Talk:Genius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein[edit]

Yea: 15,253,101
Nay: 0

Mozart Bias[edit]

'Leonardo da Vinci is widely acknowledged as having been a genius and a polymath.'

'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, prodigy and music genius '

Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources on the topic of genius at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The captions cited above don't, and by this article's own admission:
'There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real
meaning has long been a subject of debate, ...' Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Heritability of genius[edit]

I realize that there is already a (controversial) article on heritability of IQ, but I would like to see a section on this topic. Looking back at old notes on this topic, I have this article The Genetics of Genius (1998) by David Lykken which talks about how Secretariat's children didn't reach his level and also brings up the example of Carl Friedrich Gauss but "taught himself to read and to do simple arithmetic by the time he was three years old". II | (t - c) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Genius and emotional intelligence[edit]

Hello! I know that many geniuses have low emotional intelligence and he leads to mental disorders, but i cannot find reliable sources. You can help me?Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The onus is on you to find sources for the content you wish to add. AndrewOne (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It is ok? "Some people have high IQs and low emotional intelligence" https://www.skillsyouneed.com/general/emotional-intelligence.html
And this: "Perceived Emotional Intelligence is Impaired and Associated with Poor Community Functioning in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339495/ Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that the first of those two sources is questionable in its reliability. I also explained before why the second source can't be used here. Nothing is said about genius in that summary. AndrewOne (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! I found this source: "people with low emotional intelligence suffer from mental disorders, lack of empathy, anxiety, anger, weak defense mechanisms, and have problems in administration of their emotions more than others" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905545/
It is ok? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You have not proven the assertions you wanted in the article. That most recent source says that the results of the study "showed a correlation between emotional intelligence and mental disorders with internet addiction", and I have already told you that the other source is of questionable reliability. AndrewOne (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok! What about this? https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/ppp_lehrstuehle/psychologie_4/pressearchiv/Emotional_Intelligence_as_a_Factor_in_Mental_Health.pdf Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Geniusology[edit]

Most of the content of Geniusology is primary sources and seems designed to promulgate this theory, without indication of wide acceptance. I was tempted to nominate for AfD but there may be some content to salvage that could be included at the Genius page. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There are stars, constellations, black wholes -- and there is an article on Astronomy (a separate article). There is thinking, emotions, behavioral problems -- and there is a science called Psychology. Why? Because there is SUBJECT to study and there is science -- with its methodology, theories, hypothesis, etc. There are numerical regularities -- but there is a science of Mathematics. Different things. There is a physical world in movement, but there is a science-- Physics. A science is a study of -- it is a separate subject to study -- not the matter! Actually, I do not care this way or other. But the moment you add something to an established article, there will be FORCES (read AUTHORS) against that. and the discussion will start (ignite) anew. If you are going to deal with this by yourself, go ahead --merge! I did my work describing the science! Oh, I checked the article on Genius once again and I see one more thing. Some of the authors even doubt that the concept of genius should exist...Good luck. Obrazcity (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Obrazcity: The sources you posted for "Geniusology" for the most part seem to be related to the person who coined the term, and none seem to indicate wide acceptance of the term. This isn't the place to post original research or theories that are not widely published or discussed in independent reliable sources. The wording of the page suggests an attempt to spread word of this term and not an effort to write an encyclopedic article. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Support merge: It could be argued that this term is simply describing a field of study that already exists. The work of Catharine Cox Miles, for example, might be thought of as proto-geniusology. The lists of Tony Buzan (partially included on my user page) are another example. Nevertheless, there indeed appears to be no significant acceptance of this particular term in independent sources, and thus the word definitely doesn't merit a stand-alone article at this point. I would gladly support a separate page on this subject once there has been notable coverage. AndrewOne (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend an AfD for Geniusology rather than merging any content here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: AfD would only be appropriate if there is nothing of Geniusology to salvage(WP:ATD). If Geniusology duplicates this page, it could simply be turned into a redirect. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)