Talk:Genius/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

On Definitions

I think we should refer to more generally accepted definition from the dictionary, specifically a genius should be someone who possesses:

1) an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.

2) an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test.

Also I think the current article's content layout needs to be better structured, and some more examples of scientific and mathematical geniuses should be included (ex. Newton, Gauss, Galois,etc). --Sepiraph 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I will go further to say the def. as stated is flat wrong by being too easy. "Someone who applies an unknown technique in art ...". Anyone moderately intelligent can produce a new art technique. Lessee... I'll pluck all the spines from my cactus, dip them in applicable bodily fluids, use ultraviolet light scanning for light-areas and clotted blood for dark areas, and arrange the resulting pine needles to encode self referential information." Clever, yes, but too easy to be the sole criterion for me to earn a title of "genius". TaoPhoenix (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is generally no quantitative way to measure 'genius'. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke. To say that there are any "exceptional capacities of intellect" basically (linguistically/grammatically) evaluates to "cases where the idea of 'intellect' cannot be used to explain intelligence," but this then does not make sense (unless we wish to discuss the nature and definitions of intelligence, the artificial intelligence guys would really appreciate useful hardcore definitions). This might have to be an article based on consensus (sadly). I am open to discussion, however, and am for cleanup, etc. I hope I am wrong in these statements. -- kanzure 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more could be written on what a genius is. The article mentions "athletic geniuses". What does that mean? A highly trained athlete? Someone at the top of a sport? Somone who is an athletic freak as Einstein was an intellectual freak? (Freak in the natural sense of being so different as to be unique) Is Tiger Woods (golf) a genius? Is Babe Ruth[sic] (baseball) a genius? Cecropia 15:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the terms for people being genius's at their respective things is correct. Like roger Federer is a tennis genius. He sees things on a tennis court that no one else sees and the way he does stuff is a genius smarts wise using tennis. He sees the ball spinning towards him and knows how todo it, his mind is made for tennis like a genius so i think that usage is correct.

Sports writers, baseball fans, wall street journalists, and political potstirrers have collectively tapped into the collective descriptive clout of the word genius when describing their persona du jour. It stuck. It's not like anything we do will appropriate the definition in the dictionary.

The good news is it basically makes sense. There are certain aspects of many many fields which are remarkably intellectually demanding in many ways, and require novelty and insight. People tend to give the most abstract fields more intellectual admiration, possibly because it seems tougher to understand what they're doing without doing it. But it's not necessarily more intellectually demanding, and the people who do achieve results in their fields which might be comparable to such 'geniuses' in prior recognized fields, for lack of a better word, they might as well use it.

There's already a definition like this one in there, but it isn't explained clearly enough:

To be genius is to be inately intelligent. A genius may be better honed and advanced by formal education, but it is not really a requirement after learning the basics (i.e. reading, writing, and basic mathematics, which are all learned in elementary school). Geniuses will advance themselves in their prefered field with or without help of others, and with or without being recognized for it.

It should be noted that a person who simply has an expansive memory is not a genius. People who must be taught by others are not genius themselves, the genius is the person who originally figured it out and then started teaching it, or the person off learning it on their own without need of a teacher.

Examples: The musical genius is the composer, not the skilled instrumentalist whom is still just playing someone else's masterpiece. The athletic genius is the coach, not the star player who practically mindlessly puts the coach's strategy into use. The mathematic genius is the person who can think up their own formulas, their own solutions, not the person getting As in a class for memorizing what's handed to them. The intellectual genius is not the person being told what to think, but the person quite passionate about thinking for themselves.

& The most simplified definiton possible is: "To be genius is to be inately intelligent."

Frankly, that those details are not explained clearly enough is the only problem I see in the current wikipedia Genius page. It already covers most everything of importance, and does in fact have references. There was never any reason to start this "talk" nonsense. I personally would have just hit the "edit" button and added in the better clarifications. Talking doesn't get things done. Not these kinds of things at least. Next time one of you people sees need to add something in, just do it and be done with it. If someone else thinks it needs to be revised for better structure or even greater detail and clarification, then they can come along and do so. There's absolutely zero reason for a bunch of people to sit around talking about it. Whoever's qualified, go get it done and get rid of this "talk" crap. You know how annoying it was to want to hit "edit" to add/fix something real quick only to realize a bunch of mostly idiots were forcing the article's progress to be stuck? << Anonymous Genius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.86.58 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

It's useful to distinguish between a really, really smart person, and a genius. I'd propose that a genius must obtain intellectual insight that changes some aspect of world history in a significant manner.

According to the section on psychometrics, there roughly are between one and ten geniuses per one thousand people. Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, this isn't so. Either that or the term has very little meaning. Some of my point is raised by others below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.80.60 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Geniuses must be dead

How about a nerd no body likes.!!! How about a general rule that no one alive goes on the list? Real geniuses are so far ahead of their time that they are often seen as wackos during their lifetimes. The passage of time seems to make it clearer who had lasting impact. ike9898 19:41, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is fairly wrong. The vast majority of those who are or were on the list were extraordinarily recognized in their time. Isaac Newton and Karl Gauss were closer to being rock stars in their respective periods than anyone else. The truly obscure people really seem to stay obscure.

The exceptions seem to be in the Arts or literature. These subjects don't build up on each other as the others do, and with different time periods come different perspectives. It is often the case that such temporarily obscure geniuses were in fact not quite mentally balanced, however.

The exceptions seem to be in the Arts or literature. These subjects don't build up on each other as the others do, and with different time periods come different perspectives. It is often the case that such temporarily obscure geniuses were in fact not quite mentally balanced, however.

Newton being a role model of mental stability and social adequacy. Galileu having no ego problems whatsoever (his troubles with the Pope being more of interpersonal than scientific nature). Gauss, although apparently stable being an averagely sociable person, right?

You have a point in that those obscure people are more frequent in the arts, but far from only happening there. Galois, Abel, Cantor.

Good (and Bad) things come in many sorts of ways...

As for the matter at hand, I don't think only dead people should be on the list and that there will never be a consensus of what a genius is. Just my 0.02€.

cvalente 13:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) A damn nerd!

That's ridiculous. Genuises were so in their life. There are genuises today, presently living. Even if one had to wait until they were dead to be recognized with fame, they were still genius before that. Fame is not remotely a requirement to be a genius, and neither is fortune. There are MANY genuises who will be born and die without ever being recognized for it, especially since it usually takes HAVING CONNECTIONS to get the required fame in the expertise to be recognized. If you are genius, but were unfortunate enough to be born into a bad life where you will recieve a poor formal education (also not required to be genius, as genius is inate), it's unlikely you will be recognized by even your close friends and family. Why? Because the non-genius do not understand the genius and will not accept what they do/say (because it will mostly be at odds with how the lesser intelligenced individuals think) without their having some kind of slip of paper from a school, or without they're being famous for it. No. Genius may often go unrecognized, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. To say only those who died and are famous can be called genius is completely ignorant. << Anonymous Genius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.86.58 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Woman Genius

Have there been no female geniuses? There are no candidates even mentioned in the talk page --Pengo 12:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as women geniuses go, you could put Hypatia on there, and there are some others.

How about Mme. Blavatsky? lysdexia 21:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pretty surprising indeed. Seriously, I can't think of a woman that would be listed as a genius :/ There's currently Madame Blavatsky in the list, but I think I'll remove her since she apparently just invented some religion.--Chealer 15:47, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Chealer, that is a very ignorant point of view. Your half-assed research has her inventing religion when she actually founded the Theosophical Society. She was a genius, having read - and had my brain slightly addled by - her work. Stewart McAbney 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The female version of a Genius is a "Juno". See Roman Marriage rites. Try Sappho for example of a Juno (female personal daemon). You also might find the Daemon can also be the Greek version of the Roman Genius or Juno. See Socrates' Daemon.

I'm not sure how relevant etymological diggings are to the discussion. In modern english, everyone just calls them Women Geniuses. If you can't think of any, Emmy Noether, Marie Curie, Queen Victoria, Jane Austen, Jules Verne and Camille Claudette aren't bad places to start.

Jules Verne was a man. Ben davison 13:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So he was. I'm an idiot...

Others include Maria Agnessi, Shakuntala Devi, Ruth Lawrence, Maeghan Kearney, the sister of Michael Kearney. (I'm an idiot too )--Jondel 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it'd be nice to see some women being credited, there is absolutely no need for special treatment. To call them "Women Geniuses" as if it were the proper term is just plain sexist and completely incorrect. It's exactly the same as "geekette." A real female geek just says geek, geekette is a term used by poseurs following the Chic Geek movement. Genius is not a masculine term! No one in their right mind uses it that way or thinks of it that way! If it is asexual (which it is), there is absolutely no reason to exclude the females and give them special treatment. That would be an insult to those women being ncluded if it were only for political reasons that they get mentioned rather than it actually being that they're worthy.

