Do you think that you are a genius?

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't trust IQ tests with respect to high achievers. The very fact that individual scores can VARY reduces my trust for them.</p>

<p>That does not change the fact that you cannot precisely measure genius, UNLESS you define it as some score on an IQ test. The problem is that the way that we have DEFINED IT - its DENOTATION - is not particularly good in predicting creative potential.</p>

<p>What do I think the definition of genius is? Someone sufficiently intelligent and creative...so that person can reason and think as a regular individual breathes, eats, and sleeps. A genius doesn't need to "try" at things that normal people would need to. Most people of above-average IQ would be confounded at how some people couldn't even reason at the very basic levels (the ability to perform even the most reasoning isn't something in every human being, it requires an IQ of above around 80). An extraordinary genius would look at a merely above average person and not realize that not everyone's brain acts as a sponge that just absorbs logical ideas and steps.</p>

<p>I'd say these groups are fairly valid; there was an article on the Mega Society that those with IQs below a certain level could solve almost none of the problems that those with IQs significantly above that level could solve almost every time.</p>

<p>IQ around 140: Enough intelligence for all practical purposes; however, thought processes are very much different than a person with a 160 IQ. Can learn concepts easily, but problem solving is more difficult.
IQ around 160: At this point, reasoning and thinking that many with an IQ around 140 become fluid and "easier"; "multitasking" on intellectual ideas becomes possible. Can both learn concepts and solve problems well.
IQ around 180 (and higher?): This is the realm of what I'd call true and extraordinary genius. Reasoning processes are "freed" from the physical brain, and are as natural as breathing, emotional state, etc. I believe that many of the renowned geniuses of the past were at or very close to this level.</p>

<p>Speaking of mathematics competitions, there is a strong variance in ability. I believe that my IQ is around 150. I can learn concepts very easily, but I struggle very much in applying what I have learned immediately and "branching" out my knowledge. I must say that those with IQs of 160+ are able to master knowledge and learn at an exponential rate until they gain a certain level of mastery with the field (this is from people I've met in math competitions and such). </p>

<p>I believe Bill Gates has an IQ of around 160 (and it has been well documented). If you can present a strong argument that you are more intelligent than Bill Gates, then you are most definitely a "true, extraordinary" genius. And I'm sure we all agree that Newton, Leibniz, Goethe, Pascal, Descartes, etc. were more intelligent than Gates. Generally, those with the highest levels of genius are capable of making profound changes in theoretical fields, such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, and if blessed with a fair amount of creativity, in fields such as writing, art, and music.</p>

<p>An</a> example of genius.</p>

<p>CT, that had to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.</p>

<p>Were you in that video?</p>

<p>No, unfortunately I was not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As far as I know,China produces a lot of silver medalists.But sadly,China has few mathmaticians and scientists.That's why I begin to doubt the value of IMO.</p>

<p>Maybe they are freaking smart but I don't think they are genius.From the perspective from the human being,we often show great respect to those who contributes a lot to our civilization.Some of them are deemed as genius.</p>

<p>Bill gates is genius,Newtown is genius,Michael Jackson is genius,etc.
Why?Because of their significant achievements which is related to their talents to some extend.</p>

<p>Assume Bill gates has a IQ of 158 and you have a IQ of 160,you are more likely to be a nobody while bill gates is a genius.
Anyway,we won't say you are a genius just like bill gates.</p>

<p>Look at the whole picture.Almost every"genius" in our history is called genius because of their achievement,not the number of their IQ.It's true that IQ is related with their achievement(at least,you have to be average,not subnormal).But finally we don't judge a genius by his IQ.</p>

<p>I personally believe,genius is achievement-based.</p>

<p>All of us want to explain something in a plain and easy way,yes,we want,but just want.Not everything can be explained in simple numbers.</p>

<p>Besides,I think IQ is a kind of math model which is developed by human beings,not God.We just try to understand and measure"intelligence" in our way.How can you assert that these scientists know enough about human brain and intelligencence and math model.</p>

<p>huh...I mentioned Michael Jackson.Is he a genius?How is his IQ?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't trust IQ tests with respect to high achievers. The very fact that individual scores can VARY reduces my trust for them.</p>

<p>That does not change the fact that you cannot precisely measure genius, UNLESS you define it as some score on an IQ test. The problem is that the way that we have DEFINED IT - its DENOTATION - is not particularly good in predicting creative potential.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's probably what I want to say.</p>

