Before that it can be a rough slog until your teenage years. But then you'll gravitate to others like yourself and consume similar books and art. After that it will help guide your choice of major in college and your choice of spouse.
Then you'll be happily married and raise your kids using the most current parenting research.
And all of that involves opening up your heart at the right moments. Geniuses think they can analytically solve every problem but that will backfire. You can't solve ...And Justice for All or Pink Floyd. You can't solve your wife or kids. You can't solve your parents or siblings. You can't solve your friends. You can't solve yourself.
The true genius recognizes that heart is as important as brain. You have to drop the analysis and really feel shit. That's when you can experience love and inspiration.
>>8198137 I love watching ants, they're so goddamn fucking neat. Fuck. Hundreds of tiny little machines doing various tasks.
The other day I was watching this one ant crawling around on some interlocking blades of grass. It would travel their lengths, investigate the ends, turn around, go back. That was it. It was just tracing the edges and wasn't really even keeping much of a map in its nervous system, as it frequently investigated the same route multiple times. Either that or I've misinterpreted what it was trying to do.
>>8198000 Can't complain generally. Every once in a while it gets a little lonely wanting to go balls drop into some esoteric subject that I've been reading up on but the internet can mostly cure that. Sometimes boring too. People don't drink to realize how often they repeat the same things.
Early teens were hell because I played sports, but that kind of made me an outsider to everyone...learned some important lessons about when to shut up and listen (as much of the time as you can) and when to assert myself.
Honestly, the biggest benefit for me is just time. I learn things fast and can do quite a lot of tasks quickly, very quickly. In my late 20s I find a good place for me worth making money against just enjoying myself, so yeah, pretty good. Altogether, I'd say I'd choose it again.
For those out there struggling to find your way, learn to enjoy the process. Learn to not get annoyed, to be patient. Learn to listen. Learn that just because someone might be wrong, it's not your job to correct them. Keep poking and prodding at subjects, you'll find something that makes it worthwhile: And most importantly, never, ever let anyone out work you at something that matters. High innate intelligence is like steroids. You don't get big just taking pills, you still have to go lift the weights. Sharpen your mind and fill it with more useful stuff than trivial stuff. Be kind, but don't be a doormat. Respect others and yourself.
My way don't get you a Nobel prize, but you'll be happy.
>>8198137 Channers are headed to 3 places. The first is animosity towards fellow beings and their destruction which is awful. The second it towards stagnation, which is apparent on most boards. The third is towards integrative change which involves embracing being a channer and a human being.
You want to enshrine agency. That's fine. You know who had agency? Victor Frankl who stayed back in concentration camps to help his fellow man when he had the chance to escape. One could argue that the ones who would escape lacked agency.
Agency is taking a bullet for your loved ones. Agency is dying for what matters. Agency is subsuming yourself for something more important. If not, then bacteria have agency. And I'm not interested in being a parasite.
>>8198182 >One could argue that the ones who would escape lacked agency. They could but it would be a dumb argument full of faulty embedded assumptions about the nature of agency and human value judgements.
It implies the path of least resistance is equivalent to slavery to base instinct, and therefore implies a lack of agency, then does that gaudy shit where you put heroics and apparent selflessness on a pedestal.
>Agency is taking a bullet for your loved ones. Agency is dying for what matters. Agency is subsuming yourself for something more important. Taking a bullet for another person is lack of self value and not wanting to be alive to begin with. Dying for "what matters" is the same. It means you're tired of being alive, and see this "meaningful death" as an out.
Bacteria are machines. Humans are machines. Agency is the appearance of a capacity to self evaluate and make greater choices in accordance with one's true sense of value.
>>8198197 >They could but it would be a dumb argument full of faulty embedded assumptions about the nature of agency and human value judgements.
How about you choose for yourself and let others choose for themselves?
You want everybody to be selfish but you're here sharing information on a public board for free. Maybe you're not so selfish after all.
>It implies the path of least resistance is equivalent to slavery to base instinct, and therefore implies a lack of agency, then does that gaudy shit where you put heroics and apparent selflessness on a pedestal.
Humans are social creatures. Evolution proves that. A lone human is a dead human, historically speaking. You don't think we have selflessness in our genes? You think selflessness got us to the top of the food chain?
When someone on the street asks you for the time or directions, do you tell him to fuck off? You might argue that you help because you don't want to deal with drama but that's untrue. Evolutionary theory shows that we are an extremely cooperative species. We are slow, weak animals. Working together based on social bonds got us this far.
>Taking a bullet for another person is lack of self value and not wanting to be alive to begin with.
Are you high, nucca? If you wouldn't take a bullet for your offspring, you're not just a coward, you're evolutionary unfit to keep going on. I'd take the time to explain it but I shouldn't have to since we're on /sci/.
>Bacteria are machines. Humans are machines. Agency is the appearance of a capacity to self evaluate and make greater choices in accordance with one's true sense of value.
You must be on some serious shit. You know where your "true sense of value" comes from? It comes from language. Which comes from your parents and your community. Animals have no "true sense of value" because they lack language. Your entire "true sense of value" is owed to your community. You didn't invent it. You would have been a feral monkey if your parents didn't raise you
>>8198231 >How about you choose for yourself and let others choose for themselves? I just did. How? Because I can do nothing else, nor can you.
>You want everybody to be selfish I want people to realize that they -are- selfish. Even if you actively screw yourself over, you're still getting something out of it. Human experience is multifaceted, you don't have only non-conflicting desires at a time.
>sharing information on a public board for free. I'm--
Alright, I just skimmed the rest of what you said, and I'm not going to continue. You're really injecting a lot of shit into this that I never even vaguely implied.
People expend energy for many reasons, with many goals. Ideally it's to realize the ideal version of a world, and personal existence, that they want to see. Or create conditions that are seen as valuable for other reasons. It's a complex framework and is not worth talking about, your definition of "selfish" is completely useless and overapplied.