I've personally never heard of a female creditable with genius, they don't generally get famous. Why? Because it isn't what we do, it isn't what we get. Women, even today, are held back. Of course, today, most of us are actually holding ourselves back. And, those who don't, those whom do will desperately try to pull back. Instead of whining that you're not seeing women mentioned, either go find some worth mentioning and add them, or go help a young female genius push herself passed the blockades in her way from reaching that Einstein, and DaVinci kind of height. As said by Aristotle, but now in my own words here... It is not that there are no smart women, it's just that they're not being permitted to rise to such levels. Of course, some still manage to do so, but they are not being credited. And, they are not being credited... Because they are women.

Most women don't want to be famous. Or, when we do we usually want it to be for something other than our intelligence. Even I can't break from that female brain rule. We're hardwired to think and act a certain way, just like men are. i.e. I'd love to be credited for my brilliance, but not at a famous level, or in a way likely to go into the history books. Why? It's not what we do. We're naturally more mentally timid, because it's an area that's still in large part denied to us. After so many generations of women having to learn to limit how much intelligence they show, it's probably literally into the basic hardwiring from birth through genetics.

If you want to help someone to become famous, then make sure there's an excellent page on her. THEN, you can put her in the examples. Do not do so in a way that puts her apart from the others for her gender, just slip her in with the others. Being segregated is not being equal. To compile a special female-only list... Or, to note that you're mentioning someone for their gender... That's segregation. It's sexist. Don't do it. <<Anonymous Genius

NO POV..its incredibly distractive

the whole misogny/woman thing does not belong..I hate this stuff's inclusion as it is more appropriately belonging under other areas of social/sociological research. The lack of attention to woman-genius does not in any way explain "genius." The absence or omission of a population is not a topic for this page. AND likewise we do not need to delve into every country or continent and sympathize with their lack of representation. Genius is genius and we are not talking about male, female, black, white..green, yellow, north, south, east or west. To do otherwise is to reflect a person's bias and POV.

I agree, and I haven't seen any dispute, so I am going to clean it up. James_Aguilar (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the new version will make both the people who wanted the feminist perspective represented and the people who found the old form of that representation distracting happy. If it is reverted, I will probably add the POV-section tag, but I welcome changes and additions (Including a citation!), because I'm not sure the wording of what I wrote it ideal. James_Aguilar (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is distractive even a word? Or a neologism? But I do agree, maybe as a compromise we can include the names of more female geniuses. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Marie Curie? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.73.253 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The List

To Eliminate or Not to Eliminate

SimonP has just removed the list of geniuses (genii?) from the article, on the basis that it is inevitably POV. I've put it back, since it seems to me that this subject could use some further poking. Why 'inevitably'? There is the risk of some questionable names appearing there, but as can be seen on this talk page that has been succesfully dealt with in the past - the current list is concise and non-controversial. Many of the people on the current list are household names, and they are often bywords for excellence in their respective fields, so for any reasonable definition of the word "genius" it should be unquestionable that such people as Da Vinci and Shakespeare are geniuses. The section helps the article by helping readers understand the topic, and by mentioning some of history's most influential geniuses, which IMAO warrants inclusion. -- Kizor 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it continually grows as each person adds their favourite genius to the list. Since there is no set definition of "genius" or of "commonly called" there is no way to stop this. A few months ago I cut it back to only a handful [1] and then it began growing again. - SimonP 23:02, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. It's trimmed as well as added to, though - since it does improve the article, I'd say that the point is whether or not having a list that has to be kept an eye on, with the controversies as pictured above, is better than not having one at all. I say it is. Imposing some kind of length restriction would be one option, but that'd likely just aggravate folks. I'll add something appropriate to the page's code once I wake up. -- Kizor 23:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the original list of six names, but as examples not as an attempt at a comprehensive list of geniuses. - SimonP 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Still a bit terse, but I have to agree that a larger list would have a high chance of that. Adding the notice, then. -- Kizor 10:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added a recommendation that only three names per field be included. I think a definite numerical limit might have a better chance of stemming the tide of names.

Agree. That still leaves us with deciding which fields to have. Is antiquity a field?? I'd even prefer that we keep only 1 (Leonardo da Vinci?) or 5 geniuses.--Chealer 20:42, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

The list has once again become one of the favourite intellectuals of anyone who happens to drop by. I still think such a list is hopelessly POV and should be removed. - SimonP 18:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I support Simon, here. I think it would be great to list a few true geniuses in the article, it losses meaning when everyone's favorite smart person is added to the list. ike9898 21:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just give a few examples, and go make a List of Geniuses page, like all those other lists on wikipedia intended to help people find things faster. Then, put a link to the List of Geniuses in the Genius article. If there can be a List of Cheeses, why isn't there a List of Geniuses? I came on to put one to use only to get sent to the regular Genius page and find no one's yet made the list. I'm not personally qualified, nor have the drive, to put one together. If one of you is/does, it'd be great if you did. << Anonymous Genius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.86.58 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Was one of the main voices calling for a constitutional convention to abolish the post-revolutionnary government and to put in place a more efficient system. The the final constitution was different from what he wanted, He nevertheless was THE figure responsible for it's[sic] acceptance, especially in his own state New York.

I was the one who put him on the list in the first place. I have read 4 biographies on him, conversed with some of the authors of those books, In his time he was recognized as a genius, and still is today by admirers and haters. Of all the founding father he was the most significant, in that he made the United States more than a Jeffersonian dream. He made it functional. As secretary of treasury he put in place numerous innovative structures to prevent the republic from collapsing from tremendous debt. He created the bank of New York, the first National bank, and was the author of George washington's[sic] speeches (like his farewell address.)

In the first american[sic] cabinet he was the most powerful figure, extending his reach far beyond the responsibilities of a treasury secretary, thus making a formidable enemy out of Thomas Jefferson, who himself acknowledged Hamilton in a private letter to James Madison as "a colossus...without numbers he is an host unto himself." Jefferson and Madison along with many other republicans gave up trying to vanquish Hamilton. Jefferson and Madison were even more angray[sic] after Hamilton managed to get himself invited to a private dinner with Jefferson and Madison, and conned them into supporting his economic policies, on the condition that Hamilton used all of his influence to move the nation's capital From New York to Washington - which he did.

In Europe Hamilton was highly regarded, Talleyrand, a contemporary, considered him the greatest man of that epoch, greater than Napoleon.

Of all the founders Hamilton was the most prolific writer, And he was the founder of the New York post, which exists today still (though in a horrible state.)

His highly complex reports were beyond the comprehension of the congress, thus requiring him to perform supremely persuasive speeches.

In his own time Hamilton had numerous enemies, in every undertaking he always had to fight great opposition, especially since he was an orphan born from an impoverished mother and drunk father on an island. It was because he was not only a genius, but a great one, that he sailed to New York, and founded America. Eventualy[sic] he was shot dead in a duel in which he voluntarily shot into the air.

Alexander Hamilton (Statesman, New York Assemblymen, Congressman, Artillery Captain, Pamphleteer and chief author of Federalist papers. 1st U.S Secretary of Treasury)

So what in the above qualifies him as a genius? Looks like he was a politician and statesman. The accomplishments listed for him are not those of a polymath or person phenomenally gifted with insight and skill, mainly regarding intelligence. Is every extraodinarily successful politician and statesman going to be put on the list? ChessPlayer 01:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer gave his reason why he thinks A. Hamilton should not be on the list and removed him - this is the way it's supposed to work! A day later, an anonymous user replaced A. Hamilton without giving the slightest reason. I have no opinion on whether Hamilton belongs on the list, BUT I do think that if you are going to revert someone's changes you need to at least state your reason. The reason might be a simple statement in the edit summary ("Hamilton invented sliced bread"). This just makes for more productive debates. ike9898 22:09, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

If he were a genius, he wouldn't have let himself be killed. lysdexia 21:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Steven Pinker

Someone just added Steven Pinker to the list. I'm not familiar with him, be the Wiki article about him doesn't seem to describe a genius. Sure, he sounds like a really smart guy, Harvard Professor and all that, but I feel there is a higher standard for true genius. The term sort of loses it's[sic] meaning if it can be applied to any really smart person. World-wide I'd say there are probably thousands or even millions of really smart people. I think genius describes something really exeptional[sic];[sic] a level that is only attainable by one in, say, 10 million people. I also think true genius must have some significant impact on the world. Maybe Pinker is a genius, but it is not supported by information in Wikipedia. ike9898 14:24, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would put the bar even higher than 1 in ten million. For example, there are lots of 1 in 10 million type phycisists[sic], but not Einsteins. Pinker doesn't deserve to be on the list, as the wiki article about him says nothing about his being a world famous genius. ChessPlayer 20:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing him. If someone wants him on the list, present your case. ike9898

If that's so, then Einstein only straddles the line between really smart and "true genius". lysdexia 21:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How so? By genius, we are referring to a uniquely-creative understanding to an academic field that is revolutionary to one's time; it sounds like you are confusing the coinage with another oft-cited product of "genius" - one who is a polymath. See Da Vinci, Aasimov, etc.

