What makes a person a Genius?

Post Reply New Topic

I feel that intelligent ASD/AS people are inherently borderline genius because of their condition.

I have already been called genius several times by NT people, and it seems to me that a lot of you intelligent ASD/AS people here - denying being geniuses - will eventually be called genius too - if you surround yourself with NT people.

So many people here claim to have 120-160 IQ + good memory + if you are like me then you are going to spend a lifetime mostly alone learning and focusing your attention towards advancing your understanding of something. That means NT people will eventually think you are a genius.

Yes! We've been on the same side of that conversation before here.



As an example for you to ponder. I have an IQ far beyond that 160 you mention. While I do not believe in a true 'eidetic' memory - My own memory comes close. I have been very successful in multiple fields - Usually followed by spectacularly bad (non-career related) burnouts and withdrawal from the field completely. People do not refer to me as a genius, far from it. They most frequently 'drop the R-bomb' instead, largely to mock me I think.

Genius is as poorly defined in the common vernacular as success. Most people would like to be one, but when pressed people can rarely agree on what constitutes that success or genius.

To the OP - If you want a career in the sciences then that is absolutely possible. If you want to be recognised in history books for leaving a world changing mark on humanity then that is far less realistic. I say this not because you are personally incapable at all but because it is so rare for anyone to achieve that level of fame and those who do don't necessarily set out with that intention. Try to focus more on the science you enjoy so much and less on the label you hope someone will apply to you or potential heady accolades, it can lead to much more job satisfaction.

Imagine two teenagers who both say they wish to become actors/actresses. One reads as many scripts as they can find, joins the drama club, watches theatre, TV and movies, finds mentors in the industry, learns a variety of acting techniques and practices their lines whenever possible. The other daydreams about being rich and famous and practices their Oscar speech in front of the mirror while imagining what they would wear and which star they would take as a date. Who do you think is more likely to achieve a fulfilling career?

If you want to be a scientist - Do science! If you just want to be famous - Start a youtube channel.

O.P. I agree with Chameleon (as I believe I usually have in the past). If you love what you are doing and find that you can get through the classes, then that's a sign to continue. And never focus on "fame." Focus on your happiness and the enjoyment which comes from pursuing what you love. Keep it simple.

Sooo...you put science/mathematics geniuses at the top? And ended up organizing genius by subject, like I had done in the first placs. Interesting. Well I don't need a hiearchy with my strict definition of genius. I obviously voted "no" because I do not consider everyone intelligent, let alone geniuses. I recognize the talent and hard work of people, but wouldn't consider them geniuses.

It's funny you thought everyone can do that. I could tell for a while I was smarter than most of my classmates. I now think it's because their brains can't process the material the way my brain can. I know I don't have a math brain, and college physics has been kicking my butt. My brain just doesn't get it, but science and English are a breeze. And I now know with certainty some subjects are harder (to me) than others. Even within my physics class, I have to try VERY hard to understand magnetic fields, vectors in 3D, but the atomic orbitals chapter was very easy to me. My grades reflected this.

There was some lady on TV who remembered each day of her life...I don't think I want that haha.

Why do so many people think that Mozart is a genius? His compositions are typical of the classical era – repetitive and predictable. And isn't good music merely a matter of personal taste?

For what? Creating a website?

It's actually kind of ableist, and racist, and a bunch of other negative things to insist on this achievement (or to assume that achievements don't exist because they're not apparent). On this forum, people love to keep redefining genius and gifted until it basically means something unobtainable, and I am not sure why they're doing this.

It all becomes a huge no true Scotsman fallacy and basically throws legit gifted people under the bus for the sake of criteria that don't really have any bearing on reality. The question shouldn't be "What have these people achieved?" but "how can we make it easier for people to achieve their potential?" And in that case I mean all people, not just those who score high on IQ tests and are described as gifted or genius or exceptional or whatever terminology anyone cares to use. There are, after all, fairly strong legitimate reasons that people with any amount of potential might not achieve much - lack of resources, lack of accommodation, presence of impairments, prejudice against people like them (in various ways, not just against autistic people) and others that I can't even think of right now.

Why use label of genius if it is not linked to intellectual insights and achievements that advance substantial progress in a field (often through new way of thinking about something)? I would rather use it this way than the way of IQ > some number. I don't undersmand why not saying that people with certain high IQs are geniuses is problem, as they are gifted according to their IQ, and of course, they and others should be helped to realize their potential.

Also, technically, as I researched and posted in previous pages, it is not about IQ anymore (not since 1930s), as the two most frequently used IQ tests don't have a genius category, but only very superior or very gifted. Even higher IQs than that like >180, >200 are called profoundly gifted in literature on giftedness, but genius requires much more than IQ.

