|
On March 14 2012 21:56 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 21:23 Teoita wrote:
I think what separates "average smart" people from "holy shit that guy is a genius" is an amazing ability to rationalize and visualize extremely abstract concepts.
I am a third year physics student, i have ok grades and all, and i am left in absolute awe at what the best students can do. You can talk to them about the most abstract math and physics concepts, and they just...understand it. Immediately. You can see they have a clear and simple picture in their head of what is going on exactly, while a "normal" person will just have such a hard time understanding the same thing. Maybe it depends on how you define the word "smart" and how loosely you use the term. You say that the others are geniuses and you are average smart. What if you put it in such a way that you are stupid and they are just average? Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 21:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
Your question is really difficult to even start to answer, for a few reasons. For one, there has never been a very good definition of intelligence, nor is there only a single type of intelligence. Also, none of us has ever had the experience of existing as a person who had greater or less intelligence than ourselves, so there is no way for us to explain what the differences are. Standardized tests say that my IQ is in the 99ish percentile (which means little more than that I'm good at taking IQ tests, but let's just assume it means I have more of some kind of smart than most people), but I couldn't possibly tell you how the way I see the world differs from the way someone who would land in a lower percentile on the same test.
I can tell you my hypothesis: I think what people think of intelligence is a combination of pattern recognition and a capacity for passion.
Pattern recognition allows you to abstract away some of the complexity of the world, making it easier to comprehend very complicated things by recognizing how they are like less complicated things. It also allows you to find signals in the noise of very complex phenomena, so that you see relationships that would not be evident to someone without the same capacity for pattern recognition.
[Edited to add: ] Another really important ability when you're talking about being able to understand something at a deep level is to operate simultaneously at different levels of abstraction. So you think about the sun as a point with a given mass while you're working out the orbits of the planets, but have the ability to move to a different level of abstraction and think of it in a different way when dealing with a problem that can't be solved with the "sun as a point" abstration.
By "capacity for passion" I mean the ability to get really interested in something. I speak Japanese and German, and I learned the languages significantly faster than the people who were living in Japan and here in Germany with me at the time, but most of the reason seemed to be that I was just much more fascinated with the languages than they were, and so I could spend 8-10 hours a day reading and studying flash cards without ever getting tired of it. On the other hand, I grow bored with practicing a piece of music very quickly, so despite having played the piano for 18 some-odd years, I'm complete crap at it.
I think we are "intelligent" in the contexts in which we have both of these things. I suspect that there aren't that many people who don't have some context in which they have both a strong understanding and a passion. If you want to understand what it feels like to be a genius in some, then, I imagine you should just imagine what it feels like when you're operating in a niche in which you have those traits. Very interesting points that you have brought up. Passion for something certainly can be the engine which drives you to a certain level of intelligence at a certain topic, but what happens when that passion dies? See, to me, when you have the passion for something, you develop some sort of ability to devour copious amounts of knowledge on this certain something. Put simply, you swallow faster than the others. In the end, it's just the same old regurgitating right?
Even after the passion is gone, the knowledge remains, as well as the understanding of the relationships between the facts that you have. As I said in my previous post, any conversation about intelligence is going to founder at some point on the problem of defining what that word actually means. If you consider intelligence to be nothing but the accumulation of facts, then losing passion in something wouldn't make much of a difference. If, like me, you consider intelligence to have more with the ability to derive understanding about new things, then the knowledge left behind is also still useful, as it provides a framework for understanding new things.
Consider the case of language. I learned Japanese for about 10 years. Eventually the passion that drove me in the first years died off; I was fluent, and used the language to do research for my master's thesis and to watch Japanese television and whatnot, but I wasn't driven to constantly be involved in learning more about the language. When I started learning German, though, I already had an entire framework of understanding about how language works and how I personally best learn linguistic information, so I was able to learn German much faster than I could have if I hadn't yet learned another language. Every thing that you understand at a deep level gives your brain the tools to more easily understand other, similar, things.