Alexander the Great

Now I'd like to question the genius status of Alexander the Great. My personal knowledge doesn't extend beyond what I've read in Wikipedia, but based on that, he's not looking like a genius. Any thoughts? ike9898

Alexander the Great rightly deserves a place in history as one of the greatest military commanders ever. Read the Battle of Gaugamela. I cite the article: "During the battle Alexander used a unique strategy which has been duplicated only a few times throughout history. His plan was to draw as much of the Persian cavalry as possible to the flanks. The purpose of this was to create a gap within the enemy line where a decisive blow could then be struck at Darius in the center. This required almost perfect timing and maneuvering, and the Great King himself to act first. The Macedonians advanced with the wings echeloned back at 45 degree angles to lure the Persian cavalry to attack. At the same time they slowly moved to the right. Alexander forced Darius to attack (as they would soon move off the prepared ground) though Darius did not want to be the first to attack after seeing what happened at Issus against a similar formation. In the end Darius's hand was forced, and he attacked." Tactics were not nearly so developed by this time. He independently and near-flawlessly came up with tactics hundreds of years ahead of his time, and executed them brilliantly. Genius.

But was it his genius, or Parmenion's? --Joe 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky more widely considered a genius than Nietzsche or Jung?

Well I'd like to know how Chomsky, who is far less influential and less known than both Nietzsche and Jung, is a 'bonified' genius and deserves a mention, especially in comparison to the aforementioned. --Chealer 15:47, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Chomsky is to linguistics as Darwin is to biology and Einstein is to physics; it's that simple. His "language organ" theory utterly revolutionized linguistics, in many ways solving it as though it were a puzzle, to the point that linguistics has become almost moribund since what was considered its most important question pre-Chomsky (the relationship among languages) has now been answered.

Jung, meanwhile, was never taken seriously by a majority of mainstream psychologists or any academics, and today he is almost universally considered to be of literary or perhaps philosophical interest, but not of scientific interest. He was not a genius; his popularity derived from the fact that he told people a fantasy they wanted to hear, and unlike Freud's fantasy, the whole archetype thing was easy to understand. Today he is still widely quoted in bestseller-style "popular" self-help, literary, and psychology books; if you can't tell that genre of publication apart from academic writing, you shouldn't be posting here.

I agree, and I might also say that Chomsky is to linguistics as Newton is to physics (rather than Einstein, even though no one would suggest that Chomsky is as smart as Newton), because he essentially created modern linguistics as a scientific discipline. Popularity is not a criterion for genius. In fact, Newton was a bit of an ass himself, but he might be the smartest person who ever lived. Anyway, no one thinks Chomsky is a genius because of his psychological or political writings. - Torgo 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Genius? Or just a really good chess player? Personally, I don't think he qualifies.ike9898

I don't like Fischer personally, but I listed him, in that another chess master and artists like van Gogh are listed. Genius does not necessarily mean "wise". The term is very subjective. In terms of the intellectual pursuit of chess, he is definitely a genius--perhaps a preeeminent one.

Capablanca was clearly a genius. He was a child prodigy, displaying genius at the age of four. The world champions who played Capablanca all said that Capablanca was not just a good player...that Capablanca was phenominally[sic] gifted at chess, that he was the world's chess genius. Hence, Capablanca is on the list. However, Fischer, while as a player, played even better chess than Capablanca, thanks to the advance of the general level of play in Fischer's time versus Capablanca's day, Fischer does not have quite the acclaim as being mentally more gifted than other players, and I also question if Fischer should be on the list. Perhaps...but if so, I think only if the level of support among GM's giving their opinion on Fischer, is secured. Capablanca has clear support, the very greatest players, including the man who beat him, Alekhine, went on the record stating that Capablanca was a unique genius. World Champion Lasker, the man who lost to Capablanca, stated that he in his entire career had never met anyone, including himself, with Capablanca's mental powers at chess. Lasker has some claim to be considered himself a genius. Most of the world champions do. But they shouldn't all be on the list; Capablanca should be, and perhaps a couple other players; Morphy is one, he may have had as much talent as Capablanca, but lived at a time when his full powers where never needed, nobody else could give him much challenge; hence, Morphy probably should be on the list; wether Fischer is one is doubtful, in my opinion; but I'm not a chess Grandmaster, simply well-read in chess. Personally, my opinion is that Fischer does not have the raw talent of a Capablanca or Morphy, but that through complete devotion to the game, has surpassed them in skill at the game. Neither Capablanca or Morphy studied chess like Fischer did. ChessPlayer 05:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I certainly defer to your expertise on who would properly be a genius or not in terms of chess. If you were to remove Fischer's name I wouldn't personally object. However, I have a problem with listing names of geniuses at all. The term is way too objective. I could foresee a future edit war in which people from different cultures are trying to put their local favorites on the "genius" list and remove others. Cecropia 07:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I think that listing is a doubtful idea. One benefit though, is its an interesting index of exceptional people. Non-chess players, for example, probably have never heard of people like Capablanca ChessPlayer 08:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and that's partly the issue. Why would Fischer be on the list? Because he's famous. But this isn't a list of famous geniuses, unless I am mistaken. If there is to be a list, people need to be careful about POV-ing based on any criteria other than 'genius'. - Torgo 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

James David Abraham

Looks like a possible self-nomination...google returns 10 results, and this guy doesn't even have a stub. -Frazzydee 20:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also note that the guy who put in his name also wrote the stub (coincidence that the stub came right after I posted this? I think not!), and if you look at his/her contrib.s, they're known for vandalism. -Frazzydee 20:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is a self-nomination, so I'm reverting. If you oppose my decision, please make a note here and on my talk page. -Frazzydee 21:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

Quite astonished how he did not feature on this list before. He refined the telescopes abilities, made the primary first law of motion, and is indeed the father of Modern science. Was killed for his discoveries and is quite justifiably seen as a champion of freedom of thought, as mentioned in the Wiki article.

--Knucmo 12:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about Hypatia?

Justifications of old edits

Firstly, why the hell was Buckminster Fuller, Bernhard Riemann, and numerous OTHER americans in there considering Copernicus, Galileo or Leibniz didn't even feature. Voltaire should be added also.

Riemann isn't an American. If you think those three should added, then add them. Simoes 18:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

See also: Genius & Creativity http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm

I've reworked the intro as it was a bit messy and tightened it up a bit. I've removed the reference to athletic genius (take a look at the genius entry on www.dictionary.com, they all specify a mental talent). I've also removed Alexander the Great as he doesn't really fit the bill. It could still use some more material, the stuff below is a great read, is there any way to work it back into the article? Also, there is a distinct lack of artists on the list, surely more of them are eligible, what about Picasso? Amoss 01:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I second that "see also". -- 24.153.226.112 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The following was removed from the article, so to allow eventual volounteers to edit and wikify a however interesting addition

<addition>

Usually proceeds by friction, rather than social alignment and here again I find myself at frictive odds with what I am told. Genius comes from Greek genii, or astral imps, fairies or something that inspire people. Plato admitted to his "daimon" who inspired him, although it is more likely he had sound and verbal recall, reason why he told us that all ideas exist forever in his Ideal realm, which leaves no room for creativity which is exactly where genii excel. All geniuses are the first to admit that their knowledge came from they knew not where. By all acclaim what they wrote and did is original.

By this I do not mean original in the sense of junior discovering sex in his pants, which happens to most all of us. Nor do I mean it as culturally or historically known to be original, but as mankind original. We can fi see that Beethoven stole musical titbits from all over the place, as did Shakespeare with his plays but they were mere ingredients to their original genius. As it comes genius develops the talents needed to acquire the skills we are all taught. But they tend to teach themselves, or, rather, don't need any teaching at all.

Genius has nothing whatsoever to do with IQ which is merely culled from university textbooks and shows how well one can do as an academic parrot. Right now the validity of IQ is up for grabs and the dust has still to settle. Universal education needed a universal means to find out how well pupils can do. Genius, contrariwise - a favorite word of my favorite genius, Lewis Carroll - is either mildly or strongly at odds with the rest of us and then either rescript their society, as did Einstein with Physics, or sink into social oblivion as no-hopers.

Genius is precocious, prodigious and unpredictable as well as untestable unless they decide to come out of the woodwork of society and do their thing. Genius excels in all things except earning a living. They are relentlessly driven by their curiosity which may focus on one item or an entire field of knowledge, or like Szilard, cross so many disciplines one loses count. He made radical innovations in 17 disciplines with one article each. I was not a prodigy since there was no way for me to know from my family that such a thing is possible so I kept my mouth shut until age about twenty. In my family showing off was not the done thing, especially by children. I've made up for it since. However, I did take myself to school at age three.

Although I totally disbelieve in Gazzaniga's split brain the very pop left and right brain serves well as metaphor. Gazzaniga poked knitting needles up epilectics brains to sever the corpus callosum which resulted in each half not knowing what the other was up to. The corpus callosum connects the two halves which are overmore covered by the forebrain cortex. The hindbrain is hardly well studied and sits at the back of the head and which when well developed produces a narrow, long skull with a bony knob at the back and which takes care of our body and its sensations while the forebrain deals with the senses. The ones who lack a largish hindbrain are square heads.

