Philosophy. - Writers Forum

Harlequin · 04-20-2005, 03:34 PM

If you disagree with me, please explain why. If you have your own philosophic thoughts, tell them. If you think I'm full of crap, I don't care.

Genius is simply the ability to go beyond expectations.

There is truth in all things, even if it's a pack of lies.

petrel} · 04-20-2005, 03:49 PM

Expectation is really a manifestation of strong Hope so if Genius goes beyond Hope is it hopeless or hopeful?

Harlequin · 04-20-2005, 04:18 PM

I never really thought of expectation as being hope because many people have low expectations of others, but if what you say is true, genius is a surprise because when you have hope in a person, and that person goes beyond that, they have surprised you.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor · 04-20-2005, 06:39 PM

Philosophy isn't about summarizing an entire concept in a sentence or two. You can't completely claim that genius is the ability to go beyond expectations. What about child prodigies? We immediately expect great things from them. When they are older, most consider them geniuses.

Since genius is a subjective term, it can be looked at form multiple angles. In terms of IQ tests, I believe an IQ of 132 or 136 makes you a genius - I think that's a foolish way of determining genius.

Genius is beyond intelligence and wisdom. It is an incorporation of powerful feeling, wisdom, intelligence, and ability beyond the norm. In terms of a social definition of genius, you might say a person much more talented than average is genius. To me, calling someone a genius, in the truest sense, is huge. A genius is a Titan in a world of insects.

Kane · 04-20-2005, 06:46 PM

Unfortunetaly an IQ of 132 makes you gifted, not a genius. =(

IQ of 140 is genius.

I've tested at 132 and 138, though I'm hoping after college I'll pass 140.

As for philosophy, it is latin for 'lover of wisdom'. If you want to be a philosopher just think. Question the world around you. Ponder the mysteries of life, death and beyond, etc.

We live in a humanistic society today, so I think most people have the potential to be philosophers.

Hodge · 04-20-2005, 07:09 PM

It depends what IQ scale you're using, Kane. Some scales do list an IQ of 135 as genius level, while some have it at 150 or 160. This is one of the reasons IQ is no longer viewed as a reliable measure of a person's intelligence; it's too subjective and "genius" level abilities have been observed in people all across the scale.

Kane · 04-20-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

It depends what IQ scale you're using, Kane. Some scales do list an IQ of 135 as genius level, while some have it at 150 or 160. This is one of the reasons IQ is no longer viewed as a reliable measure of a person's intelligence; it's too subjective and "genius" level abilities have been observed in people all across the scale.

ok... I've taken two different tests with the same rank scale. didn't know there were others with different ones. Though I would imagine if the scale is different between different tests then the criteria would be adjusted accordingly. Although, the first IQ test I took assigned to me an IQ, whereas the second test I took gave me a General Intelligence Quotient number as well as breaking down into 13 seperate categories and scoring each. If IQ tests are no longer viewed as reliable I would enjoy information that regards them as such if you have available the means to show me.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor · 04-20-2005, 07:42 PM

In terms of determining whether person A is smarter than person B, IQ tests are not very reliable unless an undeniable IQ difference is present. IQ tests are generally only good for determing the intelligence of groups. Furthermore, IQ is a highly debated issue. The origins of intelligence are always being debated.

Kane · 04-20-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

In terms of determining whether person A is smarter than person B, IQ tests are not very reliable unless an undeniable IQ difference is present. IQ tests are generally only good for determing the intelligence of groups. Furthermore, IQ is a highly debated issue. The origins of intelligence are always being debated.

Ahhh, so an IQ test can only prove that one person is smarter than another if his IQ is undeniably higher than the others. I've done some reading up since Hodge posted and have found that although there is some debate over the issue of reliability with regards to IQ, it is not significant. It would appear that there is no legitimate attack against IQ that carries any weight. From what I've seen, most of the people who criticize the reliability of IQ tests are those who are advocates of the mediocre. Everyone is good at something, we're all special in our own way, and such. Some people are genuinely smarter than others, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If there are varying degrees to intelligence, then it stands to reason that there is a way to measure it, just as we're able to measure nearly everything else in existance. That IQ tests are used by the government in order to determine the culpability of overly stupid people in death penalty cases is evidence that even the very best of our scientific authorities find IQ tests to be reliable.