Whether or not that understanding and the ability to synthesize new understanding about the world based on what you know and what you observe is what we mean when we say "intelligence" is, of course, still open. It doesn't really cover all the bases of what people might call intelligent behavior, like the ability to quickly do mathematical operations or write particularly moving and beautiful prose.
|
There's a difference between genius and smart. Anyone can be smart. I go to a pretty decent university (top 20 in the nation), and the real difference between those that do well and poorly has nothing to do with natural intelligence. It's all about work ethic. That's how most people got into the university in the first place, and it's also how most keep staying at the top. It helps that you're interested in your school subjects, then you can continually think about the topics and relate them to your real life even outside the classroom. That's a good way to get a one-up on most your classmates.
Genius on the other hand is a whole different ball game. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, but I couldn't say I've ever met a real genius before.
Edit: But in the end, I think OP is doing fine. As long as you recognize the importance of self-questioning and improvement, then that's "smart" enough in my book. Most people are stagnant. Cheer up OP. You're smarter than you realize.
|
Yes, I realise that most people are "academically smart. Their brain is like a sponge that just absorbs and regurgitates during tests. But outside academics, their unbelievably "un-smart". People like that are given top priority here though. =(
|
On March 14 2012 23:37 coffecup wrote:
There's a difference between genius and smart. Anyone can be smart. I go to a pretty decent university (top 20 in the nation), and the real difference between those that do well and poorly has nothing to do with natural intelligence. It's all about work ethic. That's how most people got into the university in the first place, and it's also how most keep staying at the top. It helps that you're interested in your school subjects, then you can continually think about the topics and relate them to your real life even outside the classroom. That's a good way to get a one-up on most your classmates.
Genius on the other hand is a whole different ball game. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, but I couldn't say I've ever met a real genius before.
In my experience there are pretty much three levels of "smartness":
1) People who have some amount of natural talent but don't work hard
2) People who work very hard but lack real curiosity
3) People who essentially live in something they like, people who are driven almost purely by curiosity
In my experience, people who get called geniuses are just people in the 3rd category.
|
On March 14 2012 23:39 Azera wrote:
Yes, I realise that most people are "academically smart. Their brain is like a sponge that just absorbs and regurgitates during tests. But outside academics, their unbelievably "un-smart". People like that are given top priority here though. =(
Being "smart" has nothing to do with your academics. I just used a school analogy because I assumed most people at TL are either in highschool, college, or graduate school. You can easily translate this analogy to outside life. A "smart" person essentially is someone who has the work ethic to constantly want to improve. I believe that everyone has the capacity to become well informed and reasonably well versed in any subject so long as he has the discipline and mindset to dedicate himself to the task. This can translate into things like fitness and sports, social skills, job-related skills, and sc. Being "smart" is more about process than the result imo.
|
You're a lot brighter than you give yourself credit for, op. Most people don't even ask themselves these sorts of questions.
Intelligence comes in many forms and is notoriously difficult to measure. Even if we can agree on exactly what constitutes a smart person, I don't think it's possible to make any sort of blanket statement on how they think or perceive the world around them.
In my own experience, it hasn't really been intrinsically obvious to me what my strengths and weaknesses are. Only by observing how awful many others are at writing have I realized that I am a good writer. Conversely, when friends talk about plot details of movies they saw 3 years ago, I realize that my long-term memory is probably below average. I suspect things are similar for true geniuses. Certain things are intuitively easy for them to accomplish or understand, but this is their normal state of being. They have to observe how dumb others are to recognize their genius.
On March 14 2012 22:05 Azera wrote:
One of the ways to live, as my Dad has taught me, is that you are never good. You are always average and you will never be good. If you see that you are better than other people, they are the people that are below average. You suck.