>If you wouldn't take a bullet for your offspring You said "loved ones", not offspring. Stop changing the subject and acting like you're being more specific than you really are.
>You know where your "true sense of value" comes from? It comes from language. Logic and language are intertwined, and might well be two sides of the same coin, but that has severe limits to be placed on it. You also don't know shit about other organisms. For all you know, no one else even has emotions, except for yourself.
Fuck off. This rapidly expanding tangential conversation you've created here isn't one I feel like dealing with.
>>8198247 >Fuck off. This rapidly expanding tangential conversation you've created here isn't one I feel like dealing with. Dammit, now I feel bad. You sound like some ~18 year old that's just trying to get it figured out, even though he thinks it's all quite clear.
Keep thinking. When you're in your 20's it rapidly begins to become clearer. I'm not sure why that's the threshold, but it is.
>>8198239 It takes serious balls to hang back and help out your comrades when you could just run away. John McCain refused an early release from POW camp when you or I would have shat the bed, sucked cock, and taken any deal.
You know where those balls come from? It comes from bonding with others. You see how animals huddle together, are constantly touching each other, and sleep in close contact? We used to be like that. Now we have our 'personal space' and a myriad disorders to go along with it.
>>8198257 >okay, now I know for sure that you're an indoctrinated sheep.
Sheep don't die on their feet. I hope you find something to believe in that's bigger than yourself because you, and I, are going to eventually die. But I had awesome parents so what do I know...
>>8198277 >You know where those balls come from? It comes from bonding with others. This isn't true. Beyond my parents to an extent, I've never meaningfully bonded, much less interacted, with another human being in my entire life. The small periods of time I wasn't physically alone, I felt like an outsider that was just alone with others. Now I'm just alone. Yet even I can go out of my way greatly for other people, despite never connecting nor even caring about my own survival.
It seems you didn't understand a word I said above. People's sense of value is complex, and this drives their actions and what roles they're willing to be in. There is no inherent connection between social bonding and "having balls to do x, for y."
I've also walked 45 miles through subzero temperatures, with inadequate clothing, having not slept for 3 days, no water, and no food. I survived, and I had nothing waiting for me. You need to rethink you model of what drives human behavior. You've probably been raised on feel good delusions, power of love, or whatever else, I'm not really sure what your deal is. But you understand one possible facet of humans, time to expand.
>>8198305 >Yet even I can go out of my way greatly for other people, despite never connecting nor even caring about my own survival.
Well, you're not a psychopath. That's for sure. Your bond with your parents doesn't need to be conscious. The early years before you form memories are crucial for social adaptability.
>It seems you didn't understand a word I said above. People's sense of value is complex, and this drives their actions and what roles they're willing to be in. There is no inherent connection between social bonding and "having balls to do x, for y."
I agree that sense of value is complex but social bonding or relevance is huge. You can derive social relevance from construing how your behavior will help others, but it's still social.
>I've also walked 45 miles through subzero temperatures, with inadequate clothing, having not slept for 3 days, no water, and no food. I survived, and I had nothing waiting for me. You need to rethink you model of what drives human behavior. You've probably been raised on feel good delusions, power of love, or whatever else, I'm not really sure what your deal is. But you understand one possible facet of humans, time to expand.
I agree that I need to expand. You may be an anomaly. But you survived past your infant years solely due to the efforts of other humans. You required daily care, feeding, changing of shitty diapers, and holding. We know what lack of parental warmth does to monkeys (see Harry Harlow's experiments) and it's probably similar in humans.
You sound like a tough cat. I try to go with established psychological research (including stuff that may not be politically correct) for my theories. Humans can struggle through tough encounters, as you did. So I have to ask, What kept you going through those 45 miles?
>>8198331 >The early years before you form memories are crucial for social adaptability. I'm not certain about social adaptability, but would say that early childhood is important for most aspects of intellectual development, and disposition. As is breastfeeding. My mother quit work and started a daycare to stay home with me. A lack of economic means for maternity leave of at least 5 years, as a society, is a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned.
Although it fell apart and my parents split at 5. They tried. Eventually I would see my parents showed me much of what it is to be a good parent.
>You can derive social relevance from construing how your behavior will help others, but it's still social. I have a bit more or a base way of looking at it. I view it no differently than watering your flowers because you want them to survive and continue blooming, because you value their appearance. On a grander scale interacting with people in a certain way has the potential for far reaching implications. Whether viewed on the micro, as in you want them to feel a certain way or to have things be a certain way, and derive a sense of value and positive feelings from thinking that's the case, or the most macro, where you're actively engineering your environment to function with certain dynamics because you think it's better for everyone that way, or you like it better, whatever.
Some is strictly social, some is strictly personal, some overlap. Most is dependent on context and frame of mind.
>You may be an anomaly. I am. For better and worse.
>>8198000 Nobody knows, the idea of "genius" is mostly Time-magazine tier masturbation for insignificant adults. "Geniuses" are people who recklessly live their lives for one thing, they simply live a different life. But it's nothing innate.
>>8198375 >What kept you going through those 45 miles? This is difficult to put into words without giving a lot of context. Split mindedness was a part of it. A sort of apathy was present, as well. Although once your blood sugar has consistently dropped, your core temp is beginning to drop, and you're very tired, your manner of thinking becomes narrowed either way.
People occasionally talk about in states of hypothermia or extreme pain, hearing an "internal voice" urging them to continue. My internal voice however told me I had done enough, seen enough, and had enough. It told me to stop, and that it was okay to die. So I put down my backpack, laid down on it, and I remember looking up at the skeletal trees above, occasionally hearing people say things in my head, then drifting to a sort of half sleep. I woke up, probably not long later. Got up and kept going.
