<p>No. I don't understand what you're referring to.</p>
<p>You said: </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think genius revolves more around creativity than anything, which a lot of people who do well on standardized tests tend to lack.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say it requires intellect more than anything, because a 70 IQ creative person isn't going to have a "genius" existence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look pretty similar to me. I think we both agree that creativity and intellect are needed to be considered a genius. I put the bar much lower than you though.</p>
<p>I'm not genius and I know I am very dumb</p>
<p>It's hard to define genius.Maybe someone who has exceptional ability can be called genius.</p>
<p>Genius is pretty subjective, but I think we can all picture a genius or two in our minds and many people would have the same people come up.</p>
<p>I think we can define genius by what we see in these people that make them geniuses. You can't be too objective in this case; it has to be somewhat intuitive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nevertheless, I think we can speak in relative terms. I have yet to meet a single person at my college that I would consider a true genius. The people there seem strikingly superficial, very much emotional, and retardedly biased to the extent that it's kind of like a small-town bubble. Don't get me wrong, I still love my college for these very superficial opportunities - the same ones that IK would shun - but it seems like most of the people there have incredibly low problem solving skills and an inability to see outside the box. In this context yes, I'm a freaking genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed on the last point. I think you can only say that the top 1% or so of the top 10-20 universities are geniuses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I invite you to try to find a counterexample. After you attempt to do so, I will tell you why you're wrong and how this person did use his/her creativity to portray his/her genius.
[/quote]
Really, I think it depends how you define creativity. One of the definitions the dictionary says is just "transcending traditional ideas", which (in my opinion) is not a very good definition. By that definition, (almost) every scientist ever has been creative. The very act of science is questioning old beliefs, testing and creating new ones.</p>
<p>Another one, that I prefer much more, is "characterized by originality". I challenge you to prove that every single person generally considered to be a genius possesses that definition of creativity. When you give up, I will explain to you why you are wrong.</p>
<p>by the way,I don't think "high IQ score"means genius.
Genius is about an exceptional ability in a certain field.Einstein is physics genius,shakespeare is literature genius...etc.But no one is well-rounded genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But no one is well-rounded genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Leibniz, da Vinci, Al-Farabi, Newton, Galilei, Goethe... There are plenty. The term is ambiguous, though. Polymaths are exceptional in several fields, while "well-rounded" generally means "does well in everything, but not particularly exceptional."</p>
<p>
Leonardo da Vinci. :)</p>
<p>He was considered a Renaissance man, the definition of which is pretty similar to a well-rounded genius.</p>
<p>is Newton literature genius?
is Goethe math genius?</p>
<p>What are all of the fields included in "well-rounded", yucca?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mr Payne, I can see phuriku's argument. I can honestly say that I qualified for my several mathematical Olympiads because of piqued interest and hard work (something around 2 hours per day of studying at the most - it's really not that different from studying for a plethora of AP/IB exams). I know several USAMO qualifiers who, upon taking the AIME for the first time in their lives, crack qualification without ever having opened an AoPS or other related practice book. Would I call these people geniuses? Hell no. Would I say that they have a vast understanding of contest mathematics that the rest of us simply aren't able to comprehend? Absolutely not. They are people, just like you and me, who may or may not become the next Richard Feynman. I believe the point of this thread had to do with whether or not you were a "genius".</p>
<p>However, some Olympiad mathematicians are indeed, geniuses who can problem solve and sense things at a level that's simply higher than everybody else. There are also some International Physics and Chemistry Olympiad folks who are among the most retarded folks you'll ever meet. I think you can at least acknowledge here, that Olympiads, while a great predictor of "geniuses" are not really an appropriate sticker for labeling someone a "genius".</p>
<p>
<p>Where do you come up with this? The little birdies in your head? I'll keep it short and simple: phuriku's right on this one, and Payne is wrong. Take it from a guy who knows the scene with competitive mathematics.</p>
<p> [QUOTE=My Payne] Knowing how to utilize methods and tools is the key phrase. Doing that for the Putnam requires real intellect.