As someone already said, a middle ground is ideal. I thought I was pretty fucking smart growing up, and, in retrospect, this harmed me a lot more than it helped me. On the flipside of the coin, it's really not healthy to constantly feel like you're never good enough (and that others are even worse). Motivation to improve has to exist alongside respect for yourself.
|
On March 14 2012 23:37 coffecup wrote:
There's a difference between genius and smart. Anyone can be smart. I go to a pretty decent university (top 20 in the nation), and the real difference between those that do well and poorly has nothing to do with natural intelligence. It's all about work ethic. That's how most people got into the university in the first place, and it's also how most keep staying at the top. It helps that you're interested in your school subjects, then you can continually think about the topics and relate them to your real life even outside the classroom. That's a good way to get a one-up on most your classmates.
Genius on the other hand is a whole different ball game. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, but I couldn't say I've ever met a real genius before.
Edit: But in the end, I think OP is doing fine. As long as you recognize the importance of self-questioning and improvement, then that's "smart" enough in my book. Most people are stagnant. Cheer up OP. You're smarter than you realize.
I agree with this, however you should take into account that some people learn slower then others which could be some aspect of intelligence. I know of people that study for hours and hours, yet still get a lower grade than someone who didn't study all that much.
|
Canada13378 Posts
On March 14 2012 23:39 Azera wrote:
Yes, I realise that most people are "academically smart. Their brain is like a sponge that just absorbs and regurgitates during tests. But outside academics, their unbelievably "un-smart". People like that are given top priority here though. =(
Because a lot of jobs have the need requisite knowledge.
Just remember the people who can take what they are told, think critically and apply it outside of school are the smart ones. The ones who memorize something and simply spit it back but cannot apply it will have a very hard time doing their work.
The difference between us and the super geniuses is the way in which people like Hawking can take something they know (or have learned) and can apply it to a new problem in order to discover some new solution and do the same thing over and over in a highly complex way. They build their knowledge and understanding further allowing them to continue to apply their knowledge to their area of study. They are special in the way in which they can do it but everyone has the capacity to do this in some way.
This is why experience is so important in the world when trying to get a job. Johnny could have a degree straight out of school but he wont get hired because Bob's been doing the same job Johhny wants for 30 years. Even if Bob's degree is worse someone knows that Bob can use what he knows to do the job whereas Johnny can use what he knows to spit it back at you but might be unable to truly apply it to a real world setting.
|
I've been thinking about this topic quite alot. How does it feel to be a genius? How does it feel to have 100iq? Are they like darkscream said? How does it feel to have under 70iq like alot of people in Africa?
For the lowest levels if iq there are some examples of ability like if you can repair furniture or something, but it's still impossible for us to know how it really feel.
I've met a few people that were just mindbogglingly intelligent (atleast in some areas) and I just cant get how it must feel. Lets say you have a guy with 150iq, a guy with 125iq should be like someone with 100iq for the 125iq guy. Or maybe I'm totally wrong.
|
IQ doesn't say all that much imo. I've heard/read that you can get you can score 10 percent higher if you just practice the subjects they give you during an IQ test. That would mean you could go from being smart to highly gifted.
|
On March 14 2012 23:35 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 21:56 Azera wrote:On March 14 2012 21:23 Teoita wrote:
I think what separates "average smart" people from "holy shit that guy is a genius" is an amazing ability to rationalize and visualize extremely abstract concepts.
I am a third year physics student, i have ok grades and all, and i am left in absolute awe at what the best students can do. You can talk to them about the most abstract math and physics concepts, and they just...understand it. Immediately. You can see they have a clear and simple picture in their head of what is going on exactly, while a "normal" person will just have such a hard time understanding the same thing. Maybe it depends on how you define the word "smart" and how loosely you use the term. You say that the others are geniuses and you are average smart. What if you put it in such a way that you are stupid and they are just average? On March 14 2012 21:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
Your question is really difficult to even start to answer, for a few reasons. For one, there has never been a very good definition of intelligence, nor is there only a single type of intelligence. Also, none of us has ever had the experience of existing as a person who had greater or less intelligence than ourselves, so there is no way for us to explain what the differences are. Standardized tests say that my IQ is in the 99ish percentile (which means little more than that I'm good at taking IQ tests, but let's just assume it means I have more of some kind of smart than most people), but I couldn't possibly tell you how the way I see the world differs from the way someone who would land in a lower percentile on the same test.
