Genius vs. Insanity

Genius vs. Insanity
cortes
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 4
#11 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 11:23 AM:

Cadrache wrote:
Marcel Garcia, Van Gogh, Salvadore Dali, Nietzsche , Tesla(quesitonable). Supposedly all insane geniuses.

In a lot of cases the very qualities that lead to success (and therefore genius) also lend to failure (and insanity). It is not unusual for someone to be very successful in one field and a complete failure in others. Typically when we ascribe insanity to great thinkers it is not for their contribution but for their inability to function in other areas of their life. Anothter term for this phenomemon is "savant idiot".

This only goes to show how closely genius and insanity are interwined.

Cadrache wrote:
The genius is only called such when other people can understand what they are talking about.

This is a critical error. It is not necessary to understand the "why" and "how" of success to appreciate the consequences of success. Indeed, it is success itself which obviates the necessity to understand.

For example, Alexander the Great was considered a genius because of what he accomplished long before anyone understood how he did it.

Cadrache wrote:
No absolute truth to determine genius through success.

Again, this is the power of success.

Alexander the Great did not merely put foward an opinion about how the world should be organized (Greek above barbarian) but actually went out and reordered the world toppling the Persian empire which had previously been the great world power. It was the real consequences of his genius, his success, which grabs the attention and forces the world to notice his ideas.
Cadrache
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 5009
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 12:29 PM:

Then find a way to determine intelligence outside the rosetta stone scenerio of physically building said product. The key with the 'building' product, is that people quite often still do not understand what the person achieved. At best, all they can do is relate this physical product to their own understanding. On occassion another genius might understand what went on in the first ones' head.

Alexander would not of even gone past that of the first greek city, if others did not understand his goals. Would Alexander of been able to do such if he was Female? Would Alexander of been able to lead if all that was missing was his tongue? If he could not fight? The idea of 'genius' played less of a role then what one might think. I agree however that Alexander likely had at least above-average intelligence.

If you want to place 'success' and relate genius to success, then you can look at Wiki if you will concerning 'intelligence Quotient'. They have this interesting table down there where they calculate the estimated yearly income in relation to age and IQ level. Only in later life do the people who actually are considered to be 'geniuses' start to get paid as more successful then just intelligent individuals. 3/4 of their life they are not successful, on a monetary basis. Their value in early life, is construed as being monetarily equivilant to having an iq of 90ish, with the average being 100. (very rough estimate)

The idea I have -unproven- that relates to this table is what some people term integration of new ideas into society. It can take excess of a generation before a new idea can come to some understanding to the populace. Now I don't know exactly how many years between generations, but I would suspect that would be between the 20-30 year range, at about the time when the 'genius' is starting to acquire some success.

Now, with todays society, that means that this genius is starting to get paid some of he is worth, 10-15 years before retirement. Because of the previous 20 years of less pay, this means that they cannot acquire as much wealth throught their interest bonuses compounding. This means that if everybody died at 80, each and every genius would be less successful then somebody with just above-average intelligence, if you used money as a comparison of value to the individual.

The insane person on the other hand lives free. They at least on occassion recieve 10's of thousands of dollars for medication, 1000's for proper housing/food care, 100's of thousands for trained proffessionals to take care of them. And this is from the outset for some of them. The insane are more successfull then even your average individual.

PS. I am not taking the standpoint that helping people in need is bad.
vzzbux
Professional Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2007

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 69
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 2:47 PM:

I'm sorry, but Alexander the great was a genius. He managed to hold together one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. And he alone could keep it together (it fell apart immediatly after he died).

Are geniuses really the ones with the highest IQ? When we are talking of geniuses, what exactly is a genius?

We need to estalish what a genius is for this discussion.
cortes
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 4
#14 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 4:56 PM:

Cadrache wrote:
Alexander would not of even gone past that of the first greek city, if others did not understand his goals.

In fact, people often follow leaders without understanding where they are being led.

Cadrache wrote:
If you want to place 'success' and relate genius to success, then you can look at Wiki if you will concerning 'intelligence Quotient'.

If you want to treat the subject of intelligence intelligently then you might want to look at more modern concepts of intelligence. See e.g.

www.thomasarmstrong.com/mul...multiple_intelligences.htm

Keep in mind that IQ tests were developed specifically to predict peformance on cognitive tasks. They are testing for predictive indicators of success!

vzzbux wrote:
Are geniuses really the ones with the highest IQ? When we are talking of geniuses, what exactly is a genius? We need to estalish what a genius is for this discussion.