</p>
<p>Good job Mr Payne. Your trolling has just reached an all new level with your arbitrary, unsupported beliefs. I suppose you have never solved a real problem outside of those lame Delta-Epsilon proofs in AP Calc. Please tell me your curriculum at least included those.</p>
<p>Anyways...back to REAL mathematics...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CAN ANYONE DENY THAT RICHARD FEYNMAN, DESPITE HIS SUPPOSEDLY AVERAGE IQ, EXHIBITED EXCESSIVE TRAITS OF HIGHER COGNITIVE ABILITY???</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another one, that I prefer much more, is "characterized by originality". I challenge you to prove that every single person generally considered to be a genius possesses that definition of creativity. When you give up, I will explain to you why you are wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, you can't prove that every genius has that quality because you'd have to examine every so-called genius case-by-case which is impossible to do because of lack of time. You don't see me asking you to prove that "every ____ does ____", do you? That's because asking such questions is really not productive. It's much easier to find a counterexample, which is exactly what I asked you to do. (Of course, you forfeited this challenge by counter-challenging me in an idiotic fashion.)</p>
<p>But anyway, I really don't like your definition. I like the dictionary's better, even though I have some problems with that as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Knowing how to utilize methods and tools is the key phrase. Doing that for the Putnam requires real intellect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It looks that way to most people, but I'm a math major, and I can certainly say that there are definitely repeated patterns in the Putnam Exam, and by studying enough of past exams, you can really get a good feel for what the exam is going to be like the next year. Almost every university's class on the Putnam Exam is alike because they know that there are certain concepts that are SURE to be tested on the Putnam every year. Just compare the syllabus of MIT's OCW Problem Solving Seminar to that of Caltech's Putnam class. They're pretty much exactly the same structure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But anyway, I really don't like your definition. I like the dictionary's better.
[/quote]
This sentence makes little sense, considering that (as I said in my post) both definitions are from the dictionary. I said I prefer one to the other. And I already told you: using the first definition, yes, I agree, all geniuses are creative. Using the second... I do not. And I would hardly call it an idiot challenge... if you're going to make wild, unsubstantiated claims you have to provide evidence.</p>
<p>And I know that asking such questions is not productive. Nor is stating such a thing productive because it can NOT be substantiated - saying that all geniuses are creative would require one to look at EVERY SINGLE GENIUS. Since that's what you said, I challenge you to prove it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I would hardly call it an idiot challenge... if you're going to make wild, unsubstantiated claims you have to provide evidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No evidence is needed other than simple logic. You asked me to prove something that is impossible to prove. It's a stupid challenge. You might be able to prove that something is true for every case in mathematics, but you certainly can't on this topic. Stop being stupid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nor is stating such a thing productive because it can NOT be substantiated - saying that all geniuses are creative would require one to look at EVERY SINGLE GENIUS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I made an opinion. It wasn't a hard statement. But seriously -- it's much easier to prove something wrong by providing a counterexample. If you search but can't provide a counterexample, then the hypothesis is probably close enough to truth. That's why I asked you to do it.</p>
<p>"I never said there was a negative correlation, and I don't believe there's a negative correlation. I believe there is a slight positive correlation, but because there is not a high positive correlation, there tend to be many people who score high on standardized tests who are not very creative."</p>
<p>Ah, okay. My mistake. I read your post to mean that the high-scoring population tends to be less creative than the greater population, as opposed to less creative than the "genius" (by your definition) population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No evidence is needed other than simple logic. You asked me to prove something that is impossible to prove.