The split mindedness is having no real reason to be alive, yet continuing regardless due to some core irrational basis you don't care about but accept anyway. I suppose in part of my psyche I knew I'd survived years of health problems, chronic pain, all with practically nothing for support structures or external reasons to remain functional. Living in this sort of frame of mind showed me things, by force, other people likely don't have the means to understand or even know exist.
I suppose it just didn't seem quite right a machine that had proved it was possible to function and survive this way, would fizzle out in a ditch beside the road somewhere. My legs felt like they were broken with every step, and I just wanted to get home and eat. I acknowledged before I left that if I died that was just how it would work, but wouldn't necessarily just let it happen.
You may be the type typified in Gladwell's stories about Davids and Goliaths. A rough childhood combined with enough support so that you aren't a psychopath but you have the grit to push through tough times. There's still much we don't understand fully about different personality types and their histories but we're slowly getting there. I hope you can harness your drive into something that you like and that contributes to our knowledge base. Cheers, anon.
People tend to assume you're a moron who's perpetually confused and doesn't understand anything, because you start some number of steps beyond what they do. So you either have to wait for them to catch up to where you started, or just not try to interface.
I''m not confused, you're just acting like an overconfident moron.
>>8198000 Is this an unanswerable question? Can a genius empathize with a non-genius? If not, is sympathy enough to answer this question?
I am not a genius, but sometimes I will have a misunderstanding of something or come up with a problem that I can't find the answer to in regard to mathematics or physics and it will plague my mind for days and even prevent me from sleeping. I imagine that for some brands of genius the same thing happens to a larger degree. This phenomena (which I'm sure plenty if not all of you have experienced) cannot be good for your physical or mental health not to mention your happiness. On the other hand, I would never wish to lose the curiosity or intelligence that leads to this problem.
>>8200482 With genius you feel a lot less stress. One has more awareness of the world while at the same time having less questions to be answered. Less intelligent people have much more stress due to not being able to be aware of the macro aspect of society to go about life efficiently or just an overall self-assured manner.
The feeling of genius is calm, being more confident about decisions and one's path through life, and tend to think a lot more on macro scales. Example; off-time thinking tends to be not about myself but about society. Where society is leading, what is good for society, and so-on. The lesser intelligent one is the more micro one's thoughts are both due to incompetency to think on a macro scale and that one has more stress in being less able to resolve micro-based issues.
Source: Deemed child prodigy, and tested 156 on Stanford-Binet IQ test.
Even if you are classified as being a genius, it's hard to feel that way when you put that in perspective to the proportion of what you do know, in comparison to what you don't know, can't know, and will never know.
>>8200523 Fewer questions? Hardly. I'd say one should have even MORE questions. If not, you aren't as self aware as you think yourself to be.
>>8200527 Also misspell words here-and-there when doing stream of consciousness. Being genius does not mean an absence of mistakes and an automatic 4.0 GPA. Can assume you're a prodigy at being a jealous faggot.
>>8200529 Another way of explaining is that there are less deemed required questions to be answered. There are thoughts and overall pondering; however, the thinking is on non-emergency aspects. Such as macro-level thinking which is for the purpose of society instead of for the purpose of either egoism or a self-state of need.
>>8200541 Continued: Having more awareness does not cause a reaction of having more questions. Example with the case of infants and their developing brain. They cannot process that when an adult hides behind an object that said adult does not cease to exist. Once the infant grows and has more awareness questions are only answered and not arisen.
>>8200536 It isn't a mistake if you don't know the difference.
I bet everyone is jealous of you all the time. It also must be hard to make friends when everyone you meet has "micro thoughts." How do you hold a conversation when everything anyone else says is of no value to said conversation?
>>8200545 I still don't see how one can be that intelligent and not have more questions. The more I learn, the more I want to learn, the more I question. Granted, I am more a thinking person than a human calculator. I guess the two don't go hand-in-hand necessarily.
>>8200549 Fewer is in regards to countable objects while less pertains to say water.
For being upset for mentioning a higher intelligence you sure like to go on pseudo-genius rants. Your micro thoughts right now are probably towards projecting your issues over a message board riddled with shitposting weeaboos.
>>8200559 Learning for my person is a matter of needing to obtain new information more-over than deciphering already given information. Searching for truths is more of a worldly labor regarding effort put in than spending time understand and connecting mental dots.
>>8200569 I add value to the conversation by introducing interesting subjects the other more than likely does not know about. Going into the implication of having no personal use for socializing with some this goes back to thinking more towards macro. Socializing with deemed less-intelligent individuals is a non-egoism deal.
>>8200567 Well that's a given. Of course there is a want for new information, but to question information that is already given is still extremely important, if not just as important as finding something new. In fact, new information is often wrought out of information that we already possess. And to varying degrees, of course. 99% of new findings have roots in findings of the past.
Babbling aside, I would still like to think one would have even more questions have they any grasp of how much there is to learn. What you will learn in a lifetime is hardly a drop in the bucket in comparison to what there is to know. Even of knowledge we've already discovered, however minuscule or unimportant that information may be.
>>8200586 For understanding on subjects I figure multiple different answers and mentally attach a rough probability to each possibility. Not in an autisticly specific number but a general low/medium/high. The probabilities change as new information is given. This is opposed to common thinking where only one answer is determined by people then either given a 100% or 0% probability. Due to this accumulating more information is more important than pondering on given information looking for a 100% or 0% definition.
>>8200586 I'm with you. I'm interested in math, but the sheer number of mathematical disciplines is daunting. There is not a person alive who could learn all of them and there never will be. That's one subject.
Another question: have you never had difficulty learning something in your life. If so, didn't that bother you?
What is defined as a genius? Is it when someone else calls you a genius? Is it a test you take that gives you an abstract number that supposedly represents your intelligence? What if a person is above average in everything allowing them to function in a cross disciplinary environment easily allowing for genius-like products to be produced by them?
A person may be retarded at math but have a genius level capability to interact with other people the same way someone who is a genius at math can be retarded socially.