From this it follows that in genius the entire five part brain is better integrated in its ways than for the rest of us. However since people like pretty patterns for theories you shall have one. The left forebrain is held in charge of words and its linear logics. The right is said worldless and more artistic and intuitive. Since our society is much into opposites and polarised dichotomies we are said to be either one or the other, as in Koestler's "The Yogi and the Commissar"

This quite ignores that Plato,in his Republic, denied poets entry. Plato's personal dislike has been held as dogma ever since. It even worse ignores that the original basis and ground rules of knowledge were invented by rsi-priests of the Vedas and shamen before that. That is why we are told that knowledge begins with the Greeks. If so they were the best thieves unhung. They got their letters from we know not whom, around 500 BCE, most likely an adaptation of Egyptian Demotic. Similarly science started off in Alchemy, as did other disciplines. The original curriculum was the trivium: poetics, crafts and battle tactics, which includes politics as the art of winning. As Marshall Wavell has it: good poetry sticks spontaneously to the mind and to make that happen takes real skill. We know those battle tactics as martial arts and rather little to do with what our generals are into.

Given that the corpus callosum is in place the two halves can be imagined as communicating and sharing, at which juncture we can imagine creativity pops up out of the woodwork.By this we can further imagine that each half can as it were watch the other to match a Vedic image of the tree of knowledge with two birds, jiva and jivatma, one eating constantly, the other looking on. What we are not told is that they can swap roles or tasks. I have this going on in my head, as it were, because I don't think in or with words but some aniconic abstract way. The word factory, as it were transrenders what is going in while the intuitive function watches like a hawk. And most often I don't know what will be the next word coming out of my mouth. And some part of my mind sits and just watches the show.

For this reason I am also marvel of scepticism or Feuerabendian radical anarchistic thinking since I can keep track both of the parts of what goes on and the whole of it at once and together. This is more metaphor to help you imagine it as possible than what actually gives between my ears, which I don't really know. I just accept that it works fine and proceed to use it as best I can. Beethoven similarly admits he received his symphonies at once and together. The tedious job was writing down the notes. So too for Tesla who imagined the a.c. networks he invented, motors and all, in his head. He told his Mother, age 13, that he had come to bring the world light, which is exactly what he did. He also made a cockroach engine, the precursor of the electric motor, at that age. Since I read that in a book dated 1925 I doubt it's copyright.

Or, to quote from Oscar Wilde, another one, that mankind is very tolerant, except of genius. An old proverb: "Whom the gods love they punish" is very true for genius. Most geniuses readily agree that putting up with other folks is a pain, in wherever you least like it. Nietsche recommends we examine everything we know and in the case of a genius everybody else will do it for them and be most often wrong; doing which is, of course, the height of rudeness.

OR, to quote Ikkyu, who won't be bothered by trivialities like copyright:

" Why are people called Buddhas after they die?

 Because they don't grumble any more,
 Because they don't make a nuisance of themselves!

T.S. Eliot, the poet, was not enchanted by copyright either and coined paradiorthosis for stealing from one's collegues what they said ever so much better. The rest is not worth stealing. What further follows is that those three functions: verbal skills, intuitive grasp and creativity have to be in a dynamic balance, which phrase means variable, not fixed, such that anyone can play leader to the rest or they can sing in chorus, as the need may show. It necessarily follows also that this does not have to be in balance so we can get dumb geniuses and and very clever parrots and so on around the mulberry bush. High grade but imbalanced intuitives usually end up in the nuthouse whence genius is said akin to madness.

Or, again, as I recently said to a friend. I'll be delighted to take my leave of this hellhole of insanity they call earth whenever, but I'm danged if I will let that spoil any chances to have fun. Or, again, to paradiorthose from my other favorite, the reverend Laurence Sterne: Dear Reader, if you could anticipate a single word of what I've written here, I'd tear it up and start again.

</addition>

---

I added in a couple names, and removed all the "ands" from the parenthetical lists. I did this mainly for consistency (some lists were purely comma separated, others mixed), but please add them back in if you think they should be there.

--Simoes 18:47, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John Elliot was a genius as a child. He hid from the public, the media, and the government. His intellegence was beyond genius. He could solve formulas and make formulas that have never been thought of. This information is highly classified. He still is alive. No more information is needed

Whats the stupidity reference for?

Looks like mockery to me. Stupidity is a completely different topic. I dont see the connection here. -- Paniq 02:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see them as being rough antonyms. - SimonP 03:20, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Paniq. It does look like mockery. - Eton

Is Genius and Gifted the Same Thing?

If someone is classified as gifted does that mean they are a genuis?

No: genius might instead be described as the extraordinarly-evolved end of a highly gifted mind able to bridge revolutionary pathways in undiscovered territory. 67.39.138.226 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation into non-pretentious language: someone who can hear 7 melodies at once in their head is gifted. Someone who can actually make a catelogue of music themselves that is considered classic is a genius. Gifted is purely a matter of capability, while a genius creates (so IQ does not make a person a genius, just highly gifted). There's an element of hard work to it. Einstein constantly thought about difficult scientific concepts and wrote equations all of his life, Newton locked himself in an office and wrote endlessly, Beethoven filled notebooks with musical sketches and tried hundreds of variations for even the simplest counterpoint (if he could hear the relationships betweeen notes so easily in his mind, he wouldn't have had to do that...), Goethe wrote profusely, and Da Vinci worked endlessly. Geniuses are gifted people that have done something special with their abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.82.247 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

genius pre requisites?

Do geniuses have pre-requisites to become geniuses? Can their environemnt help making them become genuises?

Yes. I read that everyone is born equally in mental status. It is there environment that determines their own mentality. Eton

Eton, my dog has been around humans his intire life, the same enviroment as me, and he is not nearly as inteligent as me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.6.75 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. That sounds VERY suspicious...environment can maybe be crucial, but Einstein wasn't just anyone... Ornilnas 24. Octobre 2006

And fairly vulnerable to counterexample, I gather. To prove that one needs to extend the definition of environment to an all encompassing and not very useful trait which defines everything about us. Yielding a useless null statement. The trouble that most of the people having arguments here are running into is that there isn't sufficient lingistic depth between smart, brilliant and genius. The cult of the near-genius has co-opted all credibility from the modifier end as well. I suggest Landau's scale (class of physicist = -log10(accomplishments/accomplishments of Einstein) + 0.5). Works beautifully.

the idea that someone with an IQ of 140+ is a genius is false. I have an IQ extremely close to this number and I am in no way a genius. An accurate IQ of a universal genius is about 160-170ish.

I disagree. My IQ is slightly over 140 and I, as well as others, consider myself a genius.

I am only 15, let me start with that. Perhaps people should realize this; that in my viewpoint, genius's are not born. They are not naturally gifted. They strive to learn becuase they have been given curiosity. In other words, if what people are saying that genius's are gifted then if you are curious, you can stand as a genius. Genius's are not born. They strive for knowledge. Everyone is born with curiosity. And only a select few can satisfy it. Andrew Ruiz, I shall prove this to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nukedoom (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This comment is absurd; I have a documented IQ of 167 and I am by no means a "genius". The term is outdated and is little more than intellectual masturbation.

If there are this many people with such high IQ there's an equal amount on the other side of the spectrum that these so-called geniuses should be helping. Is a person still a genius if he doesn't try?

Grow up. 67.39.138.226 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider yourself a genius? Are you capable of vast mental calculations that people of "average" intelligence would be in awe of? Do you excel greatly at any subject requiring intelligence, tearing to shreds the obstacles in your way? Are you bringing amazing new material to the world through your intelligence? If not then you're not a genius. "phenomenal brilliance" is not just "brilliance", but brilliance of a phenomenal nature. Are you brilliant? Sure, maybe you think you are, if you've never met a person smarter than you more or less coincidentally I'm sure you are. But genius? Not based on an IQ of 140... For me a genius would be a person who could do things a person of average intelligence couldn't do over ten lifetimes no matter how much they tried. IQ tests.. normally require ten hours or ten days in front of books...

    (ANSWER TO THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH)

However, perhaps we should note that there are different levels of genius. A person who has 140 IQ is already smarter than most people he would become friends with, except of course if he joins a high IQ society like MENSA. Since the definition of intellectual genius is "phenomenal brilliance", then its just right. That is of course if statistics about the distribution of IQ scores in the population is accurate.

You and others consider yourself a genius, based solely on an IQ of "slightly higher than 140"? You really need to get out more. ---Non-genius with documented IQ of 153 (99.985%)

A Different Comment

The equating of genius with IQ is bemoaned by John Huntington, author of Rationalizing Genius: Ideological Strategies in the Classical American Science Fiction Short Story (Rutgers University Press, 1989), see quote below from p.47

“Once genius is equated with IQ the term genius can be bestowed not for actual accomplishment and not for postures of martyred perseverance and dedication, as in Romantic Prometheanism, but for mere promise contained in the potential of pure “intelligence.” Genius now denotes a person who is valued for genes without reference to anything he or she may have done, and without any reference to social goals” -- Yusuf Nuruddin

Mary Savant and another asian boy have the highest recorded IQs ever, yet, especially the former, they have not made any breakthroughs in human knowledge (like Einstein and Darwin did).