I can tell you my hypothesis: I think what people think of intelligence is a combination of pattern recognition and a capacity for passion.
Pattern recognition allows you to abstract away some of the complexity of the world, making it easier to comprehend very complicated things by recognizing how they are like less complicated things. It also allows you to find signals in the noise of very complex phenomena, so that you see relationships that would not be evident to someone without the same capacity for pattern recognition.
[Edited to add: ] Another really important ability when you're talking about being able to understand something at a deep level is to operate simultaneously at different levels of abstraction. So you think about the sun as a point with a given mass while you're working out the orbits of the planets, but have the ability to move to a different level of abstraction and think of it in a different way when dealing with a problem that can't be solved with the "sun as a point" abstration.
By "capacity for passion" I mean the ability to get really interested in something. I speak Japanese and German, and I learned the languages significantly faster than the people who were living in Japan and here in Germany with me at the time, but most of the reason seemed to be that I was just much more fascinated with the languages than they were, and so I could spend 8-10 hours a day reading and studying flash cards without ever getting tired of it. On the other hand, I grow bored with practicing a piece of music very quickly, so despite having played the piano for 18 some-odd years, I'm complete crap at it.
I think we are "intelligent" in the contexts in which we have both of these things. I suspect that there aren't that many people who don't have some context in which they have both a strong understanding and a passion. If you want to understand what it feels like to be a genius in some, then, I imagine you should just imagine what it feels like when you're operating in a niche in which you have those traits. Very interesting points that you have brought up. Passion for something certainly can be the engine which drives you to a certain level of intelligence at a certain topic, but what happens when that passion dies? See, to me, when you have the passion for something, you develop some sort of ability to devour copious amounts of knowledge on this certain something. Put simply, you swallow faster than the others. In the end, it's just the same old regurgitating right? Even after the passion is gone, the knowledge remains, as well as the understanding of the relationships between the facts that you have. As I said in my previous post, any conversation about intelligence is going to founder at some point on the problem of defining what that word actually means. If you consider intelligence to be nothing but the accumulation of facts, then losing passion in something wouldn't make much of a difference. If, like me, you consider intelligence to have more with the ability to derive understanding about new things, then the knowledge left behind is also still useful, as it provides a framework for understanding new things. Consider the case of language. I learned Japanese for about 10 years. Eventually the passion that drove me in the first years died off; I was fluent, and used the language to do research for my master's thesis and to watch Japanese television and whatnot, but I wasn't driven to constantly be involved in learning more about the language. When I started learning German, though, I already had an entire framework of understanding about how language works and how I personally best learn linguistic information, so I was able to learn German much faster than I could have if I hadn't yet learned another language. Every thing that you understand at a deep level gives your brain the tools to more easily understand other, similar, things. Whether or not that understanding and the ability to synthesize new understanding about the world based on what you know and what you observe is what we mean when we say "intelligence" is, of course, still open. It doesn't really cover all the bases of what people might call intelligent behaviour, like the ability to quickly do mathematical operations or write particularly moving and beautiful prose.
So as Hawking has said, intelligence is the ability to adapt? I actually agree with this wholeheartedly.
|
Oddly enough, the wiser and smarter you get, the more you realize how stupid and ignorant you actually are. It's both awe-inspiring and depressing at the same time.
|
On March 14 2012 23:37 coffecup wrote:
There's a difference between genius and smart. Anyone can be smart. I go to a pretty decent university (top 20 in the nation), and the real difference between those that do well and poorly has nothing to do with natural intelligence. It's all about work ethic. That's how most people got into the university in the first place, and it's also how most keep staying at the top. It helps that you're interested in your school subjects, then you can continually think about the topics and relate them to your real life even outside the classroom. That's a good way to get a one-up on most your classmates.
Genius on the other hand is a whole different ball game. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, but I couldn't say I've ever met a real genius before.