<p>And obviously,IQ test cannot explain everything even if we presume it is accurate and reliable.
A person can be a great painter while he has difficulties understanding math,vice versa.What makes him a great painter?high IQ?And what makes him a math idiot,low IQ?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe Bill Gates has an IQ of around 160 (and it has been well documented). If you can present a strong argument that you are more intelligent than Bill Gates, then you are most definitely a "true, extraordinary" genius.[/qute]
True,but how can you demonstrate you are more intelligent than Bill gates?By your IQ test score?Believe me,no one will take you serious even if you have evidence that your IQ score is 50% higher than Bill gates.
People don't really care about how technically smart you are .People really care about someone who can make real difference in our society and history.</p>

<p>
[quote]
IQ around 140: Enough intelligence for all practical purposes; however, thought processes are very much different than a person with a 160 IQ. Can learn concepts easily, but problem solving is more difficult.
IQ around 160: At this point, reasoning and thinking that many with an IQ around 140 become fluid and "easier"; "multitasking" on intellectual ideas becomes possible. Can both learn concepts and solve problems well.
IQ around 180 (and higher?): This is the realm of what I'd call true and extraordinary genius. Reasoning processes are "freed" from the physical brain, and are as natural as breathing, emotional state, etc. I believe that many of the renowned geniuses of the past were at or very close to this level.</p>

<p>Speaking of mathematics competitions, there is a strong variance in ability. I believe that my IQ is around 150. I can learn concepts very easily, but I struggle very much in applying what I have learned immediately and "branching" out my knowledge.

[/quote]
Ehhem... I think your numbers are a BIT on the high side... If you subtracted 30 from every number you have here you might be a little closer to how IQ matches up with thinking ability.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
My first post in the thread stated that I thought genius was defined at the 99th percentile of intellect. I don't think it's some rare thing. It's something relatively common. This is the common psychometric definition.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
Intellect is even more important. Sure, study differentiates those of 99th+ intelligence. </p>

<p>It's like the NBA and finding that height doesn't correlate with success. Well, yeah, everyone in the NBA is two standard deviations away from the average, at a minimum. I'd assume math competitions are the very same way.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
Sure it does. In fact, I'd guess from self selection alone that a significant percentage of people who do poorly (zero score) on the putnam are geniuses.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
Sure, get a smart person and one can train them to do well for a contest. One can't train someone to be smart though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Really smart people? Like myself? Come now Mr Payne, I'm no genius.

[/quote]
I'd guess you are 99th+ percentile.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My first post in the thread stated that I thought genius was defined at the 99th percentile of intellect. I don't think it's some rare thing. It's something relatively common. This is the common psychometric definition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've never seen an IQ reference chart that categorizes the entire 99th percentile as gifted.</p>

<p>At most the 99.0-99.9 group could be considered "moderately gifted", but I wouldn't go beyond there.</p>

<p>No. Shhhhh.</p>

<p>Mr Payne, why do you insist on trying to argue when this thread had basically reached a nice conclusion with yucca's post? Does it give you a jingle every time you try to rationalize an argument when really, you have NO experiences with the situations you try to pass off as an expert in?</p>

<p>First off, you're absolutely entitled to the clinical definition of "genius", or what you view as the 99th percentile of all people. I on the other hand, choose InquilineKea's other explanation based on cognitive biases - and I'm sure most people here would too. </p>

<p>Now that we've got that straightened out...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Intellect is even more important. Sure, study differentiates those of 99th+ intelligence.</p>

<p>It's like the NBA and finding that height doesn't correlate with success. Well, yeah, everyone in the NBA is two standard deviations away from the average, at a minimum. I'd assume math competitions are the very same way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Second of all, we're discussing contest mathematics here, not actually real, rigorous problems in modern mathematics. With me so far? Good. An aptitude in problem solving is absolutely helpful for the Putnam and high school related mathematics contests, but the barrier CAN be overcome with an intimate culture in contest mathematics, personal motivation, and hard work. Believe me, it really helps to be around a bunch of people who are all competitive or at least care about contest mathematics - EVEN when you're technically doing nothing about it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e8-usamo/e8-1-usamoarchive/2007-ua/2007usamoqual.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e8-usamo/e8-1-usamoarchive/2007-ua/2007usamoqual.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let me point out the example by Vestavia Hills High School - a school that I'm well familiar with. Do you honestly believe that every single Olympiad qualifier there was so intelligent that they could've qualified for the USAMO on their own? Of course, the 2007 year it and of itself means nothing, so I invite you to take a look as the previous years' results. How can some supposedly rinky-dink school from the suburbs of Alabama place consistently well with USAMO qualification? Do people just become geniuses by drinking out of that water from Alabama or something?</p>