I'm guessing being a genius would feel different based on what you were a genius at and the varying levels of ones other attributes more then just the sole fact that they are smart. Being a genius would be hell if you understood linear algebra in grade school but were unable to empathize or talk to people well. However if you were good at empathizing and talking it might be a wonderful experience to analyze their own ideas and attempt to explain them to someone who doesn't have the natural grasp of it. More so it might never even be a problem if the genius were to compartmentalize their existence and never really reveal their powerlevels.
>>8200608 Genius is actually positively correlated with genius in all aspects of intelligence. Said high intelligence is from a ratio of brain size and how well connected (mapped) one's brain is. Not being good at socializing while being genius can be a result of inexperience, lacking confidence, or an ailment within the brain of which may be heavy metal accumulation which is common among autistic children.
Anyone can claim to be a genius. There's a definition, but it can't be quantified. If you claim it can be quantified, then I can claim that I'm different type of genius that can't be captured by your quantification method or I can claim that you just don't understand my genius. Then there's the issue of contribution vs natural talent. If you claim it's contribution, then I can just say that s/he was lucky to discover what s/he did. On the other hand I could claim to be a genius who is lazy and never applied my natural talent.
It's subjective. Nobody is a genius except the poster below. Prove me wrong.
>>8200595 Not really relevant to what I was talking about, but yes. Anyone with a relative grasp on scientific theory knows that nothing, even based in science is 100%. Science is always changing, evolving. And as our tech gets more and more advanced we discover that we don't really know much about a subject we may have thought to have a fair grasp on. And that's how it will always be. Nothing is 100%. I would say there probably EXISTS a 100% answer, but as of now that is not within our capabilities to ascertain.
>>8200598 Of course. No matter how good you get at something, you know you can be better. And when it comes to difficult subjects, that is one of the most frustrating feelings.
Granted, I wouldn't claim to be a genius. I think I am smart. But genius is a loaded word- or maybe I am too sensitive, haha. My IQ is around 152. Pretty decent I guess, but I don't put too much value into an iq number. Too many faucets of intelligence.
>>8200601 Perhaps- But our memory has it's limits. If it isn't something you are actually putting into use, we simply forget it over time. You can always relearn/retrieve something later if it becomes relevant. I'd go into more detail but I am too lazy and too tired. :P
>>8200631 >Perhaps- But our memory has it's limits. If it isn't something you are actually putting into use, we simply forget it over time. You can always relearn/retrieve something later if it becomes relevant. I'd go into more detail but I am too lazy and too tired. :P
I thought your point was referring to the knowledge of the entire human race. In terms of the individual, I definitely agree with your point.
>>8198000 Purely based off what I've read about actual geniuses like Einstein, not really any different than being a normal person just that you understand and enjoy one or two subjects better than almost everybody else. Given that it's probably compare it to a kid who is better at a sport in highschool then anybody else and breaks a bunch of records but only the people on his team really care or notice.
>>8200625 I can repeat your post replacing socializing with math or science and get the same result. Although I'm unsure where you pulled heavy metal poisoning from unless you are trying to refer to mercury in vaccines and then you are just being silly. I may not be a genius but I went to a school surrounded by geniuses and I can tell you right out that they are not great at everything, that is something completely different. If you are using a definition which implies high cognitive capability in all areas then I would be considered a genius as I am a jack of all trades and master of none. However as >>8200630 stated we can change the goalposts endlessly to the point that almost anyone could be considered a genius.
In my mind at least I am never the smartest person in the room, I may be better at some things but I will always be worse at others even if it's just how to get potatoes cooked just right or the fastest way to clean a room.
>>8200649 It's above average still, a fair number. Besides, as I said before, there are too many aspects of intelligence. I often find myself in envy of people who are more socially capable than myself, and especially of those with more motivation to succeed than I have.
I know I can push myself to have this motivation, but I've yet to muster the will for that initial shove. due to some pesky hormonal imbalances, as the hindrance of having a couple mental disorders.
>>8200661 Honestly you put it much more plainly than I did above. Haha.
>>8200663 >I can repeat your post replacing socializing with math or science and get the same result.
> Although I'm unsure where you pulled heavy metal poisoning from unless you are trying to refer to mercury in vaccines and then you are just being silly
Metals as in several particles that pass the blood-brain barrier. With the mercury one can argue that the amount of grouped vaccines may not cause autism; however, even a speck can alter the brain negatively by attaching to neurons if not any other tissue in the body. Source of relation: http://jhc.sagepub.com/content/18/11/820.short
>I may not be a genius but I went to a school surrounded by geniuses and I can tell you right out that they are not great at everything
Chances are if you are not intelligent yourself you won't recognize those who legitimately are. Example is a kid who studies 8 hours a day to have a 4.0 GPA yet scores low on IQ tests. To a normal person he may appear to be genius.
>. If you are using a definition which implies high cognitive capability in all areas...
The definition used is the physical physiology of whats creates higher intelligence. In humans the relation is increased brain size and efficient mapping (connections) within one's brain.
>I will always be worse at others even if it's just how to get potatoes cooked just right or the fastest way to clean a room
This is a manner of knowledge rather than a direct relation to intelligence.
>>8200664 >I often find myself in envy of people who are more socially capable than myself, and especially of those with more motivation to succeed than I have.
This is probably caused by genetics and environment though.
I am as you say, above average intelligence, but my shitty childhood is still haunting me every day, and I have a completely shattered sense of self.
I doubt anyone of my friends hates themselves as much as I do, and this of course leads to me actually being a worthless idiot who just plays video games all day, because I honestly believe I'll never amount to anything.
>>8200683 I knew a guy in high school who had mercury poisoning. It was really, really bad. He missed an entire year of school and it took them forever to figure out what was wrong with him. They have no idea how he got so much mercury in his system.
