Do you think that you are a genius?

College Confidential Community
41

<p>The problem with considering the Putnam is that there are in general 2 cases:</p>

<ol>
<li>A person does not study for the exam.</li>
<li>A person does study for the exam.</li>
</ol>

<p>If someone does not study for the exam and gets in the top 100, then he is a genius in mathematics. Like Feynman. But in most cases nowadays, this just isn't so.</p>

<p>For example, almost everyone with heavy experience with mathematics would consider the school I attend in the top 3 nationally for undergraduate pure mathematics. However, we hardly ever score in the top 5 schools in the Putnam (last year was an anomaly; it was just in our choice of a team that we got 5th). We're one of the only top math schools to not have a class on the Putnam. Coincidence?</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Genius is pretty subjective

[/quote]

Exactly!
If you really think you are genius,then you are genius from your perspective.</p>

<p>I think I am dumb,so I am dumb by my definition.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I think I am dumb

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt this. I hear a lot of people say this. A good way to find out if they really think so is to say "Oh really? I think so, too." If they get offended, then you know they're saying it just to be modest.</p>

44

<p>Sticking with the term genius is probably the best option - considering that we're describing the term itself.
The problem with the word genius is that its connotation is RELATIVE to some group. Recall that the IQ test is established on STATISTICAL measures (hell, the difference in understanding between someone at the 99.75th and someone at the 99.5th percentile are probably far larger than the difference between understanding of someone at the 50th percentile as compared to someone at the 90th percentile - for certain subjects like math, where those at the 90th percentile still struggle with algebra or calculus). We're all geniuses compared to the vast majority of organisms. And most of us are probably geniuses compared to our average high school student. But since personality is far from monofactorial and other personality traits tend to stand out once a person is put into an institution with a substantial proportion of the very intelligent - the "genius threshold" effectively increases.</p>

<p>Many of my old classmates called me a genius. I understand what they mean - since my understanding of academic subjects was (and is) clearly light-years ahead of the small bits and pieces they picked up from school. Yet I don't call myself a genius if I'm at, say, artofproblemsolving.com (where most of the people are geniuses compared to their classmates).</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
I doubt this. I hear a lot of people say this. A good way to find out if they really think so is to say "Oh really? I think so, too." If they get offended, then you know they're saying it just to be modest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Personally,I really think I am dumb or at most average. I am by no means a genius.I don't have any exceptional ability(at least,I haven't discovered that).For example,I really think math is magic and attractive,but I'm not good at it at all.</p>

<p>Assume you are 5 feet and you do admit it(since you are male,you really hate the fact).And you complained to you friend"I'm too short to attractive even the least selective girl.",and your friend replied"Yes,I think so!You are way too short!" Will you be offended?
Most people will,I know.They worry about it a lot and they sometimes express their anxiety,but they dont' really want others to tell him so.
Are they just modest?</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
For example, almost everyone would consider the school I attend in the top 3 for undergraduate pure mathematics. However, we hardly ever score in the top 5 schools in the Putnam. We're one of the only top math schools to not have a class on the Putnam. Coincidence?

[/quote]
By the phrase "hardly ever score in the top 5" you mean "we score in the top 5 often but not 3rd most often"?</p>

<p>Harvard has the best undergraduate math program in the country and they are the best finisher, coincidence?</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
The fact is, genius can only be measured through IQ tests, since its definition is based on IQ tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is your definition of genius which is IQ-based.</p>

48

<p>Do you think that the "genius threshold" increases when you're in a smarter group? Or are they all geniuses? In my opinion, it doesn't unless you're not actually a genius.</p>

<p>A lot of people in my school say that I'm a genius (heck, even a few of my teachers have) and I very much disagree. I am (not to brag, but it's true) smarter than a lot of the students in my school; however, I know that there are many people out there who are smarter than me. While I am considered a genius by my classmates, I am. Thus, if I went to a place with smarter students I would no longer be considered a genius and so, in that case, your reasoning holds true.</p>

<p>But what if it is someone who actually is a genius, and when he move on to a place with smarter classmates they're just ALL geniuses? What if you were in a room with 100 of the smartest men in the world (talking one subject here, say math, to keep it simple). Would you still say that only a certain % of them are geniuses?</p>

<p>I guess what I'm saying is (I've never been very good at getting my point across) that I agree genius is relative to a group, but only up to a certain extent - only if you're not a true genius. If you are, no matter who you're with (even other geniuses), you're still a genius.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
This is your definition of genius which is IQ-based.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And there is NO other precise definition of genius. The problem is that there is no way to precisely quantify intelligence. </p>

<p>Can one be a genius without an IQ of over 140? Not in the precise sense. And then the definition of "genius" would be open to disagreement. But what of cases like Feynman and Shakespeare? We still call them geniuses, but we can't MEASURE such genius. Yes their works illustrate their "genius" but they don't allow us to MEASURE them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But what if it is someone who actually is a genius, and when he move on to a place with smarter classmates they're just ALL geniuses? What if you were in a room with 100 of the smartest men in the world (talking one subject here, say math, to keep it simple). Would you still say that only a certain % of them are geniuses?</p>

<p>I guess what I'm saying is (I've never been very good at getting my point across) that I agree genius is relative to a group, but only up to a certain extent - only if you're not a true genius. If you are, no matter who you're with (even other geniuses), you're still a genius.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The term is based on
(a) the fact that you understand stuff
(b) the fact that you're better than other people in understanding stuff.
=> I am not talking about creativity here, since you MUST understand stuff to be creative</p>

