Talk:Genius

Comment

This is quite possibly the most completely off-base wikipedia entry I've ever seen. While the term "genius" may have any number of colloquial meanings, which would be fine to include here, it is technically defined as a person with an IQ of 160 or higher. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not somebody has applied a previously unused technique in a field. (Where on Earth did this come from?) An average-intelligence person could be a famous innovator, while a genius could sit around eating Cheetos all day and die in obscurity. They're completely different variables.71.115.9.77 (talk)

It's not true that genius can simply be defined as "a person with an IQ of 160 or higher". You need more than just high intelligence to be a genius. Geniuses tend to have high, but not the highest IQ's (140 is perhaps the minimum for a genius). Genius is also related to conditions such as autism and Asperger syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.16 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "genius" has been around hundreds of years before the iq test was even invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You will find the complete answer to this mystery on the disambig page Genius (disambiguation). There you will discover most of the entries are entertainers who are called geniuses. This whole article is mainly in support of those personalities; in other words, this article is a disguised form of the glim-glam, the flim-flam, the old free publicity game. You try to change it and they jump you, and that leads to even more publicity! So, at bottom, this whole article is a commercial site. Certain persons are not interested in fixing it, only in keeping the publicity. But it is a tough article to write about and the topic is in fact emotionally charged. We need to start with the English definitions from credible sources and get into the history of the concept. As for the entertainers, well, as long as Wikipedia documents the current scene, and they are persons of note, we can't get rid of them. What we can do is force them into the mold. Get back in place, entertainers, this is not your personal publicity stunt. I can see I will have to start taking a hand here; they have already started in on me. So, people, just keep at it with the criticism; let's force them into proper place here.Dave (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Genius" is introduced as a scholarly endeavor (or learning ability) but it lacks discussion skill or application of knowledge no matter how it is acquired; whether learned from others, self-taught, instinctive, or otherwise "born that way". Depth of knowledge (Einstein) versus Breadth of knowledge (DaVinci) only partly covers this. Also, one good idea does not necessarily make one a genius - there needs to be some sort of recognizable history of exceptional performance. --96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IQ

Does your IQ determine if you are a genius or not? Or is it something else?

see Theory of multiple intelligencesMalomeat 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Malomeat

You're absolutely right. You don't qualify as a genius by practising a few IQ tests really hard and reading a lot of books with rare words (and leafing through the dictionary (even though yes, you would still have to be quite intelligent to get that score, but not a genius). As flawed and problematic as IQ is in the average population, to define anyone as having an "IQ over 140" as a real genius is nonsense. Euler was a genius, we all know that, but apparently we can't say it because it's POV. Well logically it is equally POV to label all these thousands and thousands of people genius. Should we remove it from the first paragraph? We could mention it elsewhere... And there is the mentioning of soccer geniuses... how is it fair to put them in and yet POV to mention others??

---

I don't disagree entirely, about IQ tests being unable to qualify people as geniuses, as people can practice things and work on solving IQ test-like problems and achieve a higher score that way, as with a modern ACT or SAT. However, to say that someone who can get over 140 with no practice is not one type of genius seems a bit off. Of course, recognized geniuses and those that most people in modern-day society will call geniuses (those that they know who are simply very intelligent) are completely different, as you must accomplish something to be recognized as a genius of the past, and there are many geniuses of the past and modern-day society that quite possibly could not get above a 140 on a modern IQ test. But as someone who has only taken an IQ test once, and had never practiced questions quite like those I saw on that test, and received a 172 simply from being able to pick the logical answer to most of them, an IQ test seems like a decent test of who or who is not one very specific type of genius. To say I am a genius of the arts would be ridiculous, as I am quite a horrible failure at writing brilliant pieces of literature and have never written a piece of music in my life. Just as well, to say that someone who received a 126 on a modern IQ test could never write a piece of music that could move Mozart to tears would also not necessarily be correct. And there are definitely not only geniuses of logic and artistry, but rather geniuses of hundreds of topics. Any specific topic that someone can imagine should have a group of people who excel beyond all others. I personally believe that saying someone who can score well over a 140 on their first try on an IQ test is a genius, and instead I claim that it is wrong to say that the ones who cannot accomplish this are not geniuses. ---

Depends on the notion of genius used. Genius with regards to intelligence? In this case IQ would probably currently be the best measure for genius (although in actuality there's much more to "intelligence" than can be inferred from an IQ test). Genius as expressed by creativity in the arts or music? I don't think IQ tests can effectively measure this. Depending on the notion of genius used, having a high IQ is not necessary to be a genius, and being a genius does not necessarily imply having a high IQ. Mozart is widely considered a genius in the field of music, but had he taken an IQ test, would he have scored very high? We don't know, and I don't think IQ is a significant factor in the criteria used in labeling someone a genius with regards to musical ability. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are professional sources on this subject and we should use those when editing Wikipedia articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this Fahrenheit or Celsius? You cannot discuss IQ without units. Percentile would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Estimated IQs of historical figures in preamble

This is my first contribution ever to Wikipedia so apologies if I get any of the customs wrong. Basically, I want to say I dislike the references in the introduction to Goethe and da Vinci having "estimated IQs" of 210 and 220 respectively. This has got to be both highly speculative and highly questionable. If we take as the definition of IQ the score on an intelligence test which is normalized to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, then we are talking about IQs more than 7 standard deviations above the mean, which statistically ought not to occur in the entire human population. In any case, a 1 in a billion IQ score is in no way a prerequisite to the polymath ability and amazing creativity of these men. Personally, I think that having these unsubstantiated claims in the introduction detracts from the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhd75 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, it is highly questionable (and in my professional opinion, unlikely), so I shall remove these. This does not change the point of the article at all, but simply allows the reader to not be distracted with these potentially impossible I.Q. scores only a little way in. And also, should estimations be used in an encyclopedic article at all?