Edit: But in the end, I think OP is doing fine. As long as you recognize the importance of self-questioning and improvement, then that's "smart" enough in my book. Most people are stagnant. Cheer up OP. You're smarter than you realize.
On March 14 2012 23:47 coffecup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:39 Azera wrote:
Yes, I realise that most people are "academically smart. Their brain is like a sponge that just absorbs and regurgitates during tests. But outside academics, their unbelievably "un-smart". People like that are given top priority here though. =( Being "smart" has nothing to do with your academics. I just used a school analogy because I assumed most people at TL are either in highschool, college, or graduate school. You can easily translate this analogy to outside life. A "smart" person essentially is someone who has the work ethic to constantly want to improve. I believe that everyone has the capacity to become well informed and reasonably well versed in any subject so long as he has the discipline and mindset to dedicate himself to the task. This can translate into things like fitness and sports, social skills, job-related skills, and sc. Being "smart" is more about process than the result imo.
Come to think of it, maybe there should be a different word to refer to people who memorise well (have eidetic memory, etc). Talented, perhaps, but that word is very subjective too. See, this about this. Let's say we have a critical thinker and someone who is chock-full of knowledge but needs to be spoon-fed and shown the directions. The critical thinker is "stupid" compared to other person then?
|
Smart is such a weird concept. It used to be a way to separate the privilieged from the masses, like, "you guys are stupid so you deserve to be peasants". In some ways it still is. "You're stupid, so you have to work as cashier or some other job that people generally don't like". IQ tests were constructed to see what aptitude people had to finish school and help those that couldn't. But that's it. IQ doesn't really say anything other than your aptitude for studying.
However it turned into this massive thing where IQ is seen as the be all end all of everything that comes to mind when you say intelligence. There are other theories of intelligence but they kind of don't get the same attention because nobody has really figured out how to accurately measure, for example, emotional intelligence, even though it's proven to be more effective for your career than the regular IQ... delay of gratification, something which is really important in order to be "smart" in our society today.
Anyway I'm one of those people that have been told since they were little that they're gifted. I had some troubles in school (like most people, no?), switched schools, caught up. Never really had to study for anything, just went to lessons, listened, thought, played lots of computer games. I've been told I'm a genius of language and that I'm efficient and smart in general.
It's not really true though. I'm smart at school, good at language and picking up abstract concepts of human behaviour and applying them to concrete situations and ok-ish at maths and physics. I could never really get a good enough grasp of chemistry, biology and stuff like that though, I was really terrible at them.
My way of reading my teachers and understanding the core of what they wanted out of me helped me through school, my choice of a technical programme at high school helped me score high on a test that later lets you use the test instead of grades when you apply for uni. I've always felt stupid in general. Part of this comes from not really studying, always feeling I should know more but never having the energy to actually care enough.
The word genius is something completely different. I bought a book in order to understand how science sees this concept. Haven't read it, typical of me, but by browsing the index I picked up that this book sees a genius as someone who revolutionalized the field. Fe, Einstein, Mozart, Nietzsche, various artists. By "revolutionalize a field", it's basically coming up with a way to bring it forward in a way that nobody else has thought about in a specific cultural setting. You can't revolutionalize too much or you'll just be called crazy and get laughed at or executed, like the guy who discovered genes before anyone else, lol. A couple of hundred years later, people called him a genius. So yeah, I'd be careful in calling anyone a genius.
