Do you think that you are a genius?

College Confidential Community
61

<p>

</p>

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

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

62

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

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

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

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

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

63

<p>[An</a> example of genius.](<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=UTby_e4-Rhg]An”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=UTby_e4-Rhg)</p>

64

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

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

65

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

66

<p>

</p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

67

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

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

68

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

69

<p>

</p>

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

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

70

<p>

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

71

<p>

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

72

<p>

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

<p>

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

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

<p>

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

<p>

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

<p>

I’d guess you are 99th+ percentile.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

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

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

74

<p>No. Shhhhh.</p>

75

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

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

<p>Now that we’ve got that straightened out…</p>

<p>

</p>

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

<p><a href=“http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e8-usamo/e8-1-usamoarchive/2007-ua/2007usamoqual.shtml[/url]”>http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e8-usamo/e8-1-usamoarchive/2007-ua/2007usamoqual.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

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

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

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

<p>

</p>

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

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

<p>

</p>

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

76

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

77

<p>

</p>

<p>

/<em>comment</em>/</p>

78

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

<p>Gratefully,
BenFranklin33</p>

79

<p>CT,</p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80

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