<p>The term would be effectively useless if everyone could understand stuff (then we'd use terms like "well-informed"). But not everyone can.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
A lot of people in my school say that I'm a genius (heck, even a few of my teachers have) and I very much disagree. I am (not to brag, but it's true) smarter than a lot of the students in my school; however, I know that there are many people out there who are smarter than me. While I am considered a genius by my classmates, I am. Thus, if I went to a place with smarter students I would no longer be considered a genius and so, in that case, your reasoning holds true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>in America,a lot of people like to use the word"genius"to compliment someone.Sometimes,you only work out a math problem which confuses your friend and your friend will say you are genius.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
the fact that you're better than other people in understanding stuff

[/quote]
But why does the "people" need to be the group with which you are currently residing?</p>

<p>In your opinion, if you are in a room with the 100 smartest people in the world, is only a portion of them a genius? (Note that I am NOT trying to antagonize here, I am genuinely curious about your take on this).</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
in America,a lot of people like to use the word"genius"to compliment someone.Sometimes,you only work out a math problem which confuses your friend and your friend will say you are genius.

[/quote]
Hrm, I just noticed I typoed in my post. I said "While I am considered a genius by my classmates, I am" but I meant to say "While I am considered a genius by my classmates, I am not"</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
for certain subjects like math, where those at the 90th percentile still struggle with algebra or calculus

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you are talking about abstract algebra,it's very very hard.I show respect for those who can handle it easily.</p>

<p>Calculus can be very difficult too,every branch of math can be very difficult.</p>

<p>But if you guys are talking about SAT/ACT math and AP calculus.I have to remind you that all of them are pretty easy as long as you spend a little time.</p>

54

<p>People who are only in the 90th percentile aren't that smart, I must remind you. I think I saw a statistic from a few years ago that said only 3% of high schoolers finish high school having taken calculus. Then again, I think this was before the AP craze.</p>

55

<p>when you take calculus mainly depends on your choice.</p>

<p>If you want to take calculus early,you can.if you don't want,that's also okay.</p>

<p>by the way,a lot of people claim that they have taken calculus,but we don't know how much they know about calculus.</p>

56

<p>Once again, InquilineKea crystallized the issue where I wasn't able to do so because of lack of clarity and insight. Props again IK.</p>

<p>You Mr Payne, on the other hand, insist on half-truths and unsubstantiated positions when you have NO experience with the topics at hand. Congrats, troll.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>And where do you keep coming up with this bull? You do realize that the top percentile is itself, a wide statistical margin? I think it's very clear here that our discussion about "geniuses" was based on an intuitive perception. But anyways, you probably already know that even many people within the top percentile of mathematical ability have no intuitive grasp of rigorous mathematics at all. At least, I hope you do. The invoked definition with a "genius" implied that there are only few and far in between. I point out to the example of a Yale student (IK knows what I'm talking about) who would be considered in the top percentile of all mathematical intelligence, but in no way would she be considered a genius or gifted of any sort in the subject. Oftentimes, a basic understanding of trivial concepts are enough for a lame Mensa sticker - but if you honestly believe that these types of people are geniuses, then that's just you I guess.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Pointless reply.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I repeat Mr Payne, you are a troll who has no idea what he's talking about. Anyone who's ever participated in contest mathematics knows that an intimate contest problem solving culture is first and foremost, the most important thing for success in contest mathematics. There exists several IMO medalists and contest mathematics people at my school, but without any classes or an established culture of problem solving, we simply cannot produce the kind of Putnam winners that MIT and Princeton constantly churn out. </p>

<p>It's also most probable that your classes were mediocre at best. But come on dude, doing well on the Putnam doesn't automatically make you out to be some sort of a genius. Contest mathematics are also a measure of how well you are able to execute certain problem solving techniques on a consistent level. Real mathematicians know that the Putnam is just a contest, since real problems simply require a different kind of ability from a one-day test. I think you can agree that Feynman was perceived as a "genius" not from his Putnam performance.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Since when have I ever invoked intellect into this? That's a whole different stratosphere I haven't even begun to approach yet.</p>

<p>Regarding your points about IQ - those were all actually fair. However, those are still, neither here, nor there.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
And there is NO other precise definition of genius. The problem is that there is no way to precisely quantify intelligence.

[/quote]

Right.

[quote]

Can one be a genius without an IQ of over 140? Not in the precise sense. And then the definition of "genius" would be open to disagreement. But what of cases like Feynman and Shakespeare? We still call them geniuses, but we can't MEASURE such genius. Yes their works illustrate their "genius" but they don't allow us to MEASURE them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't believe that IQ can measure intelligence just like I don't believe USnews can rank a school's quality precisely.</p>

<p>Can one be a genius without an IQ of over 140?
Yes.Some people just have one exceptional talent or ability.But they aren't deemed smarter than others in most cases.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
There exists several IMO medalists and contest mathematics people at my school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>where are they from?</p>

59

<p>yucca, we have a Silver medalist from South Korea, and an IMO participant from South America. Then there's me. I'm sure if I put some effort into it, I can find more people.</p>

60

<p>Maybe the English language needs a new word that connotes "genius" ability in a specific area, like yucca is saying. As InquilineKea has stated, the definition of of "genius" differs from it's connotation so the word is basically useless out of context.</p>

<p>Anyway, any ideas for this new word?</p>

<p>I propose "finisa fide". It's kind of long but literally I think it translates to "to be incredible in one area" (from Latin).</p>