Hodge · 04-20-2005, 08:15 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopi...gence/iq.shtml

Quote:

Is IQ a good measure of intelligence?
Whether IQ tests actually test general intelligence, or g, is debatable. Many see IQ tests as an assessment of an individual’s problem solving ability rather than general intelligence. However, they are not even a comprehensive test of someone's problem solving ability. Although they may assess analytical and verbal aptitude well, they aren't an accurate test of creativity, practical knowledge, and other skills involved in problem solving. So how can IQ tests be seen as a measure of intelligence? Some argue that they just show how good the individual is at IQ tests!

They do measure certain abilities a person has (some of them important), but they don't measure the entire intelligence of a person. I have an uncanny ability to get into other people's heads (according to Jung's personality profiles, I'm often able to understand a person better than they are themselves), but no IQ test in the world is going to be able to measure that. Nor can it measure my creativity, wisdom, or judgement.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor · 04-20-2005, 08:39 PM

I'm not defending the mediocre - I'm quite confident my IQ is high so it isn't personal. However, IQ tests are not precise enough and shouldn't be used for certain things. For example, determining who gets a job. The government is using IQ evidence in cases involving the death penalty. The death penalty's existence attests to the fact that the government isn't a reliable scientific authority.

IQ shouldn't be used to create a database and value each person on their intelligence. Furthermore, IQ tests are not yet precise enough - there are too many variables to analyze when dealing with intelligence. The human brain is extremely complex. We can't just go waltzing into a new technological, intellectual elitist society and base it on unsubstantiated information and unclear data.

You present the idea that the intelligent people are simply fortunate to have that single beneficial variable, intelligence. However, this is not completely true. Research (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm ) is showing that IQ correlates with many if not all beneficial traits – the traits valued by humanity.

Research in intelligence can lead to a better society, but IQ tests are not brain scans. We aren’t looking and seeing that person A has an excess of glial cells as in the case of Einstein. We are given a person a test assessing their ability to apply learned information. The person with experience in Physics will do better than the person without experience in that area – will Physics questions be on the IQ test? Probably. Even things such as the multiplication tables can affect timed IQ tests. Practice of even the most basic, fundamental concepts can result in higher IQ scores. Taking more IQ tests can raise your IQ score. The average person doesn’t always have the fundamental skills to do an IQ test. A literary scholar may do a question involving the alphabet. He will know immediately that “w” comes before “x”. How does he know this? Experience with a dictionary. Most people count the alphabet in their head to attempt such questions – I do it myself occasionally. All fundamental skills, like in sports, require extensive practice to yield the best results. IQ tests are far too arbitrary to be fully integrated into society. You may notice when researching IQ that most sites don’t support IQ results as a simple, justified basis for presumed intellectual superiority. IQ researchers claim that, by analyzing samples and populations, they can research intelligence and create benefits for all of humanity.

People are far too often going to an IQ test for their 130+ IQ result and twenty dollar intelligence evaluation. We cannot start grading people based on subjective numbers rooted in such complexity that they will never receive proper, absolute substantiation.

dannyboy · 04-20-2005, 11:15 PM

IQ tests like all other tests can be studied for - but genius, genius is something beyond that. To study for soemthing means it already exists but genius invents that which is not yet in existence (or perceives that which is but has yet to be seen).

Lusastrium · 04-21-2005, 12:50 AM

It is near impossible to be original. This can be proved by evolution which can be related to life, where there are really no radically new animals, just modifications that led to animals that looked different. There can only be characters and character's actions that make a story worthy of remembering. That's why I'm always depressed and have to take happy pills!!!

Kane · 04-21-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lusastrium

It is near impossible to be original. This can be proved by evolution which can be related to life, where there are really no radically new animals, just modifications that led to animals that looked different. There can only be characters and character's actions that make a story worthy of remembering. That's why I'm always depressed and have to take happy pills!!!

How can evolution be the proving factor in anything, when evolution itself has not been proven?

Anarkos · 04-21-2005, 12:59 AM

Dooga - Citing Children of Millenium? The fuck? You do know that Mark, who I believe made that site is an advocate of eugenics based largely on g as measured by IQ, right?
Kane - Micro-evolution has been observed. Marco-evolution is well supported. Nice soundbite. Pity it is not true.