Life Being a Genius - Is it a Choice?

[Roflkopt3r]

Roflkopt3r
In fact Tesla was so outstanding genius that he did such incredible things in the begining of the 20th century, but our scientists can't copy or explain how it worked even with our today's science.
I think in our languages the word genius is just ment to be different. We normally think that genius is someone that is so outstanding that is born with a talent that can't be rivaled and especially he doesn't need to train much, study much, cause he does and learns everything without any problem.
I can give an example. Some people can easily learn 4, 5 or more languages and in the same time be great in their primare profesion, but on the other hand there are plenty of people who can't master even one foreign language or even can't master their own language. For someone it may look like a joke, but in fact such things happen in real life.

In fact your last paragraph was clearly about the word genius. In Russia we have a proverb like: "If you are a genius in one field you are a genius in everything".
I don't know if it sounds good in English, but it's rather straight translation from my language as I wanted to explain what we mean when we say genius. Genius doesn't need to work har, cause he is a genius. It's like Sharingan in Naruto. If you are a genius you are hax.
On the other hand a person can be dumb and then reach some good level after a hard studing. He isn't a genius. He is a hard worker.

Ah, ok.
Well, about pioneers like Tesla I'ld say that they have different methods of solving solutions than everyone else has, and thus recieve different results, by not getting stuck at the same barriers everyone else does. And often by having a more imaginative mind.
Yet, that's also a result of experience. The personal way of thinking always depends on personal education and background imo. So he was just "lucky" to have made the right experiences - although intelligence obviously helps processing them into something useful.
So, in the end somebody beeing a genius "just like that" is because that person had luck with having a "right lifestyle" which resulted in building up a good processing mind I think.

@Freid/Steelwingcrash: Imo genetics are severely overrated if it's not for extreme cases like down syndrome and other diseases. A healthy child can be influenced so greatly by environments, education and coincidence that there is such a big range of possible outcomes regardless of prepositions.
A complex network like our brain certainly can be greatly influenced by just a few key points which shape perception and reasoning, all depending on personal experiences.

Yet, at least adults can choose what to learn. By learning a lot, and the right things, they can exceed most other people and come close to the definition of "genius" due to own work.
After all "genius" is defined as a person with "outstanding constructive intellectuality", that does not need to be based on talent alone.

 

[Freid]

lol did you even read my conclusion? I said that an individual can indeed improve their intelligence, given the right conditions, which include education, learning, coincidences and food (the things you mentioned), and added that intelligence is mostly responsible for merely an individual's potential; the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience. But it would remain that environmental factors are critical in determining the extent of its expression like you said. What is the problem there?

However, I don't think we should be dismissive of the inheritance factor. I would add that studies have been done on families, identical twins, adopted children etc and the conclusions suggest that inheritance is not an insignificant factor in intelligence.

Of course if somebody takes it upon themselves to study and gain more knowledge, then they would achieve just that. Hardly anybody is born absolutely and completely incompetent. But somebody born with better inheritance genes would find it easier to grasps certain concepts than his friend was not born so lucky. However, it does not mean that the latter is therefore unable to ever equal or surpass his friend in intelligence. He would just need to study harder.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Ok, I didn't put it right here... Let's say if you rate genes like 15%, I'ld seperate that.
"Statistically" for a large group of subjects it might be right even. But for the individual, it's probably less of an effect, like 2%. One or two coincidences, sudden conclusions the brain gets from seemingly random events, could already overcome the dispositions.
By the way I don't have a good grasp about studies in this area, sadly. If you have any links I'ld like to see them to have some sources for my own and perhaps revise my opinion.

I specifically wonder what differences the genes can make. Is it only about the cell densitity in the beginning which might be specified by genes partially (as well as dozens of environmental factors of course)? Could genetics influence the creation of new cell connections, or is that universal for human genome?

I reckon that also the character of a person can severely influence the developement of intelligence. For example, a significant percentage of babies is overly scared, and in almost all cases grow up to be rather easily anxious people. However, there are a lot of things coming along with such a trait. Closer observation of environments, often a stronger focus on senses to be aware of dangers.
This could easily effect a person's amount of experience, data and observations and perhaps influence intelligence this way.