Genius and prodigy

I believe that geniuses are persons who create/created something very new, innovative(and significant). Prodigies (and gifted people ?) are those who develop an extremely high proficiency in a short period of time. Einstein with his new Theory of Relativity was a genius. Tiger Woods is a prodigy in Golf. Fischer is a prodigy in chess unless his strategies were unique and new. John Von Neuman was more of a prodigy and less of a genius.--Jondel 01:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. A genius has to have created or thought of something monumental or extraordinary. Example, Isaac Newton was a genius because he thought up the Laws of Motion and developed the Universal Law of Gravitation. Example, on the other hand a teenager may have an IQ of 160 and graduates from Medical School at the age of 14 but what has this child done that's new? He didn't create or think of anything new; he only accomplished something that everybody else knew already but at a faster pace. This page needs to explicitly state this.--Secret Agent Man 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly incorrect taxonomy, at least within general usage. According to your definition Isaac Newton was not in fact, a genius, until he developed some of his advances. That doesn't appear to distinguish between somebody who is capable of such feats, who, in the english language, are typically referred to as geniuses, and a not very interested or capable human being. It's also fairly relevant to point out that most 'prodigies' tend to spend an awful lot of compressed and focussed time developing skill. And not just particular skill, it's fairly normal for them to be advanced in many areas. Something about being interested. You're also not giving Von Neumann recognition remotely close to that which he deserves. Seriously. There are some collected papers out there. You should read them.

The distinction of being "somebody who is capable of such feats" is not a well-defined notion (or it is trivial). It rests on the assumption that it is somehow predetermined whether a given person is capable of making original advances or not. Frankly, it doesn't matter what a person "could have" done. A genius is distinguished by his or her actual achievements. Whether or not prodigies are more advanced or not is irrelevant. Genius is independent of age, and having advanced knowledge in a field does not by definition make one a genius. 128.148.194.80 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to be capable of the feats of a genius, you need not just intelligence but drive, creativity, etc. These are things that could perhaps be measured, but not by a standardized test. Social factors are huge. If Einstein had been born in a poor village in Africa he'd have never accomplished anything. And even if he'd been born into the same era and situation, if it wasn't for his creativity he'd just be another of the countless brilliant physicists of the era. Intelligence is just a prerequisite for intellectual discoveries, not an explanation of how they were discovered. Creativity is what drove him to come up with those explanations for the behavior of light (which was discovered not long before he arrived at his ideas, so clearly the time of the era had a huge effect on the theory). Genius is what allowed him to write the equations describing this behavior and to see the implications. We consider Mozart the consummate natural talent, but if his father hadn't been prominent in musical circles and tried to prove his teaching methods on his young son he may never have played an instrument and never amounted to anything. People can be born gifted, but geniuses are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.82.247 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mental

I believe that some people in mental institutions are actually genuises. Who else has ever created their own fantasy land, so unique and so detailed, that they can tell you peoples names and eye colors? Who else can talk to you with two different voices, two different opinions on a matter, and have both of them make sense? Who else has ever been able to so easily contradict themselves and shoot down their own phony ideas? Just think of the brainpower it must take to be able to do something like that, and yet, they are rarely given any credit for their inticate fantasy worlds, they are always known as 'retards', fools incapable of using their brains for anything. Ask yourself if you could do the things that they can do. Well, can you?--User:TheJollyGreenGiantOneTwoThree08:38, 29 Sept 2005

Geniuses really require a nurturing environment, away from misinterpreting, unscrupoulous mobs! Einstein worked in patent shop which allowed him a lot of time to create and analyze advanced physics.--Jondel 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends on your definition. They are probably not generally geniuses in the most common meaning of the word. James_Aguilar (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would guess that most people can invent fantasies or contradict themselves. <insert politician joke here> --Serf 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that geniuses generally lack common sense. Why not? I'm open minded to the idea. Dragix 07:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i can accept your arguments, but 90% of the world population might have problem admitting that the 'retards' are more clever than them. its the ego.Azar2804 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people can create their own extremely detailed fantasy world. Fiction writers do it all the time. A lot of people can argue contradictory ideas. Politicians and philosophers do it all the time. I don't think all fiction writers, politicians and philosophers are geniuses. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Limitations and Feminist Evaluation

Okay, we have five paragraphs, in this section, which have only one citation for some rather broad, but unsourced, proclamations, such as "Demographically, we must assume that rates of genius-level intelligence are the same for both genders". (who said the numbers are equal? Maybe there are more female geniuses, maybe less... but no citation is offered). In addition, we might want to break this into "Limitations" and "Feminist evaluation", as only the last paragraph seems directly related to feminism. Ronabop 12:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Some possible good refs for the issue at Sex_and_intelligence. We might need to expand this section a tad, or simply link over there. Ronabop 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean exactly?

"Some research shows that companionship is difficult to find for geniuses not just due to being maladjusted. As intelligence of a person goes up, what they consider as their peers constitutes a shrinking number of people. For example, at an IQ of 137 only every hundredth person would be of equal or greater IQ. This number shrinks significantly as IQ goes up. Assuming that 50% of geniuses are female, then the number is halved." What does this mean? Do "peers" have to be male? Trampled 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's a purely mono-sexual perspective, with the assumption that "companionship" is a cute way of dancing around the phrase "sexual partner" of a specific gender. It definitely needs some rewording. Ronabop 07:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Added "homosexuals" ;) Ornilnas 11. January 2006

I love the 'halved' perspective. It's still 1 of 100, either 1 of 100 people if you're bisexual, or 1/100 men/women if you're hetero- or homosexual. It's tricky to count if you're asexual, but I guess it theoretically still is one of 100 of whoever could interest you :P Lejman 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats also flawed logic and OR, if you were one in a hundred because you had an IQ that put you in 1% of the population, in reality you would be probably associating with people who have scored from at least 40% to 80% on academic tests etc (at least in my case), because savants will be isolated from you in a higher stratum, and people with disability level intelligence (i.e in the bottom 10%) would also be isolated. Most schools have sets due to intelligence, and if you are a genius you would most likely be in a setting with other geniuses unless you did not have that oppertunity (i.e. in a poverty stricken country), but even with that lack of oppertunity you would still be isolated from 'unintelligent' people, if you go by quotients.86.156.52.67 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible examples from popular culture?

Does anybody have an example of a genius from popular culture? Perhaps from movies or other things distributed at large by Hollywood? Seems to be fitting to the article. -- kanzure 02:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

maybe Rain man or matt damon in good will hunting?Averisk 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely some important historical examples with Leonardo da Vinci, Leibniz, and von Neumann. -- 24.153.226.112 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rain man is an autistic savant. Other programs with examples of geniuses include, The Pretenders, Doogie Houser, MD, Little Man Tate, etc. Other real life geniuses are Karl Frederich Gauss, Nikola Tesla, Michael Kearney, Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, etc.--Jondel 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if the alleged genius has true characteristics of a genius. don't add it if the genius is what the actor, director or script-writer think a genius is, because, as mentioned somewhere on this page, only a genius knows what a genius is, and saying a fake genius is a genius is an insult.Azar2804 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Erik of the Phantom of the Opera was supposed to be a genius. He was fairly isolated from everyone else in society, but he still managed to be a great musician. The silent film doesn't show this in the least, but Gaston Leroux's book shows are very detailed about his genius (he invented his own torture chamber, wrote an opera that was supposed to inspire emotions in everyone who heard it, and he created his entire underground world by himself). Same for Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical (knew how to disappear and reappear like a ghost, ventriloquism, aka, the magic tricks). In both versions, Erik is supposed to be so amazing with music, Christine's mind goes blank whenever he sings to her, or some really strong emotion (usually lust) weakens the listener. The book isn't as widespread, but the musical certainly is. It has it's own subculture and everything. I'm just not sure if one would call it "pop" culture.Juneeily (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Right Man or Woman at the Right Time and Place