Polymath618 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - actually, the estimations for Goethe and da Vinci were incorrect, as the Flynn Effect was not applied to them. The modern equivalent of Goethe's estimated I.Q. of 220 is actually about 190, so it isn't as high as we thought it was (although, of course, it is still exceptional).

Polymath618 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Flynn Effect has been demonstrated to be non-G related and to have begun reverting by now (again, of course, non-G related). Additionally, it has also been demonstrated to affect scores only up to about IQ 120 sd16. However, the estimates for historical geniuses do need correcting, but on different grounds. They were made in 1926 based on the ratio MA/CA. The entire Cox/Terman list should be converted to presently used deviation values. That gives top ranked Goethe an IQ of 179 sd16, almost 5 SD above the mean and nearly a 1 in 3 million rarity. The decrease is not linear. By the time you come into the low 150's ratio, they lose merely about 5 points to become mid-140's deviation. You can check this: [1] StevanMD (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Estimated IQ scores are a load of bull and are the stuff of laymen "pop science". What definitive proof is there that being an exceptional musician or artist makes one a genius in areas that correspond with high IQ? I've seen no word on a significant correlation between creative ingenuity and IQ, and even if there was it is ridiculous to try to guess what a dead man would have scored on a test. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Intelligence or Genius

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, some new editors have begun watching and working on this article, and I wonder if anyone has any further suggestions for the source list linked here. I'm thinking of adding some sources to this article. Simonton's publications (now listed as Further reading sources) would be excellent books to dig into to update the content of this article. Have a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Historiometry section

This section in not about genius and is only tangentially related to the topic of the article. I'll be removing it again. Per WP:BRD, seek consensus for inclusion of this unrelated material if you wish to add it back Miradre. aprock (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Historiometry has certainly quantitatively measured the impact of geniuses as well as what may contribute to their presence. As such it certainly deserves a section. Also, BRD does not mean that your version is somehow the default.Miradre (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It deserves a see also entry, which it has. If you want to include new content that has been reverted, you should seek consensus for the inclusion. Seek away. aprock (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus. I added material which no one objected to for a long time. You removed it without consensus. Also, I will add references showing that geniuses is a central feature of the field.Miradre (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, your idiosyncratic interpretation of consensus brings levity to my day. Thank you. aprock (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a policy stating that your text is somehow the default? Also, have a look at the Historiometry article, I have added references showing that studying genius is a central feature of the field. Comments? Miradre (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not add any text. And there is already a see also in the article. That should suffice here. aprock (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy preference for a version with less text or the status quo. A scientific field about genius certainly deserves its own section in an article about genius.Miradre (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion right now. If you'd like to include the content, it might help to seek out a outside opinion WP:3O. aprock (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for exclusion either. To quote:" There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version." Miradre (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. aprock (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that we should drop the talk of "consensus". Exactly what are your objections to including a section about a scientific field investigating genius in the genius article? Miradre (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The objection is that it's only tangentially related to Genius, hence a see also link suffices. I suppose an inline link in the Psychology section might be worthwhile. An entire section about an obscure and minor field of study is certainly not needed here. Again, you're welcome to see outside opinions. aprock (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a field about genius is not tangentially related to the genius article. That it is obscure is your on POV. In regard to genius it is of course a major field. Do you really want to ask outside opinion on a question if a field about genius should have a section in the genius article? Miradre (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry miradre. My not responding your unproductive talk page comments is not an indication that the objection has been adequately addressed. I am again removing section as undue. aprock (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Image of Nikola Tesla

As discussed above, the definitive twentieth century genius is Einstein and the repeated, partisan efforts to replace his image with that of Nikola Tesla, the proponent of neighbourhood broadcast power, is not appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. Tesla is just not anywhere near as well known. There are a couple of other who could have been used like Shakespeare or Newton but Einstein is the main one people think of I believe. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Added again. The contributor reported for edit warring: see here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why images of both men can't be included. Certainly Edison is more notable in popular culture as an inventor, but it's pretty clear that both are highly regarded for their intellectual achievements. aprock (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edison is not either Einstein or Tesla. What's the point of sticking in a gallery? One is quite good enough. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct you are. For some strange reason, I was reading Einstein as Edison. Einstein is exactly the correct representative of scientific genius. aprock (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Continues. Has anybody identified the back-channel that's stirring up all these edits? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

specific geniuses mentioned

I've reviewed the articles of all the specific people mentioned in the lead, and they are all described as geniuses in their articles. I'm not sure what basis canonical representatives are chosen, but the current list (while weakly sourced) does not look unreasonable. aprock (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)