you accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to do, that's probably a strong genius indication.

If you accidentally accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to, that's probably an indication of genius.

If you accidentally accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you didn't set out to, that's probably an indication of good luck. There's a thin line between dumb luck and genius; it could be argued that people make their own luck.

If you FAIL to accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to do, that's still an indication: you had the will to TRY. Most people will sit on their butts and never do or even try anything.

Obviously destruction resulting from your intellect, your talent or your luck can't count: any toddler with a hammer can manage destruction.

 

[Brian]

Personally, I believe that genius is measured by results, and these results are not always measurable in one lifetime.

If you do nothing, move nothing, accomplish nothing, you can only really be 'average', no matter how internally brilliant you may seem to be.

If you accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to do, that's probably a strong genius indication.

If you accidentally accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to, that's probably an indication of genius.

If you accidentally accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you didn't set out to, that's probably an indication of good luck. There's a thin line between dumb luck and genius; it could be argued that people make their own luck.

If you FAIL to accomplish something extraordinarily positive that you set out to do, that's still an indication: you had the will to TRY. Most people will sit on their butts and never do or even try anything.

Obviously destruction resulting from your intellect, your talent or your luck can't count: any toddler with a hammer can manage destruction.

Only want to add that the same discovery that can power cities can destroy them. So, positive is a subjective thing here. Oppenheimer harnessed the power of atomic energy (Al set the stage), that's neither positive or negative. Just depends on what you do with it.

 

[evildave]

But was Oppenheimer the genius who harnessed the atom, or simply one of the men who worked on an 'application' for it?

Atomic theory and working fission reactors predate the fission bomb.

There were a lot of scientists who worked on all aspects of that. Oppenheimer was prominently in charge of the work, but certainly didn't single-handedly make the bomb.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/people.html

 

[EGarrett]

But then read some Bukowski, and make a judgement call.

I see no reason to label him a genius (compared to the men I listed in their respective fields).

But even if I did...he's at least talking about something. The poems I found had a coherent subject and thought line. pillory doesn't. He's just talking nonsense. Spamming actually.

 

[Sundog]

I just searched up a bunch of pillory's posts.

If you think THAT is genius...you are very confused, to put it mildly. It's nonsense.

(And before you claim that I just don't understand...Read something Albert Einstein, John Wooden or even Bobby Fischer wrote and compare it to that. Freakish intelligence is clearly indentifiable. Nonsense is also.)

You misunderstand me completely. My point is far more subtle than this. With your obvious intelligence I am surprised that you would misinterpret me so thoroughly.

I am saying that the rather random posts that float through here are akin to the random associations in the brain of a genius; that they are worthy because they add to a pool of ideas, sometimes (granted) in a very oblique way.

Yes, Pillory does post a lot of junk, I believe I said that. My point is that its worth it for the jewels in the rough he occasionally comes up with. I LIKE having to stretch my brain a bit to figure out what the hell he's talking about. One either has this type of curiosity or one doesn't.

Actually, since I see you've only been here a very short while, maybe you really don't know what I'm talking about. Be a little more patient, it's like fishing.

My point - and I apparently made it very badly - is that one never knows from where will come the spark of an idea. Shutting down a discussion forum to strictly scholastic topics seems to me a sure way to decrease this sort of stimulation.

 

[EGarrett]

You misunderstand me completely. My point is far more subtle than this. With your obvious intelligence I am surprised that you would misinterpret me so thoroughly.

You'd have to link me to the original discussion for me to know most of your original post. It's a continuation of another thread that I haven't seen.

I am saying that the rather random posts that float through here are akin to the random associations in the brain of a genius; that they are worthy because they add to a pool of ideas, sometimes (granted) in a very oblique way.

There's no problem with random stream-of-consciousness type posts. Such as "why is grass green?" and other things. But if a post isn't saying anything of value...it's spam and I agree with it being discouraged.

Yes, Pillory does post a lot of junk, I believe I said that. My point is that its worth it for the jewels in the rough he occasionally comes up with. I LIKE having to stretch my brain a bit to figure out what the hell he's talking about. One either has this type of curiosity or one doesn't.

He has so many posts that you'd have to direct me to a jewel in the rough so I could see what you mean. The ones I've found are all random spam.

Actually, since I see you've only been here a very short while, maybe you really don't know what I'm talking about. Be a little more patient, it's like fishing.

If you mean I missed the original conversation, you're right. The posts here seemed to gravitate towards whether or not pillory is a genius...so I'm just taking a look and giving my two cents on that issue.

My point - and I apparently made it very badly - is that one never knows from where will come the spark of an idea. Shutting down a discussion forum to strictly scholastic topics seems to me a sure way to decrease this sort of stimulation.

I don't think it was necessarily bad...it's just that we're using only text to communicate so it's hard to pick up the finer points of each other's thoughts.

But don't confuse a requirement for coherency with some tighter restriction. Spam rules (I'm a moderator on other forums so I have to answer questions like this all the time) just exist to stop the board from being cluttered.

If pillory actually had something to say...I wouldn't see a problem. You can make crazy points or stream of consciousness points...even with bad spelling and grammar. But you have to make a point. I don't think pillory does.

And please, by all means link to me to some points he actually has made.

 

[Keneke]

The other thing was Pillory.

Pillory posts a lot of junk. But now and then while reading him, neurons from one extreme side of my brain link up with others in faraway spots to give me that "Eureka" feeling. Others feel the same; he may be the most-quoted poster in a SIG line here.

I posit that the aforementioned experience of Pillory's posts is like the experience of believing a cold reader: you remember the hits and ignore the misses. Yes, I find a few gems in Pillory's post, but I also do in Roadtoad's, Upchurch's, De_Bunk's, and many others, each in their own way. Some of them are so couched in easily-read, well-defined steps that it doesn't seem like a Eureka moment at all. But I believe that a good number of posters here have just as many, or more, or lots more stunning revelations about existence, but are phrased in such a way that it does not impact a person as much.

A I recall, I had a sig line that said, "Intuition is knowledge without the words to express it." I feel that Pillory is running high on a type of intuitive function, with a brain not too far removed from the rest of the human race, but without the capacity (or the desire?) to make his points clear, whether it be through alcohol, a language barrier, a trolling joke, or a handicapped mind.

 

[Kopji]

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Einstein

And Pillory is a cat.

 

[LucyR]

As Sherlock Holmes said, "Some people, who are not themselves luminous, have the gift of inspiring luminosity in others."

It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light.

I think you might be a case in point, Sundog