 

[Mama Satsuki]

I think it depends...

Sure, with hard work anyone can achieve anything. So it's just up to you to decide if you will sit down to study until you can be called a genius. Or to start running until you are a pro.

But, as long as personality goes, it's not a choice. It's not like you can choose to be a shy person, right? As well, it's not like you can choose to be someone who likes to study, music or sports. And disliking it is the first reason to not doing it.

I used to be top of my class (and of my grade) back when I was from 6 to 14 years old. But when High School came and none of the teachers I liked were with me, I kind of said "Screw all this". Not to the point of being called stupid, but I was considerably below what I used to be, academic wise.

So, sure, given the circumstances, everyone could shine. I know that most kids that go badly at school only do so because there's something better to do than studying (like playing with friends, getting better at sports)

A change of scenery, or of study methods probably would help people who want better grades. So, it's not genetic per se (althougth I'm pretty sure genetics help), but it's not just "Okay, today I will learn violin... maybe I can do that before bed-time".

 

[shaheer]

I dont think shining and being a genius is the same thing
You dont have to shine in the class to be a genius
I mean the conventional geniuses like newton and Einstein didnt shine in the class
Bill gates is a genius businessman but he is a drop out

 

[saladesu]

I agree with shaheer, being a genius doesn't equate to being good in school. Being smart would certainly help, especially with logical subjects like Math, but if a "genius" was asked a history question, he might not be able to answer if he hadn't actually read it or studied it.

I think being a genius is only partially a choice. Rather, there are many factors to it. As mentioned before, genetics, personality and upbringing play a big role in this. If one is constantly trained to think out of the box and not be confined by one, then surely that person would be able to come up with really brilliant, unconventional and ground-breaking ideas. And then he would be called a genius.

 

[Ochiru]

Well it definitely has many factors in it because well since being a genius first of all of course there are people who learn everything very fast and are basically natural talents but then again even geniuses needed to train hard and pay attention to things because thats one thing Ive learned that everything needs practice but some just need and some need less besides of course there are those who dont need anything at all in certain subject but when you think about it every person has those kinds of things in them and every person has their own weaknesses so all I can say that for example me I dont need really to train hard or try my best to become better in martial arts or anything that is relative to sports but when it comes to school such as Biology and Geography Im such a big sore loser yet I manage because I study as hard as I can besides as long as you set up your goals to some certain subject and work as hard as you can and never give up I think you should be granted your wish.So yeah thats my point of view about being genious.Some people just have natural gift at some things but even they have their own weaknesses.

 

[Nii]

you just can't choose being a genius, you're already born with your intellect and specific talents. You can improve a lot through training but it's impossible to become a genius just through learning or something else

 

[Asahina]

Before I created this thread, I was already reasoning in a sense that being a genius is totally dependent upon a person's certain creativity. (Example: You are a genius at understanding what I am writing.)

But then I became confused at the time I created this thread, and I was thinking in terms of "Increasing Your I.Q. - Is it a choice?" Just in case you didn't know, I.Q. means 'Intelligence Quotient.'

But is genius based on I.Q.? No! Why? Because there are multiple types of intelligences. As opposed to Intelligence Quotient. Imagination Quotient would then be much more accurate. Regardless of which type of intelligence you are strongest in, your imagination would have to soar for you to be a genius in that specific intelligence. Could we be a genius? Probably, but with which intelligence? And I think that is the real question for each individual to find out.

I started this thread without giving my official opinion. So here it is: To me becoming a genius is both a choice, that is within everyone’s reach, and a difficult journey that one has to necessarily undertake (a quest that challenges you to self-actualize).

It is like choosing to take the red pill or blue pill. The red pill will show you the truth and give you unimaginable power. The blue pill will just keep you as you are - no change, no improvement.

Honestly, the real reason I decided to post here was because I remembered a movie I watched 2 months ago.
The movie was called, "Limitless." It's about a guy who uses a top-secret drug pill, called NZT-48, and it lets you access 100% of your brain on an intellectual bases.