See above.
Wosret
Assassin
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswick

Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 8403
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 6:05 PM:

I like the idea that IQ tests are inaccurate. Don't get me wrong, I've always scored pretty good them, but never close to 160. Just above 130 was my best on one, took the "test the nation" IQ test on TV a couple weeks ago and scored 124, but I would definately like to do better.

"What is insanity? To be insane is to be unsound of mind, to have difficulty dealing with reality." In that case I think that the smarter you are the less insane you become.
cortes
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 4
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:18 PM:

Wosret wrote:
"What is insanity? To be insane is to be unsound of mind, to have difficulty dealing with reality." In that case I think that the smarter you are the less insane you become.

To appreciate the point of my original post, you need to focus on a particular kind of insanity: the maladjustment to social norms and conventional wisdom. There are many other forms of insanity that are not of interest to us here, people who are merely suicidally depressed, for example, are not bordering on genius.

Though, come to think of it, many artistic geniuses have been suicidally depressed.


Edited by cortes on Mar 31, 2007 - 8:25 PM
Wosret
Assassin
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswick

Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 8403
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:21 PM:

cortes wrote:

To appreciate the point of my original post, you need to focus on a particular kind of insanity: the maladjustment to social norms and conventional wisdom. There are many other forms of insanity that are not of interest to us here, people who are merely suicidally depressed, for example, are not bordering on genius.



I understand that. I meant that it would appear to me that the less intelligent delude themselves as to the nature of the world and reality. As the more intelligent are able to understand reality better.
aegger
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 27, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 132
#18 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 31, 2007 - 11:30 PM:

"I think what you are describing in the first part is satisfaction which can lead to stagnation. But anyone atuned to the world will never be satisfied, a lifetime is never long enough to learn everything much less do everything." -Cortes

I wasn't very clear in my post. Also, sorry I'm so late in replying, you guys have talked up a storm. I believe this sort of stagnation is anything but satisfaction/contentment. Merely that one has reduced all the more complex ideas (e.g. religion, science, existence in general), to simple unanswerable questions. They can argue, logically, any idea, but can never have an absoluteness to everything that is (We can move in any direction, while assuming it's the right movement, they see the fallability of every direction of movement in terms of correct ideas). So their arguments tend to end up in a sort of black hole of growth (kind of like scientific regress). Without a pure and logically sound start of all ideas (for them), they are left with a bunch of lucid and vivid connections, between ideas, roaming around in their heads. Enough for anyone to go crazy, but they must be smart enough to see all the connections that can be made. Also, I see the source of much of their insanity being the belief that their is some sort of definitive answer or conclusion they can discover from logical induction.

Still very abstract and vague, sorry about that. I really enjoy this topic grin
cortes
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 4
#19 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Apr 1, 2007 - 7:11 AM:

Wosret wrote:
I meant that it would appear to me that the less intelligent delude themselves as to the nature of the world and reality. As the more intelligent are able to understand reality better.

You would think so and mostly that is probably true though culture plays a critical role as well.

However, it is not realiable and if you merely follow smart people you will find yourself in trouble. The classic contrary example is the intellectualists infatuation with Marxism which continues to this day. Really smart people (e.g. academics) have a tendency to fall in love with ideas without regard for their actual utility.
Moorhuhn
kill me if you can
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 02, 2005
Location: UK

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 4
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 1, 2007 - 9:46 AM:

Unfortunately, many people are hanging on to the notion that intelligence has to reflect on performance or success. I reality it only shows how well you are coping with stress. Perhaps the more questions you have the greater your chance to become a person of multiply intelligence, which can be beneficial to a given society. Of curse as you already mentioned here, there is a very fine line between intelligence and insanity. To read up on one particular issue can be like driving in one direction without the chance to return or doing a U turn. Logically the person is trapped by his own few of things. Reading a book is about socialising the mind and as such like, we all have a responsibility to take care about what we are reading. Perhaps many people have forgotten this simple rule of life and developing the mind friendly and nice in order to gain a internal beauty, which so many are lacking out simply because there is no money to make with internal beauty. nod
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.