|
On March 14 2012 23:47 3clipse wrote:You're a lot brighter than you give yourself credit for, op. Most people don't even ask themselves these sorts of questions. Intelligence comes in many forms and is notoriously difficult to measure. Even if we can agree on exactly what constitutes a smart person, I don't think it's possible to make any sort of blanket statement on how they think or perceive the world around them. In my own experience, it hasn't really been intrinsically obvious to me what my strengths and weaknesses are. Only by observing how awful many others are at writing have I realized that I am a good writer. Conversely, when friends talk about plot details of movies they saw 3 years ago, I realize that my long-term memory is probably below average. I suspect things are similar for true geniuses. Certain things are intuitively easy for them to accomplish or understand, but this is their normal state of being. They have to observe how dumb others are to recognize their genius. Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 22:05 Azera wrote:
One of the ways to live, as my Dad has taught me, is that you are never good. You are always average and you will never be good. If you see that you are better than other people, they are the people that are below average. You suck. As someone already said, a middle ground is ideal. I thought I was pretty fucking smart growing up, and, in retrospect, this harmed me a lot more than it helped me. On the flipside of the coin, it's really not healthy to constantly feel like you're never good enough (and that others are even worse). Motivation to improve has to exist alongside respect for yourself.
Looking at how awful the writings of others are made you realise that you are a good writer? Shouldn't it be instead something like, "Looking at how close my writing is compared to authors like Hemingway made me realise that I'am a pretty decent writer."? Just my 2 cents.
Intelligence is definitely hard to define. It's just that people mix up the ability to memorise with critical thinking ("pure" definition of intelligence?). I have no idea, but I'm sure knowing a lot of things helps with critical thinking.
Me thinking that I'm smart is the worse thing that can happen because I'll just get complacent.
On March 14 2012 23:52 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:39 Azera wrote:
Yes, I realise that most people are "academically smart. Their brain is like a sponge that just absorbs and regurgitates during tests. But outside academics, their unbelievably "un-smart". People like that are given top priority here though. =( Because a lot of jobs have the need requisite knowledge. Just remember the people who can take what they are told, think critically and apply it outside of school are the smart ones. The ones who memorize something and simply spit it back but cannot apply it will have a very hard time doing their work. The difference between us and the super geniuses is the way in which people like Hawking can take something they know (or have learned) and can apply it to a new problem in order to discover some new solution and do the same thing over and over in a highly complex way. They build their knowledge and understanding further allowing them to continue to apply their knowledge to their area of study. They are special in the way in which they can do it but everyone has the capacity to do this in some way. This is why experience is so important in the world when trying to get a job. Johnny could have a degree straight out of school but he wont get hired because Bob's been doing the same job Johhny wants for 30 years. Even if Bob's degree is worse someone knows that Bob can use what he knows to do the job whereas Johnny can use what he knows to spit it back at you but might be unable to truly apply it to a real world setting.
Then doesn't Johnny get a chance to prove himself? How will we know if Johnny can work more efficiently than Bob even though he's been at it for such a long time? How do we know that Johnny can't apply what he's learnt (much more than Bob) at work, resulting in him becoming a better worker?
Seems like people just have a problem adapting imo.
|
France12738 Posts
It feels like being good against protoss and zerg but very bad against terran.
|
On March 14 2012 23:55 Eatme wrote:
I've been thinking about this topic quite alot. How does it feel to be a genius? How does it feel to have 100iq? Are they like darkscream said? How does it feel to have under 70iq like alot of people in Africa?
For the lowest levels if iq there are some examples of ability like if you can repair furniture or something, but it's still impossible for us to know how it really feel.
I've met a few people that were just mindbogglingly intelligent (atleast in some areas) and I just cant get how it must feel. Lets say you have a guy with 150iq, a guy with 125iq should be like someone with 100iq for the 125iq guy. Or maybe I'm totally wrong.
Isn't the average IQ 90~100+?
I think to have low IQ is to be pretty much driven by your primitive instincts. For example, we have Subject A, sub-70IQ.
"I'm hungry." He says.
Subject A walks into the kitchen to see his younger sister preparing some noodles.
"Those noodles smell good".
He then proceeds to walk over to his sister, pushes her away, and takes her noodles.
While a person of average intelligence, Subject B...
"I feel hungry. I wonder what I should eat?"He says.
Subject B walks into the kitchen to see his younger sister preparing some noodles. He decides that he shouldn't consume too much carbohydrates so he looks for a granola bar instead.
"Darn it, where are those granola bars?"
He gives up his search and asks his sister ,"Hey, do you mind sharing those? If you're really hungry then I'll just make my own, it's fine."