Please read Silvano Arieti's Creativity: The Magic Synthesis (Basic Books, 1976), Chapter 13 "Society, Culture and Creativity" (p.293-311). Here Arieti summarizes the work of the anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Configurations of Cultural Growth (1944) which shows that genius appears in clusters during certain historical periods. According to Kroeber's superorganic theory of culture, and the theories of other social scientists (notably Ptirim Sorokin and Charles Edward Gray), this suggests that civilizations have peak periods of cultural efflorescence when the culture is pregnant with certain cultural traits that can lead to profound cultural innovation, invention, etc. (Over time civilizations also have cultural "valleys" and "plateaus" as well as "peaks," hence a civilization has a "lifespan" or "life cycle" of its own --civilizations are born, they reach maturity and bear fruit, they die and decay). It is the extraordinary creative individuals, born during these peaks or potentially fruitful periods of history, who act as midwives for the profound discoveries, achievements, etc. In this light it is history which makes great men or women, rather than great men or women who make history. The implications are that no matter how creative or intelligent a person is, if he or she is not born in a period in which the civilization has the potential for giving birth to new profound scientific or artistic achievements, there would be no achievements of genius. In short, if Einstein (1879-1955) had been born say 70 years earlier (roughly the time of an average human lifespan) in 1809 or to make it easier, 100 years earlier, in 1779, and the field of physics had not advanced to the point where the necessary elements (concepts, theory, discovered laws) were present to imagine or construct a theory of relativity, Einstein may have very well died as an obscure person or he may have made some modest achievements or discoveries but certainly none that would bestow upon him the celebrity status that he enjoys today. Or perhaps he would have made some achievements in another field of endeavor that was ripe for great achievements in the 19th century, perhaps mathematics or chemistry instead of physics. Einstein developed his special theory of relativity in 1905 at the age of 26 and worked on the general theory of relativity between 1911-1915 when he was roughly 32-36. Since those in math and the physics tend to do their best work in their twenties or close to that decade of life, Einstein's personal peak of creativity, had he been born 70 years earlier (1809 instead of 1879) would have been circa the 1830 to 1845 (age 21 to 35). [See the several books and articles by Dean Keith Simonton, e.g., Genius, Creativity and Leadership, for lots of interesting information including the peak decades of the human lifespan for productivity in various academic disciplines -- mathematicians are most prolific in their 20s, social scientists are most prolific in their 40s thru 60s]. If Einstein had been born a century earlier (1779 instead of 1879), his peak productive period would have been roughly 1800 to 1815. So if he had been working in the sciences in these earlier periods even with all of his natural talent, giftedness, aptitude, etc., he would never have figured out a theory of relativity. Furthermore, at least in the field of science --though this is not so clear in the fields of artistic, musical and literary achievement -- it suggests that had Einstein been born 70 years earlier or a century earlier, someone else born at the right time period and maturing in the early decades of 20th century when the corpus of knowledge in physics was pregnant enough to give birth to a theory of relativity, would have eventually advanced a theory of relativity, maybe not between 1905 and 1915 but probably within a decade or so of those dates. Certainly, the dual discoveries of certain scientific laws give credence to this: Wallace was working on a theory of evolution at the same time as Darwin. We would also want to examine the scenario of Einstein being born 70 years later than his actual birthdate (1949 instead of 1879) with his productivity peaking in the years 1970-1985. Let us assume that by 1930 some other physicist or team of physicists had articulated the theory of relativity. With no possible great breakthroughs on the horizon, with no new worlds in physics that were conquerable, a latter day Einstein might achieve the "close but no cigar" celebrity brilliance of a Stephen Hawking or maybe he would be advancing super-string theory, but still making no definitive breakthroughs. (If he were born a century later -- 1979 instead of 1879 -- his peak period of productivity would be the years 2000-2015, hence it would be too early to tell). So the concept of genius is really --the right person born at the right time. The right person born at the wrong time, no matter how creative, bright or resourceful might not have the opportunity to manifest his or her "genius." In technical terms, genius is not a product of individual psychological traits such as intelligence or creativity, but a complex social psychological interaction between personality traits and the socio-cultural environment.

On a completely different note, a concept that I read long ago (in the 1970s) in a short article -- and I can't remember the author in order to give him credit -- stated that we should make a distinction between mere "genius" and "towering genius" --the later term referring to those individuals whose achievements make them tower over pages of history. Examples of the towering geniuses being the Einsteins, the Newtons, Da Vincis, etc. The term genius used more loosely may apply to Chomsky, Pinhker, Blavatsky, etc., and used even more loosely it may apply to the kid with the 160 IQ who graduates medical school at 14, and used more loosely I suppose it might even embrace some of the contributors to this page. Speaking of relativity, the concept is very relative. It's contextual. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Lots of bright people are geniuses within their own social circles. It's a big fish in a small pond phenomenon. As the social circle expands, well its simply more difficult to stand out as one of the most creative or most brilliant. A friend of mine --who was the resident genius in my social circle --once quipped that genius is "simply a statistical probability of meeting someone smarter than yourself." So we should all be content that somewhere we can find a niche were we each can be the genius in that circle. And as for not being towering geniuses, hey we can all blame that on not being born at the right time.

Yusuf Nuruddin

Well said. "Genius" is a very relative term. It depends on time, place, and people. Dragix 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Genius is from Arabic djinn

This is according to the translator of the "Arabian nights and days." And he gives an explanation as to the origin and incorporation. I would to see a reference as to the purported Roman root for the origin of the word. omerlivesOmerlives 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at any Latin dictionary. The derivation into English is tortorous. For the word to mean "intellectually gifted," it has to start in Latin as "spirit" and then get cojoined with "locus" to come into French and English usages as "genius loci" ("spirit of the place"). That then has to get clipped to suggest "spirit of the person." From there, critics begin to use it as a designation of "inspiration" (Lat. "breathing into"), which becomes a major plank of Romanticism's literary framework. Romantic literary criticism emphasizes "the true genius" for the poet inspired above others. That then has to get vulgarized to mean "truly gifted one." In the early part of the 20th century, the people using valuative language for their designations of intelligence create a classification at the top for the giant, the seer, the Genius. That gets common during the revolution of psychometrics in the 1940's, and thereby we end up using "genius" to refer to the intellectually gifted and think, incorrectly, that the meaning of "artistically gifted" is a secondary meaning. (In fact, I suppose it is secondary, but only because "intellectually gifted" is a tertiary meaning, chronologically.) Geogre 13:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is, of course, much symbolism in the Arabian Nights tale of Aladdin and his Magic Lamp, as a djinn, jinn, jinni, genie or genius resides in a lamp (a symbol of learning or enlightenment or the enlightened mind). Of course the awesome powers that reside in the mind are often dormant (hence we call upon our muse or rub our magic lamp); furthermore, depending upon how these awesome powers are used, they can be extremely creative or destructive. Yusuf Nuruddin, 22 June 2006

Genie and Jinn/Djin/et cetera are connected in this way; In Greek mythology, Prometheus, the creator and benefactor of humanity, brought the light down from Mount Olympus. For that, he was chained to Mount Caucasia with an eagle consuming his liver and it regenerating. Due to convergent strains in Judaism and Greco-Roman thought of the time, most likely Philo of Alexandria, the light-giver passed into the evolving proto-Christianity. Then the idea of "Jesus," who "brought the sunshine" as it is said in gospel music, came about. The idea of Satanism came about because of St. Jerome's misreading of ancient writings and also the co-optation of Christianity in the same era by Rome. In other words, the Genie/Djin/Genius(old and new meanings) brings the knowledge and the power. (From someone whose IQ is over 170, not sure because I was never tested again and the test I had was the child's test. That test was written for "average" types. I spoke with Marilyn VosSavant many years ago and we discussed our tests, she was fortunate enough to have been given the adult test as well as the child's. To those who say that IQ has nothing to do with genius, I say that you can not "cram" for an IQ test. IQ is not an SAT, which is more or less a test of servitude to the schools. IQ has to do with things other than spewing out "facts.")JBDay 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The word for genious in Arabic is "Abkari".In ancient arab times,The Abkar Valley was a mythical valley believed to be inhabited by djinns or "genies" as the term is translated into english.It was explained that great poets and thinkers got their talents from djinns hence the term Abkari(عبقري) or "of Abkar".Now thats the etymology of the arabic term for Genious. It strikes me that the word Genious in English seems very close to Genie.Could there be a link between the Arabic term and the English term of the word? Ayboday

score of 130?

Where is the information coming from that an IQ of 130 defines a genius, and what scale are they referring to? 130 is only above average by one standard deviation. Most college educated people have an IQ around 130, while geniuses are supposed to be exceptionally rare.

Not that I necessarily agree with them, but to answer your question, they are getting it from Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) where a score of 130 is two standard deviations above the norm. ("The average full-scale IQ is 100, with a standard deviation of 15"). Yusuf

Most college graduates cannot logically have an IQ of 130. An IQ of 130 would be at least greater than 95% of the population. I think in the US, around 27% of the population has a college degree. If I recall, 140 and up is genius level. - MSTCrow 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An average college graduate would not have an I.Q. of 130, but the average college professor has this score. Only about 1% of the population has an I.Q. this high, and the percentage gets less as the score gets higher. Also, genius CANNOT be determined by I.Q. There are many people in the world who have an I.Q. score of 140 and most of them are not geniuses, I'm afraid. True geniuses are exceptionally rare. Polymath618 09:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to robpongi.com seem higly inappropriate

Am I the only one who thinks the link to robpongi.com are rather unnecessary, if not improper? They lead to a bizarre video of korean teenagers performing a folk song on a, at least in my semi-professional opinion, _terribly_ designed website. This kind of content is more common on youtube than wikipedia, really.

Adam s 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Am I the only one who thinks the link to robpongi.com are rather unnecessary, if not improper?"