<p>No. There's a math teacher there that emphasizes heavy contest problem solving among all of her students. I know her, and she's basically got a great problem solving program going on with regular Math club practices and so on. It would be interesting to see how the Mathematics program does when she retires (I believe, later this year).</p>

<p>I also point out to all those other schools with a consistent string of qualifiers each and every year. Now ask yourself, are all of these people really so smart that they could've done without an exceptional high school mathematics culture? Now obviously, if what you say about intellect was true, then shouldn't there be a random correlation between the types of high schools that place Olympiad qualifiers? Now, something around fewer than 5 qualifiers could be acceptable for a school that's already as exceptional as Phillips Exeter. But around 15? And every year? Come on.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure it does. In fact, I'd guess from self selection alone that a significant percentage of people who do poorly (zero score) on the putnam are geniuses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, I can see where you're coming from here. But this is all just a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours.</p>

<p>It also appears to me that you're just some defeatist with an absolute sense of the world around you - like those people who believe that Asians are somehow so much more inherently smarter than a motivated URM. I on the other hand, can see the merits of hard work - but that's where we begin to disagree. I don't see any reason why you should continue this argument further, especially claiming truths about certain mathematics contests that you really have no idea about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'd guess you are 99th+ percentile.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what my SAT score told me. Oh well.</p>

<p>I consider myself gifted, but I'm definitely not a genius. And IQ tests agree with my assessment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Question No. 3
How would one notice that one becomes a genius? What are the physical and para-physical manifestations by which one's own genius can be seen? </p>

<p>— Mastaky Salim, Belgium

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Answer 3-1.
What an interesting question ... in order really to be able to answer it, one practically needs to have gone through the process oneself! I'll give it a try anyways ...</p>

<p>First, to what does 'genius' in the question refer? I'll assume that it refers to two different (but perhaps related) action states:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>functioning at very high levels in one or more areas (intellectual activities, performance activities, etc.). This includes being able to do things that few others can do, but might not involve much "creativity".</p></li>
<li><p>creating powerful, paradigm-shifting ideas, works, theories, etc., that revolutionize the way we see, do, or think about things. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>So, to the extent that my thinking matches the question, how can one notice when one's abilities develop to very high levels, surpassing those of most others, and/or how can one notice that one's ideas/works have developed to the point where they can rightly turn the world upside down?</p>

<p>These may not be so difficult to notice. Let's say you are developing a skill, such as playing a musical instrument. If you get extremely good at it, you and others are bound to notice! If you can play passages that others can't play, and further, you feel them and their unique meaning and so are able to play it "just so" ... that's an indication that you've grown into a new realm of ability.</p>

<p>On the other aspect, let's say you've been thinking about some problems or difficulties that exist in some field, and suddenly you have an insight that reorganizes everything into a larger elegant pattern. Suddenly it's all simple and light, and you smile with wonder and ecstasy! You share that pattern with others, and lightbulbs turn on in their heads.</p>

<p>Before you know it, people are excitedly talking about your idea, which has taken on a life of its own. That seems like an indication of potential genius ... at least a flash of it. If you continue turning out other ideas with similar effects, that too might indicate a habitual genius state.</p>

<p>I can relate a few examples from my own life to help illustrate what I mean. This is not to say that I'm claiming I'm a "genius," but I think that someone becoming a genius may well have similar experiences, amplified to higher levels.</p>

<p>I once learned an electric guitar piece that required a lot of energy and precision; it was challenging. When I finally got it, I could hardly believe it! I played it for a friend, and he actually cried out in surprise! The feedback was clear and powerful ... I'd developed to a new level.</p>

<p>Now, take that kind of event, and consider this: you 'hear' in your head music that has never existed on earth before, and you try to play it. One day, you succeed ... and now there is this exotic new music that you can deliver to others, and some stop in their tracks, their jaws drop, their eyes roll back in their heads, and for an eternal moment they are lost in a new musical world that they never knew existed before...</p>

