If you have the abiity to recognize genius in others can that qualify you as a genius as well?
Does a genius have any obligation to make society better in some way? If he/she chooses to help nobody through the use of his/her talents, does genius still apply?
If somebody whose intelligence does not impress you calls you smart, would you value their opinion of you?
I watched a documentary on Alan Turin. He broke the Germans almost indipherable code in WII, winning that war, and wrote an essay on computing that was the single biggest thing to contribute to our modern day technology: computers, artificial intelligence, ect. Then it was discovered that he was a homosexual and forced to take estrogen (or go to prison) that medically castrated him and made him grow breasts. He then committed suicide, not allowed to love.
Should a genius be happy with his/her superior intelligence given the above scenario?
Define genius, and some of your questions will be answered .
And some of your other questions have nothing to do with genius per se. You could just as well ask wether ‘a person’ has any obligation to make society better for example.
But anyway, what i will say on the topic is that i’d prefer that people have the opportunity to do what they are good at in society… and i believe that that would generally be in the interest of the person and society.
It’s not that it’s really difficult, it’s that some of them are not particular good questions, no offence. But allright.
If you have the abiity to recognize genius in others can that qualify you as a genius as well?
Not necessarily. Creating some kind of work of genius is not the same a recognizing it i’d say. You’ll probably need some skills in the area in question, but creating something is an entirely other matter. Did you see the movie Amadeus?
Does a genius have any obligation to make society better in some way? If he/she chooses to help nobody through the use of his/her talents, does genius still apply?
I don’t think he has a special obligation to make society better, and by special obligation i mean an obligation that other people don’t have… because of his talent. I do believe he may be happier if he can put his talents to good use. And yes, i think genius would apply regardless of what he/she does for society. Bobby Fisher still was a genius, though he probably didn’t do much to help people, unless you count entertaining people with his chess, and antics, as helping people.
If somebody whose intelligence does not impress you calls you smart, would you value their opinion of you?
Probably not, though i try to not let other people opinions of me matter to much to me in general, unless i know them very well and respect them.
Should a genius be happy with his/her superior intelligence given the above scenario?
I don’t think that scenario has a lot to do with being happy with ones intelligence. He may have been happy with his intelligence, but not with the way they threated his sexuality. But in general, i don’t think being intelligent is something to complain about, no.
Many genious traits are easily recogniseable, such as math genious, artists who can do very difficult and complex things, chess genious, etc.
Where things becomes relative and subjective people have much more difficult to recognise a genious. Common people usually can’t recognise counterintuitive things, things that goes against their beliefs and specially when it’s insulting.
Here in this thread, what has been said about the Academy are of very low complexity, yet almost everybody fails at comprehending it, and blatantly doesn’t have the mental aptitude for philosophy, less critical thinking. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=180168
Also, we can’t recognise things because we don’t have the required base knowledge. Looking at the psychology forum EVERBODY but me has NO clue about “groupthink”, the wiki article is completely misleading and most havn’t even heard about it, why they totally ignore everything i say, because they are glaringly ignorent thus can’t recognise my words as being wise.
In Freudian terms it may also be the apspect of “innfer selfish desires”, we don’t care about what others may say if it doesn’t relate to our inner selfish desires, and specially if they dislike the other person.
Would you include someone with ‘savant syndrome’ in your definition of genius, or would you say someone with an IQ above a given point is a genius? Most people labeled ‘genius,’ it seems to me, excel way beyond the ‘norm,’ but only in one field or two related fields.
I don’t believe most people would recognize ‘genius’ in someone else, unless they were aware of the depth of thought needed to attain a genius label in a given subject. Should a genius use her/his talents to better society? That depends on her/his specialty, doesn’t it? Einstein urged FDR to build the atom bomb. Has that helped society? On the other hand, if someone is a genius in neuroscience, her/his genius could result in overall societal ‘good’.
If anyone called me ‘smart,’ I’d probably strut around like a pouter pigeon and think, “Finally, someone recognizes my value.”
Given the story of Alan Turin, would even a non-genius be happy?
Observing a trait in someone else isn’t the same thing as possessing that trait, though. If you recognize that someone else is a great snowboarder, will that mean that, if you climb on top of a snowboard, you’ll have the same skills?
However, to take this in a different direction, being able to recognize something, like genius, in someone else is the first step towards being able to actualize that trait in yourself. If you can conceptualize something, you can then start to determine which paths you can take to fulfill that. Clearly recognition isn’t the only step though.
No, such an obligation doesn’t exist, although either others will try to oblige you to take such effort, or you might feel pressured to act in that way because of one’s owns thoughts.
Of course. It’s a term that’s signifying a remarkable talent regarding something. Their choice as to how to utilize those abilities doesn’t mean they don’t have those abilities, for which they’d be considered a genius. You can fault them for their choices, perhaps point to deficiencies they exhibit at decision-making (being a genius when it comes to mathematics doesn’t mean that you’ll also be a genius at decision-making), but it doesn’t take away from the importance of the skills they have.
It would depend on knowing what specifically brought them to label me in such a way.
You mean, should his genius have been enough for him, despite his homosexuality and his subsequent treatment? That depends on what each individual values emotionally. Exhibiting some wonderful trait doesn’t necessarily replace feeling validated and accepted as a person, for who one is.
.