No you are not the only one. I think that too. I don't even understand the relevance.

Cláudio Valente 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the links, I hope there's no objection to that.

Adam s 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

image caption refined

Added pop icon to Einstein caption, replaced stereotype with archetype. Rationale: 1) more comprehensive; 2) archetype is a superset concept of 'stereotype,' better captures the broader meaning, and the latter term is more likely to be interpreted with a mistakenly negative connotation. dr.ef.tymac 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

My edit on Nietzsche has been changed by User:Igni. I have a major problem with this change, because it makes Nietzsche the defender of the genius instead of a major critic of it. It is like saying the Bible is in favour of war instead of in favour of peace. Under these circumstances, it would be better to remove Nietzsche from this article, or to bring back the old version. The wording can be changed, but i really want the central message of Nietzsche to get a prominent place.--Daanschr 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help but say, without undue haste, it is nothing short of libel to propose the analogy of "support" and "dissent" of the Bible's supposed contents regarding war in accord with Nietzsche's understanding of genius. Secondly, and most importantly, where precisely do you consider this as against Nietzsche's intent? What was the overman to him? It originally was the genius before Nietzsche used a different pigmentation and formation for his landscaping of conceptually animated groups and the like. I am, assuredly, no "enemy" here, but you must lucidly describe your tendencies that would so deem this paragraph as unworthy of consideration, especially when considering the whole of Nietzsche's productive life—not a limited, single aphorism (the one to which you adduce in your "support" is 354 of la gaya scienza)—and what many a (contemporary) commentator/scholar suggest. Last of all, that Nietzsche was a "critic" (more to say, one who assesses such variegated elements of the thing so criticized) of genius does not therefore imply he was "against" it, that being a logical fallacy. — ^ignis _scripta 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'Against it' was not the right wording. You say that Nietzsche was a critic of the genius, but your edit in this article claims the opposite, that 'Nietzsche sees genius as a "guardian spirit" for the further development of humanity in particular'. Nietzsche makes an appeal for individual creativity, which shouldn't be incapsulated by the utility for the collective. Why not? The last sentence in aphorism 354 states: Nützlichkeit ... ist zuletzt auch nur ein Glaube, eine Einbildung und vielleicht gerade jene verhängnistvollste Dummheit, an der wir einst zu Grunde gehn. The translation that i made of this sentence in this article is: 'The belief in utility is a faith, an imagination, the unfortunate stupidity that could lead to the destruction of humanity.' You took away many of the direct quotes i got from the original text of Nietzsche and replaced it by an interpretation which is not precise. What is your intention to revert Nietzsche's original text and replace it by your own words as a presentation of the philosophy of Nietzsche?

Wikipedia clearly states that its texts should be verifiable and that original research is not allowed. So instead of your interpretation of the philosophy of Nietzsche, it is better to bring back the (translated) quotes from the original text. If you still have some problems with my last edit in this article, then we can deconstruct my and your text and try to figure out how it can be as verifiable as possible.--Daanschr 09:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed, because it isn't a big deal. Genius hardly has anything to do with Nietzsche.--Daanschr 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If you had not removed it—although I agree that, ultimately, "genius" is of small significance for Nietzsche (I mean to say it is an infinitesimally small element within his broader philosophical understanding)—then I would exegetically have described my reasoning in limpid detail, whilst placing some extra elements that are passingly noted in aphorism 354 to the main paragraph. — ^ignis _scripta 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

plz revert

22:35, 6 June 2007 69.244.187.11

This guy changed the phrase "a man" to A DICK on the first paragraph, I don't know how to revert stuff. I'll patch it up but plz revert the edits. --SvenGodo 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Pluralization section removed?

I (and, I imagine, quite a few other people) found it useful for correcting those who insisted that the plural of genius in the context of an exceedingly intelligent person is genii, and I had to use Google's cache of the page to find the information. An anonymous user seems to have deleted it with no reason listed. Does anyone know why?

Possible vandalism, look into it, see if the user's been blocked. If they're an IP and have been blocked, then we know why...DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of a musical genius... isn't it rather shallow?

By my opinion, the definition of musical genius as put forward in the article is not satisfactory by any means. It seems to me that the person who proposed the idea, that musical genius is a person capable of maintaining several melodies at a time, must have been a fan of baroque music. In baroque music the contrapunctual interaction of two or more melodies is probably much more important, than in most other styles. In a more modern musical context, we do not necessarily have to think in terms of many paralel melodies (i'm not saying we don't do it anymore!). Thinking in terms of harmony, it's textures, etc. can at least in certain situations prove to be more effective way of looking at music. This definition also overemphasize melody over other components of music, most importantly the rhythm. Why should a genial drummer be supposed to be able to retain 3 or 5 or whatever number of melodies simultaneously? Now, lets take it from a different point of view. What are the characteristics of a genius of, let's say, John Coltrane? Was it that he was better at imagining a number of melodies than others? Or was it his creativity, his unique approach to tonal material and harmony and his sensitivity and responsiveness as a player, etc.? Should a hypothetical person who can retain 15 melodies in his head at once, but never demonstrated slightest ghost of creativity, be considered a musical genius? I prefer the answer NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.40.90 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that definition is terrible. Beethoven himself had to work out counterpoint (even when there were merely two or three voices) with a pen and paper, using endless trial and error. Are people going to deny that he was a musical genius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.82.247 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable addition

The last paragraph in the present article seems questionable:

Don Design Jr, spokesperson for Ideas4Humanity.com, has been called more than a genius by a PhD scientist, a Vice President of Engineering of a Fortune 500 company, a genius himself. The VP nicknamed Don "The Magician." Don claims he receives his ideas by Whispers from Above. More:[1]

This passage is illiterate and from a dubious source. Should it be removied?

128.147.28.1 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Or even removed. :l 128.147.28.1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition of new image.

An image was added by Apurv1980 on 5 October 2007. The image is of Swami Vivekananda, and the caption says that he is regarded as a genius in the eastern world. I am unsure about the inclusion of this man for the following reason: he may be a genius, and I am not disputing that fact, but I think that the only images, or indeed references, of genii included in this article should be only of publically accepted and understood genii, i.e. people such as Einstein, Goethe, etc. I'm not entirely sure that Vivekananda is famous enough (in terms of mainstream culture) to include in this article. Perhaps if the image was removed and replaced with a small reference, that might prove to be a suitable replacement. (Either way, I shall correct the grammer in the caption for the time being.)

Polymath618 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia as a source

YOU CAN'T CITE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE FOR A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. IF IT CHANGES, THEN THE SOURCE IS OUT OF DATE. ANYONE CAN EDIT A WIKIPEDIA PAGE WHICH IS WHY IT IS NOT A VALID ACADEMIC RESOURCE. CITING WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE IS LIKE A NAZI ASKING ANOTHER NAZI IS HATING JEWS IS WRONG.

That is all.

Please don't shout. Yes, that counts as shouting at someone. I agree with you, however, I do not believe that was in line with the talk page guidelines. I will check. Thank you for your understanding. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit- I just checked. This is what it says- Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through italic text, bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING!!!!! and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The plural of Genius is genii

Please people have some common sense, genius is a latan root word. It ends in -us, plural is -i, c.f Platapus --> Platapii.

I thought this was common knowledge that the common 'geniuses' was incorrect and ironic so I didn't bother with this comment until now.

BTW genii is pronouced Geni-EYE, this may make it more acceptable and much easier to say than the clumbsy geniuseseses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shniken1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea is frankly hallucinatory. All dictionaries, including both the online Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com, list both genii and geniuses as plurals, but anyone who actually reads the entries will discover that the former is used only for the "guardian spirit" and related senses; it is not used for the sense that is relevant to this article.

No competent user of Standard English will ever produce genii in this context.

The example given for comparison is both wrong and irrelevant. The plural of platypus (not "platapus") is platypuses; "platapii" would be pseudo-Latin even if it didn't have one too many i's. And, in any case, it is hardly unheard of for a foreign term nativized into English to adopt English pronunciation and pluralization. --Writtenblade 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Writtenblade is right, the plural of the type of genius upon which the article is based is geniuses. The guardian spirit 'genius', when pluralized, is genii. Please do not change the article in this way again as it is disruptive.

Polymath618 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is now referenced in the lead, but MOS:LEAD#Links deprecates this. As the accepted plural is standard, need it be referred to at all? A <!-- hidden note to editors -->, perhaps pointing to this discussion, would help to forestall further changes and reverts. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence Change

"Geniuses always show strong individuality and imagination, and are not only intelligent, but unique and innovative."

I removed that senctence because geniuses aren't "always" and don't "have" to be unique and innovative, or even imaginative. One can be incredibly intelligent, and still have a boring personality or lack of imagination.

(Vivify 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I have undone this change, because this sentence is incredibly valid. Perhaps you have not read the whole article, Vivify, but I'm afraid that being 'incredibly intelligent' does not necessarily make you a genius. Take note of this in future, please.