<p>I once was very much interested in increasing my intelligence, and so was somewhat interested in taking IQ tests. On some tests early in the process, I felt "challenged," "weak," "a struggle," etc., but I kept learning about intelligence and especially its component skills. At some point, I took another test, and it felt easy, simple ... it was a breeze! I felt very good, strong, natural, relaxed, clear ... and the score (160) seemed to reflect this. I thought, "how perfectly obvious!" If you function at a high level of intelligence, then things would seem simpler, clearer, etc. Thinking would seem more natural and would tend to flow quickly and easily!</p>

<p>Now, take that to a higher level. Imagine being so good at it, that one almost instantly arrives at the answers, sees the patterns almost immediately, has things click right along one after the other, and before you know it, you've proven a new math theorem ... or pulled together some disparate data in such a way that it makes startling sense and pops out an obvious explanation that no one had thought of before.</p>

<p>And finally, I once went through the 3-week brain-building marathon described by Wenger in How to Increase Your Intelligence. I worked for hours every day doing the various exercises, and slowly but strongly I couldn't help but notice a new aliveness and alertness that I didn't have before. Experience continually seemed "fresh," and my awareness was "opened up" to a great degree. I noticed things that many others didn't seem to, or took for granted ... and many "normal" things took on exotic aspects that gave rise in me to wonder, humor, perplexity, transcendence.</p>

<p>My hunger for knowledge grew great in intensity, and I plowed through many books, one after another, without needing much rest in between. Something about my consciousness, perceptiveness, associations seemed to have shifted, and this effect continued noticeably for about 6 months after the "marathon."</p>

<p>Now, imagine that carried to higher levels and longer time durations... I remember seeing a few pictures of Goethe, and I immediately recognized this kind of special aliveness and alertness about him, however crudely captured by the artists who drew him. I saw sketches made by Goethe, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and others, and there it was again ... that special unmistakeable representation of influx of life, awareness, subtle energies, intelligent sensitivity, into the works. See the great care and detail and fullness that Victor Hugo put into his novels, and there it is again.</p>

<p>Now, after having written all of this, I'll say ... that as you develop higher and higher into genius levels, you cannot help but notice it! It will be pervasively obvious... Further, I submit that when you build into that higher realm, ironically, you won't care any more about noticing it ... you'll be having too much fun doing things, exploring, creating, sharing, pushing further and further.</p>

<p>Perhaps my best answer to your question is this: Try doing whatever you can to grow and develop into higher levels of ability and creativity, and pay attention to what you notice along the way. Eventually you will experience at least glimmerings of your own answer to the question, and maybe you'll even experience the full sunrise of the dawning of your own brilliant genius... </p>

<p>— Johnius Ecstaticus von Luminessenz, 4-11-04

[/quote]
/<em>comment</em>/</p>

<p>Wow, ChaosTheory. That’s probably the most inspiring post on CC.
“I kept learning about intelligence and especially its component skills” Can you please share some of resources you used to learn about intelligence, besides Wenger’s book? </p>

<p>Gratefully,
BenFranklin33</p>

<p>CT,</p>

<p>Wow, then are we to believe that genius is in ALL of us if we can but open the path to it?!</p>

<p>Can we then break the shackles of our enslaved intellects?!</p>

<p>“Free at last, Free at last – thank God almighty, we’re free at last!”</p>

<p>As for myself, I am afraid that I don’t know whether I am really dumb or somewhere in the genius realm. (my greater sense is that I am, like most of us, somewhere in between).</p>

<p>Sometimes we have original (to us) ideas or theories that we obsess over and that may be impossible to prove – hence the obsession.</p>

<p>For instance, why isn’t matter infinitely divisible, given that it takes up space from point A to point B? Is there not always a mid-point, so that it serves as the divide?</p>

<p>I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to understand physics, but common sense tells me that if matter is physical (it takes up space) then it MUST be divisible. I have posed this to one or two people who are in the field and was told something to the effect that at a certain point of unfathomable smallness matter takes on the characteristic of something more in wave form than solid matter. This begs the question of when does something tangible, regardless of size, become something intangible – and how? If from a wave form (even waves, I think, are a form of matter) suddenly matter is created or evolves – how can SOMETHING evolve from NOTHING?! Do we, at that point, say ‘It is God at play.’?</p>

<p>Or are we merely up against an impasse because our technology is not advanced enough to see actual matter in the seeming emptiness, thus making the theory of infinite divisibility of matter less farfetched?</p>

<p>Oops, did I scare everyone away?</p>