[/quote]
Yes. I asked you to prove your assertions. My point was that your assertions that you so righteously claim to be true are impossible to prove.</p>
<p>As for using logic... you have yet to use any logic for that, either. All you've responded with is ad hominem attacks ("stop being stupid", "idiotic", etc.) which, rather than doing anything to help you back up your point, actually make you seem a bit like a conceited child who is asked to explain something he does not understand.</p>
<p>You said genius requires creativity. I asked why. All you have done since then is to call me stupid, which probably shows that you're a bit insecure (backed up by the fact that you insist you're a genius).</p>
<p>I find all of the vehement views expressed in this thread very amusing. </p>
<p>And it's all due to one fact: that the connotation for the word genius is not exactly the same as the denotation for such word. </p>
<p>The problem is - words like "genius" are prone to be misused, just as words like "depression" are prone to be misused. Those who describe themselves as "depressed" often dilute the connotative meaning of the word "depression," whose denotative meaning comes only through psychological assessment.</p>
<p>The same thing applies for the word "genius". The psychological establishment coined the word "genius" to describe someone with > 140 IQ. It also happened to coin the word "moron" to describe someone with < 50 IQ (something like that, can't remember). And guess what happened? Both terms got misused, they got used to describe attributes of people they originally weren't able to describe.</p>
<p>The fact is, genius can only be measured through IQ tests, since its definition is based on IQ tests. Yet when people say that "Newton, Einstein, and Shakespeare are geniuses", they dilute the connotative meaning of such words, and cause us to transform the label into a label that also attributes creativity to genius. Just as the phrase "Bush is a moron" dilutes the connotative meaning of "moron", in which the label is transformed to a label totally separate from its clinical label.</p>
<p>The main problem is that the clinical establishment already hurt its own definition. "genius" is regarded as a dispositional trait characteristic of a person and unchanging. Yet according to the clinical definition, "genius" can come in or out of a person, depending on what his IQ test retake says. The fact that the clinical definition does not fit along with our intuition of the word "genius" - makes it prone to misuse.</p>
<p>And in psychological studies, the fact is - people who go to top colleges make an extremely small proportion of the total number of people in the United States. In randomly sampled clinical studies, the number of them is so small such that statistical validity of IQ tests is measured only as according to how they predict the behavior of those on the middle. But it is generally accepted that IQ tests are not as predictive of ability beyond IQ 120 (Simonton, Scientific Genius)</p>
<p>I'm sorry, Jarn, for hurting your feelings. Please forgive me.</p>
<p>Inquiline Kea: Genius is the most appropriate term to what we're referring to. Shall we use a substitute?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr Payne, I can see phuriku's argument. I can honestly say that I qualified for my several mathematical Olympiads because of piqued interest and hard work (something around 2 hours per day of studying at the most - it's really not that different from studying for a plethora of AP/IB exams).
[/quote]
Ok.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know several USAMO qualifiers who, upon taking the AIME for the first time in their lives, crack qualification without ever having opened an AoPS or other related practice book. Would I call these people geniuses? Hell no.
[/quote]
Good for you. I call them geniuses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would I say that they have a vast understanding of mathematics that the rest of us simply aren't able to comprehend? Absolutely not.
[/quote]
Umm, yes. They are likely 99th percentile IQ or higher. That, by definition, means they have a higher understanding of math naturally than most others. Of course, it also means they can be trained even further than others.</p>
<p>edit: Yes, I realize that the definition of intellect doesn't necessarily guarantee math understanding. The correlation is quite high though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are people, just like you and me, who may or may not become the next Richard Feynman.
[/quote]
Pointless sentence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe the point of this thread had to do with whether or not you were a "genius".
[/quote]
And also what the definition of a genius is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where do you come up with this? The little birdies in your head? I'll keep it short and simple: phuriku's right on this one, and Payne is wrong.
[/quote]
My school has classes for the Putnam. Funny how we never have top 5 performances. Maybe natural ability and intellect have something to do with it? I can't even believe you are saying this. Are you saying that the 5000 people who get zeros on the test just didn't study enough? If no, please elaborate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take it from a guy who knows the scene with competitive mathematics.
[/quote]
I always like it when really smart people say it has nothing to do with smarts. Hilarious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Good job Mr Payne. Your trolling has just reached an all new level with your arbitrary, unsupported beliefs.
[/quote]
You don't think intellect has any place in preparing for the Putnam? That's an indefensible position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose you have never solved a real problem outside of those lame Delta-Epsilon proofs in AP Calc. Please tell me your curriculum at least included those.
[/quote]
I'm an engineer. You know where my curriculum ends.</p>
<p>
[quote]
CAN ANYONE DENY THAT RICHARD FEYNMAN, DESPITE HIS SUPPOSEDLY AVERAGE IQ, EXHIBITED EXCESSIVE TRAITS OF HIGHER COGNITIVE ABILITY???
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Feynman didn't have average intelligence. It was highly above average - a 125 score isn't average by any means.</li>
<li>It was a childhood IQ test, which are notoriously inaccurate in predicting adult IQ.</li>
<li>His undergraduate stay at MIT and graduate stay at Princeton indicates a very high IQ (perhaps even higher than his reported childhood IQ).</li>
<li>Is higher cognitive ability not synonymous with IQ? An IQ test simply attempts to measure IQ (one can study for an IQ test and get a higher number, within reason), it is by no means a fool proof method.</li>
</ol>
<p>My feelings are not hurt, I assure. If anything, I'm more amused than anything.</p>
<p>Note that here, again, you're evading the issue. You haven't even explained your reasoning behind thinking creativity is required to be a genius. All you have done is evade the question (and act condescending).</p>