Polymath618 11:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Random stuff

Any self-proclaimed (or otherwise) geniuses here? I wonder if anyone who has been labeled a genius or is considered a genius works on this article. I get the impression that the people involved in writing this are "normal" people who have a fascination with geniuses. I just noticed that the tone of the article felt a little... off? Things like:

"Eccentricities such as the ones conveyed by Gould are most likely because of the vast brainpower which normally comes with genius."

I understand the subtext of this statement but terms like "vast brainpower" seem very unscientific and subjective to me, in favor of a more concretely defined concept, such as IQ (Which is think is largely irrelevant but that is not te subject of this posting) or specific cognitive/psychological traits. "Vast brainpower" sounds broad and amateurish to me and there isn't really any indication as to why eccentricity is likely to coincide with "brainpower". I'm not disputing this notion, but if it's going to be included there should at least be some citation or refrence to research done on the matter, if research is done. Honestly, it seems like why know very little about "geniuses". I don't really know of any studies that have been done regarding geniuses. There's probably a good reason for that, as I'm sure these individuals lead their own lives and want to enjoy their privacy and solitude and not be routinely harrassed by the medical/psychiatric community into prying open their heads so we can see what's going on. Outside of some IQ tests that are implemented does anyone know of any significant studies that have been undergone regarding these geniuses. I would be very interested in reading material about neurological scans, medical records, and the like.

66.253.36.46 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:There's probably a good reason for that, as I'm sure these individuals lead their own lives and want to enjoy their privacy and solitude and not be routinely harrassed by the medical/psychiatric community into prying open their heads so we can see what's going on. Outside of some IQ tests that are implemented does anyone know of any significant studies that have been undergone regarding these geniuses. I would be very interested in reading material about neurological scans, medical records, and the like. not at all, actually on the contrary, watch this video at one point he insists on putting high IQ people in charge of the world's most grave threats/problems. Many geniuses believe that the opposite should be done that we should stay out of everyone's way, because if something's not broke don't fix it. Secondly, the risk of being wrong is usually much greater, even though the probability of being wrong is almost always lower. Look at LHC, could an average Joe be responsible for the collapse of our universe? Plus geniuses can't really contribute much through the means of submitting themselves to interviews, neuro scans, or medical tests. Finally, I agree the thing about brain power is not encyclopedic.

about the social thingy in Limitations

it is, I think, quite accurate...surprisingly accurate. Is it an assumption based on logic or a genius or a gifted or one that understand a genius because he thinks like one actually express his feeling in the article.Azar2804 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the entire article should be re-written to show that 'genius' is merely a concept, not a neutral fact that can be determined! No wonder there are so few women geniuses - because it is a concept in the past upheld by men and mostly male institutions (e.g. the Royal Academy founded in England in the 18th century). The concept of the genius as we know it today largely goes back to Vasari, who in his 16th ct. book "The Lives of Artists", where he employs the structures still often implied in biographies today, e.g. the use of (childhood) anecdotes to 'prove' the inherent geniality, or the seemingly sudden bursts of creativity rather than hard work over several stages of preparation. Hopefully I shall find the time to assemble a bibliography of works that have critically researched the concept of genius. The article as it stands is painfully uncritical, and therefore I think it is outdated and unacceptable (have you seen the 1926 work at the top of its current bibliography?? That should help prove my point that its premise is based on outdated writings!) Sorry to put this at the top, but I think this is really one of the most un-informed and uncritical articles I have read on Wikipedia so far. S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk • contribs)

the mental state of possessing genius is based primarily upon an incredible understanding of complex issues and problems, and a profound creativity and imagination is the best point in the article, and I wish the article reflected this statement more, instead of bringing up a tangent topic of IQ tests, then bashing IQ tests, and stating a ratio IQ then converting it to the IQ everyone is familiar with (one based off a mean of 100 and s.d. of 15 or 16) Sentriclecub (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

new definition of genius

Definition of genius is "explaining complexity simply"--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

etymology of genius

So far the only remotely possible link made is to Latin gignere "beget, produce" (c.1390) from the root "gen/gin" - gene, genetrate, generation, genital, genial, genteel, genus (cognate with Gk. genos "race, kind"), Genesis, genome, etc.

The Arabic jenni/jinn came to the European languages much later after the Crusades via Arabic Jannah (Arabic: جنّة) which is the Islamic conception of paradise. The Arabic form Jannah is a shortened version meaning simply "Garden". . However note the etymology in Genie#Etymology_and_definitions.

In the Ancient world genius was cognate with art, c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem, (nom. ars) "art, skill, craft". These were referenced to specific areas of knowledge in Middle English usually with sense of "skill in scholarship and learning" (c.1305), especially in the seven sciences, or liberal arts (divided into the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric -- and the quadrivium --arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). This is why I always take it as a complement when told that I'm just being trivial ;o) This is also the reason why old universities usually were build around a "quad" and not a square or a courtyard. The quad was the courtyard surrounded by the four "houses" or buildings of the above disciplines.

The Greek/Latin meaning originates with the translated Heb. bereshith, lit. "in the beginning," which was the first word of the Genesis text, taken in error as its title.

The question never asked is, why would the Greeks use the word genesis? Where did genesis come from?

What many forget is that the word was chosen not by Greeks, but by 70 Jewish rabbis who were forced to translate the Hebrew Torah, producing the Greek Septuagint (hence the name). While the use of the root "gen" has been overwhelmingly used in the Greek genos "race, birth, descent" meaning since that time, the Jewish rabbis unquestioningly used it to mean Creation since the issue of descendants of Adam and Eve is not the first topic of the first chapter of the first book, even if it is the major theme of the rest of the chapter.

The first topic was a process that culminated with the creation of the Garden of Eden, Adam and ultimately Eve from whom descent of all human progeny begun. The Hebrew word for garden is gan which is closely phonetically related to the root gen-. I can also suggest the origin of is/os, but this is unnecessary here.

For the purpose of the etymology of genius, the meaning is clearly one of creativity, that is the ability to produce something new.

Producing something new becomes increasingly difficult in proportion to growth of population and scope of human knowledge. For example the Nobel Prize was created by an individual who lived during an explosion of newness during the mid to late 19th century. The long 19th century, commencing chronologically in the late 18th century, and ending in the early 1920s was by far the most creative period of the human history, representing transformation of human knowledge so fundamentally that an individual from the 1780s would not have been able to relate to the world of 1920, something that can not be said of the individual from 1640(or even 1540) who may have found him/her self in 1780.

Sadly producing something new is stamped WP:OR in Wikipedia, so we will never see genius in Wikipedia ;o\ --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like it was produced through some eugencist group. Clearly an attempt to propogate the ever-popular IQ-genius equivalence myth. I can't understand how how anyone could have the courage to openly push such a fantasy. But what is disturbing is the fact that a fair subset of the population, actually buys into such nonsense. There is nothing here but a very limited, and biased (generally Western) view regarding 'genius'. It is but another elitist's attempt to fuel the greatest of universal delusions. Another, which rudely eludes philosophical objections which long and fairly, have noted the importance of factors such as relativity of enviorments, random chance, and emotional capacity.

"To be genius is to be inately intelligent. A genius may be better honed and advanced by formal education, but it is not really a requirement after learning the basics (i.e. reading, writing, and basic mathematics, which are all learned in elementary school). Geniuses will advance themselves in their prefered field with or without help of others, and with or without being recognized for it. It should be noted that a person who simply has an expansive memory is not a genius. People who must be taught by others are not genius themselves, the genius is the person who originally figured it out and then started teaching it, or the person off learning it on their own without need of a teacher."

The art of 'figuring something out' (at least something notable), usually involves even more than the combination of regurgitative power (,resources, which I'll ignore), superficial logic, and temporary states of controlled attention. Many, if not most, individuals who have come to solve, notable, world class problems, have personalities marked by factors like motivation, persistence, confidence, faith, autism, curiosity, creativiy, LUCK...ect. The option to ignore or soften the relevance of these factors, is entirely unjustifiable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.198.0 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your view of genius is a rather stunted one: you're very right to say that genius is marked by originality (as it states very clearly in the article), but the other factors you included are not applicable. It is, of course, part of the nature of genius to include motivation, intense concentration, incredible creativity and curiosity, but it is not these things which make a genius. And the article is not propogating the 'ever-popular IQ-genius equivalence myth'. It discusses it efficiently, but the general view of the article is that genius is a natural intelligence and creativity, marked by many factors, including a generally high IQ, but that these factors are a result of the actual condition. Things like 'luck' are irrelevent.

If you would care to suggest any addition or modification which could be made to the article, please feel free to suggest it. --Polymath618 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The word for genious in Arabic is "Abkari".In ancient arab times,The Abkar Valley was a mythical valley believed to be inhabited by djinns or "genies" as the term is translated into english.It was explained that great poets and thinkers got their talents from djinns hence the term Abkari(عبقري) or "of Abkar".Now thats the etymology of the arabic term for Genious. It strikes me that the word Genious in English seems very close to Genie.Could there be a link between the Arabic term and the English term of the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayboday (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)