To be a Genius.

[Nevrmore]

Throwing around a sophisticated vocabulary and typing out long-winded essays does not make you a genius.

Get over yourselves.

[Pincho Paxton]

Ok, stupid vocabulary, and short sentences it is then!!!.. Halibut = Orange! Hit him with a banana.

[Dan Rowden]

Now I know the real reason Jesus wept.

[Nevrmore]

Ok, stupid vocabulary, and short sentences it is then!!!.. Halibut = Orange! Hit him with a banana.

Despite what the Wizard of Oz might have taught you, even after the scarecrow received a brain, he was still a strawman.

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, just to give this thread a chance at survival: what does make a Genius?

[Carl G]

Yep, threads about the definition of Genius have lately been springing up like mushrooms. I'm starting to wonder if maybe some of the thread starters are on mushrooms.

[Nevrmore]

Well, in obvious contempt of what this forum purports, it doesn't have anything to do with how you function in society, if you are successful in life, or if you can throw around the biggest word. The smartest person in recorded history, with an IQ of over 250, lived the end of his days doing menial labor and bouncing around as a moderately famous public figure until dying of a cerebral hemorrhage. (source: William James Sidis)

You don't have to write a thesis paper to prove your point. You don't have to find out the most applicable way to use "floccinaucinihilipilification" in a sentence to prove that you know what you're talking about. That does not make you a genius, it makes you pretentious. If you truly are a genius, stop wasting your time debating morality and ethics on an internet forum and go publish your views in some literary or scientific journal, where fifty paragraph reports on how you think the holocaust was fake is the norm. Stop wasting everyone's time with a ten page report that can be adequately summed up in two just because you want to feel like you are trumping the competition.

In short: A genius is not someone who knows fifteen different words for "snow." They're a person with an above-average IQ.

And anyone who points out the fact that I posted a long rant decrying long rants will get a complimentary kick to the throat.

Yep, threads about the definition of Genius have lately been springing up like mushrooms. I'm starting to wonder if maybe some of the thread starters are on mushrooms.

That's why I made this topic. The ones talking about what makes a genius seem to think that you have to have a higher standard of living or you have to be able to win a national spelling bee before you can accurately be called a genius.

In other news, I have got to think of some synonyms for "genius."

[Dan Rowden]

Did you read the introductory threads for this forum? There you'll find the working definition of Genius we employ. I suggest you do that.

[Nevrmore]

Did you read the introductory threads for this forum? There you'll find the working definition of Genius we employ. I suggest you do that.

A definition that is both rather outlandish from the norm and not applied very much in relation to a forum that is supposedly governed by it.

[Dan Rowden]

Did you read the introductory threads for this forum? There you'll find the working definition of Genius we employ. I suggest you do that.

A definition that is both rather outlandish from the norm

So? That's not an argument against it. Folly is also the norm. Do you advocate that too?

and not applied very much in relation to a forum that is supposedly governed by it.

Who said we're governed by it? It's simply the intended focus of the discussions. Trouble is people tend to come here with alternative agendas and make matters complicated.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Nevrmore,

If you truly are a genius, stop wasting your time debating morality and ethics on an internet forum and go publish your views in some literary or scientific journal, where fifty paragraph reports on how you think the holocaust was fake is the norm.

Easy. The Holocaust was fake because an appeal to emotion cannot be used as an argument. One sentence. Fuck school.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

God impels me to quote thus:

"Be that word our sign in parting, bird or fiend," I shrieked upstarting--
"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!--quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."

[JustinZijlstra]

Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/opplab/O ... acular.pdf

Perhaps this qualifies for genius?

[pun intended]

[Dan Rowden]

Style over substance is a problem for academic environments and those trying to gain status within a given community. Fortunately, it tends not to happen too much in this one because such things are openly criticised.

[artmaster]

How do you'll know what a genius is from first hand?

[artmaster]

I can tell anybody what a genius is, for I am a genius!

[Pincho Paxton]

What I really want to know is...

"What person tells a genius that he is not up to their standards?"

"Who opens a thread to put the genius in their place?"

The smartest person in recorded history, with an IQ of over 250, lived the end of his days doing menial labor and bouncing around as a moderately famous public figure until dying of a cerebral hemorrhage.

Wow, he was smart!!!

IQ over 250.. amazing!!! Except for one thing. IQ means he had a great memory. I would never swap my current knowledge for an IQ of 250. I would have a head full of crap.

[artmaster]

An IQ doesn't say anything to anybody but other people but yourself.