>>8200686 I know a few people exactly like you. Including myself to an extent. It's a deep hole to try and dig myself out of, and when I almost make it out something inevitably knocks me back to square one.
I'd say you should probably try and be a bit less critical of yourself, but that would be rather hypocritical of me. Lol.
>>8200688 There's a lot more to self-worth than intelligence, unfortunately.
>>8200683 >Even a speck can alter the brain negatively by attaching to neurons if not any other tissue in the body. While interesting and true this lacks any proof or implication that these thing are occurring in people with genius capabilities in a select few subjects yet not in other areas. I can show you several papers pointing to how drug usage can cause brain damage and several more that strongly relate intelligence with the desire to experiment with drugs neither of them can be used to show that drug usage is related to geniuses. >Chances are if you are not intelligent yourself you won't recognize those who legitimately are. I may not be a birder but I can recognize a hawk, in 7th grade I had classmates that were bused to the local college because they had finished calc 2 at the nearby high school I think that might count unless you beg to differ? Also as stated before an IQ test isn't exactly reliable when it comes to defining a genius. >The definition used is the physical physiology of whats creates higher intelligence. In humans the relation is increased brain size and efficient mapping (connections) within one's brain. This is the definition you use, the definition of genius is "a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect." >This is a manner of knowledge rather than a direct relation to intelligence. Not true, a person who is capable of processing, incorporating and acting on large amounts of seemingly unrelated data results in such things. There are genius chefs and musicians who use some form of intuitive mental construct to interrelate information to produce uniquely powerful result. Place Beethoven or Picasso in a school and try to teach them how to be the best at theoretical physics or materials chemistry and I doubt they would do well.
I believe the term you are looking for here is polymath not genius.
The self assessment of one's own mate value, made in reference to social status (prestige), dominance, access to (perceived high value) mates and ability to acquire resources, as well as the health of one's kin and social relationships.
You're upset because you feel as though you're not being a good ape, in relation to your genetically and environmentally programmed perceptions of success?
>>8200693 Ayy, I had the same. Though my mom was bipolar depressive, she'd frequently get addicted to things too. Now she's happy and healthy with another man and my dad quit drinking and is smoking weed which keeps him mellow.
I'm probably headed towards the crazy end of the spectrum as I have completely rejected alcohol and any time I think I'm getting addicted to something I immediately develop an intense aversion to said thing. That being said I throw myself into learning instead of anything else so perhaps I just transferred my addictive tendencies to science?
idk, it took a lot of work to sort through all the shit that happened. Took a lot of meditating and examining my actions and shit like that, was not fun I was really angsty for awhile.
>>8200699 Sure, if you want to put it bluntly. Pretty much anything in our lives could be boiled down to primal bullshit, but does that make it any less relevant?
If so, I would politely disagree.
>>8200705 But such people are a minority in our population, I don't see how you would be taking anyone's space, but I digress. If you spend too much time comparing yourself to those of greater capabilities in certain subjects, you won't get much done at all.
There will always be someone who is better, doesn't mean you can't be successful in turn. Again, such people are a minority in our world, there is plenty of room to make your own mark if you strive to do so.
Again, apologies if most of this comes out as repetitive.
>>8200696 >While interesting and true this lacks any proof or implication that these thing are occurring in people with genius capabilities in a select few subjects yet not in other areas. I can show you several papers pointing to how drug usage can cause brain damage and several more that strongly relate intelligence with the desire to experiment with drugs neither of them can be used to show that drug usage is related to geniuses.
The explanation is that brain damage is common and may result in some geniuses lacking intelligence in an area. This is not implying that all geniuses have damaged brains, nor, if so, having the same level of damage.
>in 7th grade I had classmates that were bused to the local college because they had finished calc 2 at the nearby high school I think that might count unless you beg to differ?
This can be done by an average person who spends too much time doing schoolwork as a child. Of course this is easier to do the higher one's intelligence is.
>This is the definition you use, the definition of genius is "a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect."
The definition you are referring to argues semantics. Describing the mechanical, physical function of a highly performing brain is better for understanding and this discussion in-general. You can recognize geniuses by a significantly large cranium of which is a necessity for a top-end intelligence. Though this does not mean everyone with a huge cranium is genius as their mapping can be shit. This misconnecting can be due to terrible education or inherent personalities which result in mental laziness.
>Not true, a person who is capable of processing, incorporating and acting on large amounts of seemingly unrelated data results in such things.
There is a saying that practice beats talent if talent never practices. The same is true here. Comparing two people with little-to-no experience the genius tends to do better, yes.
>>8200705 >>8200714 >There is a saying that practice beats talent if talent never practices. The same is true here. Comparing two people with little-to-no experience the genius tends to do better, yes.
Again, someone putting it better than I can. My ability to make a cohesive point is awful at this hour.
I also came from a physically and emotional abusive environment, have an unhealthy penchant for beer and whisky and experience symptoms of rapid cycling Bipolar I disorder (also diagnosed by two psychiatrists).
My mood 'disorder' is simply a result of my environmental programming combined with genetic predisposition (family history of mental illness everywhere you look).
The neural networks corresponding to mechanisms for inducing anxiety, depression, aggression and mania are simply extremely well developed, to the point where they fire in the presence of arbitrary and unidentifiable environmental input.
I do not experience any associated irrational thoughts, nor have any identifiable triggers as I just mentioned above.
Therefore, I am resigned to experiencing mood fluctuations which affect my ability to function in society.
These fluctuations do not typically interfere with social relationships, but prevent me from functioning in a formal and controlled environment such as the workplace or traditional educational establishments.
However, I'm not a fan of human societies, as they are invariably idiotic and uncooperative, especially when compared to those of ants (which is to be expected, considering that worker ants are all female siblings with 75% relation, whereas the degre of human relation tapers off to approximately 12.5% at first cousins and is typically <1% for complete strangers).
Anyway, I'm waffling on.