His sister decides that she isn't that hungry after all and decides to split the noodles. Both parties are happy!
|
On March 15 2012 00:13 Nudelfisk wrote:
Smart is such a weird concept. It used to be a way to separate the privilieged from the masses, like, "you guys are stupid so you deserve to be peasants". In some ways it still is. "You're stupid, so you have to work as cashier or some other job that people generally don't like". IQ tests were constructed to see what aptitude people had to finish school and help those that couldn't. But that's it. IQ doesn't really say anything other than your aptitude for studying.
However it turned into this massive thing where IQ is seen as the be all end all of everything that comes to mind when you say intelligence. There are other theories of intelligence but they kind of don't get the same attention because nobody has really figured out how to accurately measure, for example, emotional intelligence, even though it's proven to be more effective for your career than the regular IQ... delay of gratification, something which is really important in order to be "smart" in our society today.
Anyway I'm one of those people that have been told since they were little that they're gifted. I had some troubles in school (like most people, no?), switched schools, caught up. Never really had to study for anything, just went to lessons, listened, thought, played lots of computer games. I've been told I'm a genius of language and that I'm efficient and smart in general.
It's not really true though. I'm smart at school, good at language and picking up abstract concepts of human behaviour and applying them to concrete situations and ok-ish at maths and physics. I could never really get a good enough grasp of chemistry, biology and stuff like that though, I was really terrible at them.
My way of reading my teachers and understanding the core of what they wanted out of me helped me through school, my choice of a technical programme at high school helped me score high on a test that later lets you use the test instead of grades when you apply for uni. I've always felt stupid in general. Part of this comes from not really studying, always feeling I should know more but never having the energy to actually care enough.
The word genius is something completely different. I bought a book in order to understand how science sees this concept. Haven't read it, typical of me, but by browsing the index I picked up that this book sees a genius as someone who revolutionalized the field. Fe, Einstein, Mozart, Nietzsche, various artists. By "revolutionalize a field", it's basically coming up with a way to bring it forward in a way that nobody else has thought about in a specific cultural setting. You can't revolutionalize too much or you'll just be called crazy and get laughed at or executed, like the guy who discovered genes before anyone else, lol. A couple of hundred years later, people called him a genius. So yeah, I'd be careful in calling anyone a genius.
What's the book called?
|
Well, I get surprised a lot that most people don't understand the math that I think is child splay. It also surprises me that some people actually fail tests. However, math is my strong point and not my ELA
|
On March 15 2012 00:22 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 23:55 Eatme wrote:
I've been thinking about this topic quite alot. How does it feel to be a genius? How does it feel to have 100iq? Are they like darkscream said? How does it feel to have under 70iq like alot of people in Africa?
For the lowest levels if iq there are some examples of ability like if you can repair furniture or something, but it's still impossible for us to know how it really feel.
I've met a few people that were just mindbogglingly intelligent (atleast in some areas) and I just cant get how it must feel. Lets say you have a guy with 150iq, a guy with 125iq should be like someone with 100iq for the 125iq guy. Or maybe I'm totally wrong. Isn't the average IQ 90~100+? I think to have low IQ is to be pretty much driven by your primitive instincts. For example, we have Subject A, sub-70IQ. "I'm hungry." He says. Subject A walks into the kitchen to see his younger sister preparing some noodles. "Those noodles smell good". He then proceeds to walk over to his sister, pushes her away, and takes her noodles. While a person of average intelligence, Subject B... "I feel hungry. I wonder what I should eat?"He says. Subject B walks into the kitchen to see his younger sister preparing some noodles. He decides that he shouldn't consume too much carbohydrates so he looks for a granola bar instead. "Darn it, where are those granola bars?" He gives up his search and asks his sister ,"Hey, do you mind sharing those? If you're really hungry then I'll just make my own, it's fine." His sister decides that she isn't that hungry after all and decides to split the noodles. Both parties are happy!
I don't think that having a low IQ turns people into unsensible assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