Is being a genius only acceptable though natural occurrences? If I were to use a pill that made me intellectually aware of using my mind more efficiently BEYOND the best of my abilities and doing things no one else could hope to accomplish, can I also consider myself a genius? But then if you say "yes" to the question wouldn't that mean that being a genius is an actual choice? It is a choice to take a pill that allows you to enter the genius life.

So, if we look at it in this point of view, in the near future, when scientists finally understands the concept of "brain enhancing intelligence," humans would be able to choose to stay either average, or genius. But if we all become genius, then what would be classified as better than a genius? I guess it would be how much you are able to accomplish due to how young you are. So I think age will play a huge role in how one is classified a genius. Or is prodigy an understanding term?

This topic I created is too vague. I never knew it would be taken seriously as it is now. I'm glad.

 

[faintsmile1992]

The greatest component in IQ is hereditary, and that's why there are illiterate people like Charles Manson with a genius level IQ, and people with lower IQ who socially outperform people with a higher IQ because of their social connections.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Albert Einstein:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

Some lawyer, paraphrasingly:

"Genius is 99% HARD WORD and 1% Genetics"

------------------------

"Stupid" people can become "Smart"

"Smart" people can very very stupid!

However, Savants are very real, as the brain can indeed be very specialized unlike "normal peoples' normal brains".

Some Genius is creativity, and much creativity is often induced and/or enhanced by drugs (mind latering drugs, hallucinagins - can't spell, argh)

and then there's science: Hot showers/baths/steamrooms and sleep.

---------------------

lastly, it depends what type of Genius do you mean: math, art, language, politics/salesman/cult leader/motivational speaker, science, athletics, combat, writing, singing, music, memorization, and everything else I'm forgetting or left out.

 

[faintsmile1992]

Define 'genius' apart from having a higher IQ, which is hereditary. I have a high IQ (165 measured at age 14) and I haven't achieved much in five years since then, but I'm still as smart.

Furthermore high IQ people don't always create the best solutions as they tend to overrule gut instincts which evolved for a reason. Instead they tend to create webs of logic that can be disastrous if they're applied to the real world, if they even have anything to do with the real world. Unless a high IQ is channeled correctly into useful projects, it can be damaging for society (ie the 'clever sillies' phenomenon). In politics, its actually the lower IQ people whose morality, political views and lifestyles tend to make the most Darwinian sense.

This relates to the distinction that Nietzsche recognised between the 'gut instinct' drive of the Dionysian and the decadent abstractions of the Apollonian. For Nietzsche it was never rationality that was harmful, the damage inflicted by the Enlightenment was that people were overruling instincts with reason (ie the blank slate ideal of human nature, for example), instead of using reason to further their instincts.

---------- Post added at 08:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

However, Savants are very real, as the brain can indeed be very specialized unlike "normal peoples' normal brains".

You're talking about 'omnisavantic' autistic and psychopathic people HK?

 

[HegemonKhan]

I think so, but I'm not that "well read" on psychology stuff. I just watch the educational shows where they talk about "Savants" or "Autism", born or from an injure, who can do amazing things, like photographic or "enclyclopedic" memory or create masterpieces of art, and such other like stuff.

 

[Nemispelled]

I'm in agreement with those who say that being a genius is not a choice.

While I do agree that "intelligence" can be somewhat controlled, such as using common sense, I think there is still a general level that defines a person's capability to quickly process new or foreign information.

It's really hard for me to believe that everybody is born with the exact same type of memory and thought process.

In my personal opinion, the term "genius" correlates to how fast they can grasp different concepts and how well they can retain new information.



Intelligence is not to be confused with Knowledge.

Yeah, obviously if somebody reads more history textbooks than another, he/she will have a better understanding of the subject. Same with scientific journals or any other type of literature.

Skills such as computer programming, mathematics, or hacking are the result of training and practice.



With that said, intelligence can influence knowledge/skill, simply because the more of a genius you are, the quicker you will understand and improve your ability to complete the task.

However, it doesn't work backwards because your expertise doesn't change the capacity of your brain; rather, it tests the memory and skills that you already have.