What I am attempting to get across, is that low self worth is silly if you really think about it.
Associated - irrational - negative thoughts have no place in a logical mind, so use your intelligence to purge them and undermine their legitimacy by realising the trivial nature of success as defined by genetic and cultural programming.
>>8200714 >The explanation is that brain damage is common and may result in some geniuses lacking intelligence in an area. This is not implying that all geniuses have damaged brains, nor, if so, having the same level of damage. This is a non sequitur, you concluded that due to this brain damage geniuses may result in not having the same level of ability in all areas. You just said so yourself despite not being good at certain things they are still a genius. >This can be done by an average person who spends too much time doing schoolwork as a child. Of course this is easier to do the higher one's intelligence is. This point is irrelevant at this juncture because now we are arguing about people you have never met and I doubt I will be able to convince you that someone with my meager intelligence can determine if someone else is a genius. >The definition you are referring to argues semantics. Again, you are talking about a polymath, a genius does not have to be good at everything only a select few. I think Einstein is great but I wouldn't trust a paper published by him on the migration patterns of birds. The hypothetical person you are referring to is basically just an ubermensch, no negative connetation intended. >There is a saying that practice beats talent if talent never practices. This is entirely true but again we are hung up on definitions, I define a genius as a person with the ability to excel in, and innovate, at least one subject in a new way. So in this case a genius chef not yet known to be as such would probably do better then the later at first. Unless of course their genius relies more on their ability to build on information gathered then on inherent inter connectivity.
I get it now, you define genius as pure logical capability, I define genius as the ability to innovate and creatively implement information. To me a person is not a genius if they are not creative, they are merely intelligent.
I doubt I am a genius, but I have understood for some time now that I am slightly different from others. Not better, not worse, but different. I don't really agree with the idea that my style of thought should be deemed 'intelligent', but according to modern definitions, I'm probably above average. So...what does it feel like?
>School is still hard. I do push myself to the fullest extent, both in highschool (took 12 AP classes in high school and was awarded the highest possible award for Advanced Placement) and in college (part of the honors program, works in a neuroimplant lab, and taking heavy course loads), but I am very regularly stressed and I don't get the best grades. Going to be a sophomore next year, and got a 3.567 overall for my freshman year. I am a Cognitive Science major (with a concentration in AI/Computational Modeling, don't bite my head off about it being a 'psychology' major). So, not the hardest major, but no walk in the park.
>Standardized tests are usually pretty easy. 99% on both the ACT and SAT.
>I get very depressed very often. I am always acutely aware about others successes relative to mine. I haven't built a company. I haven't made any software yet. I haven't been published yet. And yet, kids younger than me (I turned 19 yesterday) have done all that and more. Whenever I fail, I almost always feel like killing myself; just because I'm not capable of succeeding as effortlessly as other people. Obviously, when you put it all to closer inspection, nobody does anything effortlessly. But it's hard to tell that to emotions.
>>8200738 >Again, you are talking about a polymath,
No, you are talking about a polymath. Many posts ago I mentioned that a non-intelligent person could no recognize a genius. Going by your post of back-and-forth confusing one applying knowledge rather than intelligence this is just something you are not going to understand.
>This is a non sequitur, you concluded that due to this brain damage geniuses may result in not having the same level of ability in all areas.
Intelligence; not ability. Again... you're confusing knowledge with intelligence.
Your brain literally has a physical limitation on you understanding my posts for one reason or another. This discussion is useless.
>>8200470 I think he would be aware of him being a genius (or else he wouldn't be smart enough to be the one) They only avoid telling that because when someone says "I am a genius" people tend to hear an aftertaste of "...and you're scum" when that is not supposed to be that way at all.
>This will get some people riled up, but I recognize the absurdity and complexity and weirdness of the universe, and for those reasons, I am a big believer of having different forms of looking at reality. Scientific Rationalism is just one possible way of doing just that and I myself believe in that. But if somebody believes in religion, that's just another method of viewing reality. There's nothing wrong with that.
>I have esoteric interests, but I honestly don't think that's related to my IQ in any way. I just think I happened to find out about a relatively fringe field in an interesting way, and thus developed my interest in it.
>Unlike many of the people who've posted before me, I do have a collection of very intelligent friends. However, I do think intelligence diverges personality from the norm, so intelligent people will unlikely become [true] friends with other intelligent people, since it is rare you'll find somebody who shares your outlook on reality. For example, a friend of mine who's very good with computers and math, believes in hard innate limits (in terms of achievement and potential). I don't agree with that at all, but many talking points would be indirectly related to that personality characteristic. So every discussion would become an argument.
That's all I have. I apologize if any of this came off as arrogant, that wasn't my intention (I consider myself a very self-deprecating person). I can answer any questions.
People tend to positively associate intelligence (it is therefore also associated with prestige and self worth), hence people typically respond negatively to statements indicating that they may be perceived as a silly sausage.
>>8200794 People typically response negatively to hard-negative statements. 'Silly' just sounds like a playful euphemism, so I have little reason for offense right off the bat. That being said, the fact you created a dichotomy between 'intelligence' and 'silly' makes me think that your comment was a bit more critical that I originally believed.
So, I would like to know why you think I am silly.
>>8200810 What? Are you implying that primal instincts are not matters worth the emotions they can cause? If you want to go the Kierkegaard route and discuss the absurdity of human actions, that seems like an exercise in futility, especially in an argument. The fact is, those instincts exist and it's worth addressing them, even if that means you're just being a 'good ape'.
>>8200824 Then you and I have different ways of looking at the world. I don't think something being 'primal' makes it any less to the individual, it's just a name. Why would scientifically oriented logic, without any further elucidation, be any more worthy than instinct?