[artmaster]

The painter creates, he makes standards, now if other people follow those same ones, well, that is up to them!

[Greg the Genius]

IQ is for ppl who rnt 2 brite lolz

[ChaoticMelody]

The person who supposedly had an IQ of over 250 was William Alfred Quannigton and he is a purely fictional person.

The highest IQ that was ever recorded was of Marilyn Vos Savant and she scored 228.

[JustinZijlstra]

Oh, I thought William James Sidis is the most intelligent ever.

However,

The Heart of the Defiant Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil
Leonidas Cheliotis
This paper attempts to trace the capacities individuals must have to resist over-regulatory and often inhumane
structural pressures. It is argued that the way individuals respond to structural pressures is contingent not only
upon differing temporal, spatial and power conjunctures, but also upon varying degrees of moral courage,
individual reflectivity and the ensuant subjective conceptions of agentic possibilities of resistance–a tripartite set of
human qualities, capacities, or dispositions that Moore (1978: 91) calls ‘iron of the soul’. It is also suggested that,
despite ultimately serving given goals according to a plan that is objectively rational, acts of resistance need not
axiomatically be the outcome of genuinely conscious deliberations and scholastic ratiocinations. Instead, following
Bourdieu, they may be viewed as spontaneous ripostes to social stimuli, rooted deep within an embodied practical
reason. Admittedly, however, deviance from structural prescriptions is not inherently innovative, nor are struggles
against the established order intrinsically creative and positive. With reference to reflectivity, a further attempt is
thus made to distinguish between what could be respectively termed empathy-induced altruistic resistance (where
actors, driven by empathic emotions that lead to altruistic motivations, hold true to their chosen worldviews and
value commitments) and narcissistic resistance (e.g., professional resistance to organisational reforms with the aim
to reaffirm one’s self-esteem or position as member of a union or syndicate, in front of, and in relation to,
colleagues). The intention here is to stress that the emergence, yet also the benefits, of narcissistic resistance can
only be precarious, if not highly improbable. It is not simply that the occurrence of narcissistic resistance is
contingent upon the existence of unconventional or recalcitrant significant others; for one’s narcissistic urge to be
channelled into the avenues of a resistance pursuant to the objective needs of society, significant others must also
espouse truly progressive values and beliefs. Reflectivity, however, is not only about being able to assess the
degree of artificiality or authenticity of one’s motives. It is also about being able to detect those particular structural
forces that may actually facilitate the delivery of deontological, humanitarian goals. Much in accord with Hegel’s
concept of Aufhebung (or sublation), the paper concludes by arguing that progress or reform can be reached
through a dialectical process of preserving positive contours of the present, whilst at the same time negating the
negations that block human potentialities.
Leonidas Cheliotis is a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. He was awarded
the Manuel López-Rey Graduate Prize in Criminology for 2004. His postgraduate studies are funded by St John’s
College–Cambridge University, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Cambridge European Trust and
the George and Marie Vergottis Fund and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology (Manuel López-Rey Scholarship Fund). Amongst other outlets, his research work has recently appeared in Punishment & Society, Criminology &
Criminal Justice, the British Journal of Criminology and the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.

If someone is able to get that paper, I could not find it!

And also this one:


Did We Really Get Rid of Commands? Thoughts on a Theme from Elias Canetti

Andrea Brighenti1 Contact Information
(1) Andrea Brighenti, via Franz Kafka, 8, 38066 Riva del Garda, Italy

Abstract Neither in contemporary sociology nor in legal theory is much attention paid to the theoretical object of commands. This paper explores some features of commands that tend to remain largely invisible in social action, as well as largely under-theorized in the scholarly literature. The analysis draws on early reflection by Elias Canetti and tries to clarify the dynamics of the relationship between law and commands from a sociological perspective. The main claim is that command cannot be reduced to a linguistic entity, but has to be considered in the more complex frame of a direct relationship among subjects and their bodies within a shared space. Explanation of commands is made even more difficult by the fact that they take place in a space that is located ambiguously in between the realm of the subjective and that of the objective, in between passions and institutions.

Keywords authority - body - command - legitimation - power
I would like to thank all those who gave me their important and valuable comments to improve earlier versions of this text: Rod Macdonald, Robert Leckey, Giolo Fele, Maria Paola Mittica, Ivan Pupolizio, Isacco Turina, and one anonymous editorial reviewer.

The first one I could not find and the second one has false content!

Be well!

Justin