<p>
I did not.</p>
<p>That’s a purely arbitrary exclusion, Mr. Payne, and not justifiable on any rational basis. (The fact that music and art aren’t part of IQ tests doesn’t count as a rational basis, unless you consider a priori reasoning to be rational.) In fact, I think “genius” is a more appropriate word to use for music and art than for most other fields.</p>
<p>To me, genius is something inherent (though of course the painter/musician/inventor has to put EFFORT into it to realize his genius.) Genius means more than “being successful” or even “above average.” There’s that extra little spark.</p>
<p>"I don’t use the word genius in relation to music or art. "
Michelangelo?? Leonardo da Vinci? Picasso?? Chopin??van Gogh?? Beethoven?? Raphael?
So, none of the above are considered to be geniuses?
You must have had a very culturally deprived childhood. Too bad.</p>
<p>Most geniuses (and I say they can be in ANY field) discover early on that they are good at something, that it comes relatively easy to them, and they enjoy doing it. Then comes the 10,000 hours of practice part. </p>
<p>With hard work, and a bit of luck, they’ll reach Carnegie Hall or the equivalent.</p>
<p>I disagree that talent is overrated, however.</p>
<p>The authors must have never tried to play the violin. Without innate talent, you’ll never be more than a hack.</p>
<p>And in art, with the advent of non-representational painting it’s a little more difficult to tell if someone’s any good (my lay opinion.) But without talent, no one could paint like Rembrandt, no matter how many hours they put in.</p>
<p>Talent gives you the initial skill that takes normal people years to develop, as well as putting you over the edge and above the masses.</p>
<p>My D1 was tested for very high IQ, but not a genius. As a math major she studies her butt off, and usually pull off A- to B+ range at her school. There is one boy in her class, who doesn’t come to class and only go over the material a few hours before each prelim, could usually get A+ on those tests. I think this boy is a genius when it comes to math. No matter how hard my D works, she could never do better than someone like that. I think there are people that are naturally gifted in some areas. It’s almost like God just shifted their brain to that one particular area.</p>
<p>As a parent, I would prefer not to have a child who is a genius. It’s a difficult life.</p>
<p>If you ask my sister, all her grandsons are geniuses! (Aged 5,4,3,2!)</p>
<p>Maybe we would find it useful to separate technical mastery from aptitude.</p>
<p>I can learn the techniques of Baroque painting. I can learn the techniques of cello playing. But that won’t change the fact that I cannot paint like Rembrandt or Vel</p>
<p>It’s a variation on the nature/nurture controversy.</p>
<p>People can practice 10,000 hours, and without native ability in whatever area they are practicing (be it a sport, music, or academic area), they will be never achieve as much as a practicer with innate ability. Many people are only mediocre in certain areas. It doesn’t matter how much they practice; they cannot overcome the lack of innate talent or ability. </p>
<p>What takes someone with talent from good to great is practice. But without the innate talent, all the practice in the world isn’t going to change the overall outcome. And, for those with greater innate talent, significantly less practice is going to still yield far greater results than thousands of hours of practice for the person without the innate talent going in.</p>
<p>I would agree that genius is influenced by many factors and is both nature and nurture. (And perhaps also a little luck - being in the right place at the right time so that others can recognize their genius abilities). I would also emphasize the importance of the “spark” that sets geniuses apart from other very talented, smart, gifted, accomplished individuals. I see this “spark” as a form of “creative intelligence” that allows individuals to break new ground and use their abilities in unique or creative ways, to create new ideas, inventions, works of art – in a sense, to raise the bar for everyone else, not only with respect to the level of skill involved in a particular field or endeavor, but also by challenging the very way we think about that field or endeavor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just wanted to add: I wonder if the presence of an intuitive personality type is possibly the most important factor that characterizes genius? Statistically, we know the intuitive personality type is less common in the general population, but from an evolutionary viewpoint, it would make sense that true genius would be very rare, since evolution is generally very gradual change, and a sensory personality type - being able to react to one’s environment in predictable ways - would be more crucial for survival on a day-to-day basis, and has even been built into our involuntary sensory system. It is only when there is sudden, cataclysmic environmental change that the intuitive personality type would become more important for survival, in order to come up with more innovative or new ways to respond to one’s environment. Obviously, not all individuals with intuitive personality types are geniuses, but I wonder how frequently we would see this trait in individuals we have considered to be “geniuses” in the past? (recognizing of course that personality type and genius are both very subjectively defined)</p>
<p>IQ is a general measure of intelligence. Genius is a particularly insightful ability or capability. Thus, you can be a Genius is math, physics, music, etc, and have average intelligence otherwise. In such an instance, you could have an average IQ.</p>
<p>Genius is a particular ability to work a certain type problem. The ability to do it in an unconventional way is what leads to insightful discoveries. Einstein had the ability to look at physics in a totally different way, and also to do the math to solve those word puzzles.</p>
<p>Music players are typically prodigies - people who can play at a very high level, very quickly. The geniuses are the ones who have a unique ability to be expressive, combined with a great ability to play. The ability to be expressive is something that is difficult to teach, if it can be taught at all. Music composers are similar.</p>
<p>I would have said that what separates the genius from the merely accomplished is practice, practice, practice, but that would apply to the merely accomplished. Practice may make someone technically flawless. But it takes more than excellent technique to achieve brilliance. Ask Salieri; ask Sussmayr. When you listen to Mozart’s Requiem, you know right away who composed what. Sussmayr’s contribution lacks the spark of genius that Mozart’s composing has.<br>
This is not to say that one can achieve greatness without practice. But hard work will take you only so far–even if that can be quite far indeed.</p>
<p>^ You should know…You have a genius in one of your son.</p>
<p>and I agree with your assessment. I think geniuses (in any given field) have something that can’t be defined or measured - I think it is called ‘It’</p>
<p>I remember my DS commenting that he met real geniuses at college, people who understand in a higher stratosphere. Note: I am only referring to math, scientific insight, not artistic.</p>
<p>Chris Everett and sisters practiced same, same coach, but only Chris had that extra oomph.</p>
<p>Thanks, Simba. He was a bit of a child prodigy; not genius, alas. Maybe my standards are higher?:)</p>
<p>“alas”</p>
<p>come on lady…what more do you want? :)</p>
<p>True genius is focused instinctive intelligence, e.g., a young bird that though genetics knows where, when and how to build a nest. Accomplishment without genius, is earned intelligence. Within their focused talent, most geniuses can not learn beyond their genetically arrived intelligence.</p>
<p>Genius = my kid
Merely accomplished = your kid</p>