If you really want to define human nature in logical terms and remove instinct altogether, suicide is the only outcome. Because happiness, intrinsically, means nothing in a logical mindset. Sadness means nothing. Everything means nothing. Logically, if everything already means nothing, it would be best to be in a state where you needn't deal with physical burdens, such as hunger, thirst, and pain (note that while these sensations don't matter, they still affect you regardless of how logically you live your life because of inbuilt biological functions). Death is that state.
>People tend to positively associate intelligence (it is therefore also associated with prestige and self worth)
A claim to be of superior intelligence is tantamount to a claim of being of superior prestige and subsequent value, which is negatively associated as it denotes arrogance.
Arrogance is essentially dominance mimicry, which gained an adaptive negative association due to the pitfalls of attributing prestige to a false dominant; prestige can be seen as a form of currency, to be invested in skilled and able individuals, in return for personal benefit.
Therefore, one is typically unable to engage in a logical discussion regarding the nature of intelligence and awareness without having one’s comments interpreted in reference to the positive and negative association circuitry of the listener.
This is to be expected of somewhat intelligent social primates, however it leaves the intelligent and aware individual to linger in a realm of intellectual isolation, only rarely making contact with others of a similar disposition.
What do you mean? I was professionally tested 3 times when I was younger, 16-19. I don't remember the first time, but last two times I scored 143 and 146. Even though I know I am well above the average, I still feel pretty dumb. I don't know exactly how to describe it. I'm 22 now, by the way.
>>8200699 It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of being human. Or I suppose you could consider someone intelligent if they managed to transcend all their base impulses but there is literally no human on this planet who's capable of doing that, we've simply been around for too short a period of time to show such great evolutionary strides from human to human. Moreover unlearning all those tendencies involves unlearning millenia of evolution.
>>8198000 It feels cold and distant from the world. Every conversation has to be carefully sculpted and thought about because people repeat themselves so often. Most "smart" hobbies like reading are utterly bland because in the first couple minutes you can already predict the ending with 80% accuracy, or there is a crazy twist that could never have been expected, and the book feels shallow. I stopped believing in god at the age of five because I refused to believe that something with that much power and evil within it should not be worshipped. The only genuine connection I made was when I was separated into a room with all of the geniuses of my town. After being depressed due to the utter predictability of the world, I developed a fake, stupid persona that would work like a virtual machine. It could run the windows software of "feeling" and "conversation" while not forcing me to change from linux. Of course, it was much harder on me to use the virtual machine. I hardly read, and in my college classes, I don't take notes because I get everything from the lecture. I have more free time to find things to do, which has left me with many accomplishments, but nothing to make me happy. Now I'm just looking for an excuse to be unhappy because I would rather waste time on a snipe hunt than accept that life ultimately is a terrible experience that we have all been forced to go through.
>>8200673 >I spend most of my time on /sci/ educating other anons, either through friendly correspondence or an attempt at neutral correction. >However, corrections usually derail into exchanges involving the terms 'faggot', 'pleb' and 'brainlet'.
A truly intelligent and philosophically educated person, knows that being a genius doesn't make you better than anyone. You become a genius if you decide that you are no better, but to become good, and to achieve mastery, you start to learn, learn until you start leading others to prosperity, even then, you haven't learned enough, a genius will only be worse if they think that they are better than everyone else. A genius must compete, a genius must innovate, a genius's work is never done.There probably is someone who is more proficient than you are, a genius is someone who has taken nothing as their limit. t. idiot who read a few chink philosophy books
>>8201995 >>8202013 I see this brought up every time discussion of intellect comes around. Why do you presume humility and humbleness are traits of higher intellectual capability?
From my experience the smarter you get the more uncaring you are for the lesser beings around you, to the point you stop caring about coming off as offensive to a creature you're about to exploit for what it can provide you with.
>>8202107 Maybe what's wrong is not my claim, what's wrong is categorizing a "genius" Genius by definition is someone over 140 points of iq... But, everyone knows, or should know that that's NOT the only qualification. A genius should be also a philosophically educated man, who knows the world doesn't revolve around himself, just because he wrote some OS. A life lasts around 100 years, at most, perhaps less, perhaps more. To be fondly remembered should be a goal of one. Because the ones that are most humble, are most of the time successful leaders, the ones who used to boast back then were bandits and petty thugs.
>>8198000 Boring because everything at work and university is either unchallenging or requires memorization instead of intelligence. However sometimes I find a challenge(usually in self study or engineering games) that isn't so easy to solve and it gives me so much hype and energy. Similar happens when I find someone who is smarter than me. It feels alone but only when you don't have that one person who is like you and understands you perfectly. This >>8198090 This too >>8200523
>>8202133 Because it won't make you look a scumbag who no one likes and people won't accept your ideas no matter how good they are, because you are a douche who thinks he's the best and the world rotates around him, those kind of "geniuses" are most likely to get told whenever they speak. >>8202141 a genius for me, must strive to be morally, intellectually, and physically perfect in every way and shape. >>8202152 She's over eighteen in every game she's in though, also Ace Attorney is a good game to play in your spare time, it's basically a good mixture of Law And Order, anime and logic puzzles
>>8202156 >morally I think this is where your misunderstanding of intellect comes from. You're too deluded to accept anything but an unary realization of what can be described as genius.
Just like morals are relative to your current peer enforced social structure, so exists a plurality of applications for ones intellect. Regardless of judgment from peers, a superior mind will not become inferior due to critique - it may only become dominant or suppressed based on the circumstance.
Once your grow up from your infantile understanding of your surroundings, you'll realize that you're wrong. Until then there is little purpose in trying to argue with what you have already decided on based on your indoctrinated values.
Pretty much everyone I have worked with in an academic setting has called me a genius; however, I don't think there really is a distinction between genius and hard worker. I was only an average student until about eighth grade until I found quantum mechanics. At that point I fell in love with science and spent the next year learning the topic. To learn higher-level physics you need some pretty advanced math which I fell in love with even more. It took me a year from being average to get into Calc AB freshman year.