Btw, Mozart is my favorite composer, because I love his orderly repetitive music.

Last edited by btbnnyr on 10 Dec 2013, 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's the thing. You don't really know what goes on in other people's minds, even if they tell you (apparently, most people lie a lot, and I don't). Being asocial can leave you with a very one-sided understanding of how others think. You can never be sure if they are behaving a certain way because that's all they know, or because that's what they choose from options that may include stuff you don't know yourself.
I actually struggle with the idea a lot of people really don't know better than what I see them doing. I keep thinking I must be missing something, as so many of them do it.
My husband likes violent movies, and I see a bunch of brainless barbarians beating each other up. I don't get it. Haven't we evolved past that yet? But I usually don't say anything because I am afraid of sounding like a snob or offending someone, or maybe getting beaten up
I feel like I am in the minority but the violent ones are louder and more conspicuous, so I can't be sure if it is that way, or it just looks that way.

I agree. Perhaps I might have accomplished something had I been in a more accommodating environment. The ideas and desire were there, just not the tools and encouragement. I can't keep fighting for everything, it takes too much out of me.

Einstien is always labled a genius, and I feel the biggest reason for that is he had/has great PR. In my opinion, he could not have done what he did without the work of others. I HAD thought of him as genius because I thought he first came up with the notion that time does not necessarily move at a constant rate, but it turns out someone else thought of that first. I think other physicists at the time, such as Bohr, made contributions every bit as valuable as Einsteins, but they didn't have their trumpets blown as much, so are not as known.
Not that I am saying he was NOT a genius. I need more information to decide this for myself, even if everyone else has already made up their mind. Part of the determination is to consider the intellectual environment into which their ideas were born. If a prehistoric caveman could do mental multiplication of single digits, I would probably think he was a genius.

The problem with judging the achievements of historical figures is it is too easy to forget that the first to do something may have needed genius, then you get all the copycats and wannabes. Still happens today. A lot of famous people ride on someone else's coattails.

Another thing to consider is that there are many people who accomplish great things that the general public are not capable of appreciating. Sometimes, only your peers in your field could know what a revolutionary idea it really was. When I watch the academy awards(rarely), I assume the award givers have their reasons for picking the winners, and that it is stuff that I know nothing about, so I blindly accept their judgement.
Then there are people who steal credit for others work, people who got lucky, people who simply took the final step after a series of steps other people already took. They can change the world and look like geniuses, but they may not be.
I would like to see a more gracious and encouraging attitude from the public toward people with intellectual gifts, but it still looks like being smart is something that needs to be hidden.
Pity.

I don't understand why you don't seem to get that there are issues in terms of accessibility, discrimination, impairments, opportunity, support, resources, etc. that may mean that someone who has potential may not be able to realize it, and someone else may be able to do so. Both may have similar potential, but the one who has the chance to realize it is not somehow "better" than the person who cannot. If anything, that the one (well, far more than one, but going with one) that can't realize it is a serious problem.

And I mention it because the argument you use here about insights and achievements is very similar to the argument you used about giftedness in another thread. It essentially means that people are required to be producers in a capitalist sense to count, and that's nonsense.

Why do people who have potential but haven't come up with idears that made significant progress in a field be recognized as genius? That's the part that I don't get. Do people want to be categorized as genius for having high IQ? Recognizing high IQ people in gifted range is fine, that is what happens in gate programs, and they should be accommodated to realize their potential, not just them but also other people in other IQ ranges, I have always been in support of that, why else would I spend my time and effort thinking up ways to help autistic people and trying to create a new kind of autism organization for this purpose to help more people realize their potential? But I don't believe in calling someone genius for having high IQ, I believe in calling someone genius for coming up with great idears that advance an intellectual area like art, music, literature, science, technology, etc.

I didn't say that geniuses are bester people than non-geniuses, or gifted people are bester than non-gifted, or above average IQ people were bester than average IQ, or average IQ people are bester than below average IQ people, and I encouraged OP to go for physics regardless of measured IQ, which is my point, that IQ doesn't define genius.

I didn't say anything about producing something in capitalist sense, only you are saying that. I have been saying insights/idears/applications, some of which may be used for capitalist purposes by the person who came up with the idears and other people too.

hear hear!!

To a lot of NT people - an intelligent ASD/AS person who spends a life focused on learning about a particular area - is a genius. No accomplishment required. They work around you everyday, and are astonished by your intelligence, knowledge and capability. After a few decades post-college, there is just such a huge gap in intelligence, memory, and knowledge - when compared to the average NT person.

NT people will think of you as a genius.

I don't know what you are talking about. There are plenty of intelligence neurotypical people spending their lives focused on learning about particular area. I know verry merry berry many of them.

Yep, agreed with all of this.