A genius is only someone who truly loves what they do.
>>8202202 This is somewhat along the lines of what I experienced, albeit from the other side. I started studying physics instead of my original passion (pls no bully) philosophy. I finished my bachelors without putting much work in (my grades ended up being rather mediocre accordingly) and at no point was I truly interested in the subject matter. At first I deluded myself into thinking that this is simply what studying physics is like but the further I got the more those people that were not interested in physics vanished and when I started my masters the ones that were left were nearly all enamoured by physics. It was their passion. This threw me head first into a small existential crisis and I decided to make a change. Put my masters on ice and will soon start studying philosophy and I feel so insanely relieved. During the down time I am in now I spend my days wanderin the city and reading things that I actually enjoy and am interested in. Every day I feel like I am progressing. So yes. Passion is where its at. I know, way off topic, but I don't have a blog, so you guys and girls will have to do :^)
>>8202564 >always best out of all students in science classes >even people who study a lot can't beat me as well while I don't study more than ~2 hours before exam >teachers literally call me genius >choose degree at university that is known for being very hard >still manage to get good grades without going to any lectures and studying ~4 hours before exams >classmates don't believe when I say that I don't watch online lectures and just study math directly from wikipedia's definitions and books(more advance topics) >teachers still call me gifted/A+ student >I started programming when I was in primary school and learning anything math/CS related is super easy for me >because I was programming since childhood, at work I have the most wide range of skills and largest experience even though I'm the youngest person here with only 1 year of working experience >I've never found anyone who can beat me in SpaceChem or TIS-100 >IQ was growing fast during underage and now it's 135(no online tests, I've always been tested by professionals) But I don't really consider myself genius, just gifted. I believe to be genius I would need some luck to find some problem/challenge that solved would be meaningful for humanity. For now I used my talent to make my life easier and to do unpractical but fun things.
So, I don't consider myself a genius based on an IQ score or the comments of others, in fact I don't consider myself a genius at all.
I think the term ‘genius’ is a lot like the term ‘entrepreneur’, in that it’s not something you self-identify as, but instead something that others refer to you as.
I think the term ‘genius’ is best applied to intelligent people (those who are able to reason well, make links between abstract concepts and drawn on a wide birth of acquired knowledge as facilitated by good memory recall), who then go on to do something highly novel and creative.
So I would actually say that this odd little man (Martin Molin) is a likely candidate for the term ‘genius’:
Look at that thing!
He designed and constructed the instrument and of course plays it.
There are Einsteins, then people who can understand Einstein, then those freaks who can derive and explain the EFE when they're 18, all sorts of degrees of exceptional ability.
As someone unusually intelligent but probably not a genius, I think real geniuses probably feel basically the same way I do:
They wish they could see a little further, they wish others could see as far as they do.
Alexander Pope has a pretty fantastic take on this in Essay on Man, where he displays a genuine humility towards his genius (make no mistake-- Pope's literary genius is on the order of, say, a Max Born).
He suggests that all of us humans are trapped between the animals and the angels, that our station is fated (to him, divinely mandated) and that the meaning of its ultimate role is beyond us. Moreover, it's nothing more than vanity to wish it were other than it is.
You have your abilities, that guy has his, I've got mine. We all just try and do what we can with what we have; perhaps we all wrestle with the sensation that the universe has deprived us of our due, but this is nothing but distraction and delusion.
Presumptuous man! the reason wouldst thou find, Why form'd so weak, so little, and so blind? First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess Why form'd no weaker, blinder, and no less! Ask of thy mother earth why oaks are made Taller or stronger than the weeds they shade! Or ask of yonder argent fields above Why Jove's satellites are less than Jove!
>>8204385 It doesn't have to be ADD, just try and limit your internet usage for a week or 2 and see if things improve. Many people think they must be having ADD or some other shit and they just dopamine induced junkies from internet media / high def. entertainment stimulation that's available everywhere these days.
People who get money for trying to sell you pills will of course tell you otherwise.
>What does it feel like to be a genius? Lonely. There are very few people who comprehend even a small percent of what I say, and the rest are like cows watching a passing train, seeing little and understanding nothing.
>150 IQ >finished my master 3 years sooner than normal >smart enough to feel different and bored of most people >still far from being a genius and feel dumb compared to a lot of "normal" people because of my lack of work ethic and short attention span When people realise how young I am they go >"Wow, you must be some kind of genius!" And I feel like a fraud, because I'm not that smart and I feel like I'm decieving them.
>>8205161 I'm also going to let you in on a secret: speaking formally in a non-formal setting makes you seem socially inept. I can only hope you don't speak like this in real life. It doesn't make you seem intelligent, only pretentious and/or autistic.
i took an iq test and it claimed i had an iq of 108. I'm sure that this is normal. From my limited perspective, i can say that i know enough to know that i know nothing. There is a philosopher that also came to this conclusion in some capacity
I never took any iq test, but I must be between 105-115. I know a lot of people much smarter than I, and most of them seem to really live life. Now, a real genius it's hard to find, but I guess they have a normal behaviour but exceptional abilities in some fields.
>speaking formally in a non-formal setting makes you seem socially inept. I can only hope you don't speak like this in real life. It doesn't make you seem intelligent, only pretentious and/or autistic.
Where was I speaking formally?
But to address your comments, I speak in whatever manner is best suited to the situation at hand.
A comma splice often results from the use of conjunctive adverbs to separate two independent clauses instead of using a coordinating conjunction and is considered a faux pas by prescriptive grammarians.
>The anon that first brought this up thinks that prescriptive grammar is objective, however, he is of course mistaken.
This is an example of a comma splice.
The prescriptively correct grammar would be as follows:
> The anon that first brought this up thinks that prescriptive grammar is objective; however, he is of course mistaken.
It’s not an objective rule though, nor is it of any significance to the theme of this thread.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.