GENIUS FORUMS

What is the I.Q. that means you are a genius? Is it like 160 or so? Also, what is the S.A.T. score that marks a genius? Is it 1500 or so (2250 with the new scoring system).

A simple Google search will grant you the answers to such questions. This has no relationship to philosophical genius so I've moved it down here.

Suffering is a precursor to the type of genius we are on about here. Not IQ. Suffering leads to a desire to understand "what is real", whereas IQ only does so to a limited extent.

In my experience, really high IQ is almost equivalent to a mental illness and therefore not suited to the attainment of philosophical genius, which is as much, if not more, about values than raw intelligence.

well then, what would you think would mark a genius based on S.A.T. score? I doubt you could find that on a search because they are not geared toward the IQ test. I am trying to see if we should equate a certain score from the S.A.T. with a certain score from a professional IQ test, and raw intelligence (as you put it) is what marks a genius based on the scales, so that's what I am asking it for.

acid wrote:well then, what would you think would mark a genius based on S.A.T. score? I doubt you could find that on a search because they are not geared toward the IQ test. I am trying to see if we should equate a certain score from the S.A.T. with a certain score from a professional IQ test, and raw intelligence (as you put it) is what marks a genius based on the scales, so that's what I am asking it for.

We don't find that kind of information on SAT scores because that's not what SATs are meant to measure. They measure acheivement: what you learned in school rather than inate ability.

Which really has nothing to do with "genius" anyway - IQ and SATs are just things to pat yourself on the back with while you waste your life.

None of which has anything to do with the meaning of Genius here.

IQ scores are different depending on which test is given.

Here's the qualifying page for Mensa - maybe that will give you some clue about what you are looking for.

test scores qualifying for Mensa[quote][/quote]

yeah, that's a good link, thnx.

Dan Rowden wrote:

In my experience, really high IQ is almost equivalent to a mental illness and therefore not suited to the attainment of philosophical genius, which is as much, if not more, about values than raw intelligence.

You don't consider autism to be a mark of genius, Dan?

acid, you might find my experiences at Ne Plus Ultra, a forum comprised of Mensa-types, to be interesting. It nicely illustrates the limitations of that kind of "genius".

-

David Quinn wrote:You don't consider autism to be a mark of genius, Dan?

Er, no. The problem is the disconnection of one function of mind from all the others. The male mind, especially, is naturally highly compartmentalised, but with autistim and savantism is is very extreme and though this gives an individual great ability in a certain area, it also makes them incapable of intergrating that ability with the rest of the mind.

That's why I refer to it as akin to a mental illness. Godel and Nash come readily to mind.

There are some who would say that becoming a Buddha is a form of autism and mental illness. The rational and intuitive faculties are developed to a very high degree, while other facets of the mind, such as the hedonism, aimlessness, feminine submissiveness, emotional feelings, etc, are allowed to fall into a state of atrophy. He is, in effect, a very unbalanced figure.

Why is one form of unbalance called "genius" and not others?

-

David Quinn wrote:
Why is one form of unbalance called "genius" and not others?

-

If it increases functionality in some area, it is called genius. If something is an unbalance that is not disruptive, it is not considered a mental illness. A combination of how functional the unbalance is with how nondisruptive the unbalance is gives a more overall consideration of genius.

Functionality and disruptiveness are in the eye of the beholder.

Under your criteria, Elizabeth, anyone could be called a genius

-

David Quinn wrote:There are some who would say that becoming a Buddha is a form of autism and mental illness.

That's because reality and falsity aren't factors in their perspective of what constitutes mental health (at least for the average person). Also, a Buddha consciously develops aspects of his mind whereas savants have no choice in the matter.

The rational and intuitive faculties are developed to a very high degree, while other facets of the mind, such as the hedonism, aimlessness, feminine submissiveness, emotional feelings, etc, are allowed to fall into a state of atrophy. He is, in effect, a very unbalanced figure.

Again, only if seen from a perspective that doesn't take falsity into account. Allowing the false to atrophy no more makes one unbalanced than does the gaining of knowledge which causes ignorance to atrophy.

Why is one form of unbalance called "genius" and not others?

"Unbalanced" means a lack of proper distribution of sanity throughout mind. Imbalance comes when one part of the mind is sane/rational but others parts are not. There is literally an imbalance of sanity. The mind of the genius is wholly integrated into Reality and is therefore wholly sane and balanced.

If one perceives that one's own mentation is disruptive to one's life, that is disruptive. If the behavior of one is disruptive to the community but the individual does not find it disruptive to his life, it is nevertheless disruptive. How big of a disruption (therefore how big of a problem) is a judgement call.

Functionality is the polar opposite of disruptiveness. Genius is more that which is deemed functional by the corresponding level of society to be most highly functional. Buddha would be up for judgement on whether he was a genius by philosophers. Motzart would be up for judgement on whether he was a genius by musicians. Those are their communities. Buddha might be considered a madman by mathematicians.

Yes, one could be both a madman and a genius, but if the madness overshadows the genius, then the genius gets lost in the madness.

By the above criteria, if we include the allusion to your description of levels of unbalance, a sufficiently unbalanced (meaning much more of the attributes of a valued goal than the average person, and much fewer or lesser attributes that are counter to the desired goal), a person of any field could be called a genius. It is a universalized description of Genius Forums' concept of genius to philosophy. I don't imagine you would prefer the definition "IQ of a minimum of 132" or 146, or some other such number off of a scale which only measures how well one does on a particular kind of test.

David Quinn wrote: The rational and intuitive faculties are developed to a very high degree, while other facets of the mind, such as the hedonism, aimlessness, feminine submissiveness, emotional feelings, etc, are allowed to fall into a state of atrophy. He is, in effect, a very unbalanced figure.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:That's because reality and falsity aren't factors in their perspective of what constitutes mental health...

Allowing the false to atrophy no more makes one unbalanced than does the gaining of knowledge which causes ignorance to atrophy...

"Unbalanced" means a lack of proper distribution of sanity throughout mind. Imbalance comes when one part of the mind is sane/rational but others parts are not. There is literally an imbalance of sanity. The mind of the genius is wholly integrated into Reality and is therefore wholly sane and balanced.

It seems to me here that David is considering this from a philosophical approach of "unbalance" meaning a lack of everything being mushed together - good, bad, noble, foolish - all in a formless glob.

Dan, on the other hand, is looking at "balanced" and "unbalanced" from psychological conceptualizations of mental health.

I think the two of you are discussing different topics.

Elizabeth wrote:

If one perceives that one's own mentation is disruptive to one's life, that is disruptive. If the behavior of one is disruptive to the community but the individual does not find it disruptive to his life, it is nevertheless disruptive. How big of a disruption (therefore how big of a problem) is a judgement call.

Functionality is the polar opposite of disruptiveness.

"Functionality" is the sort of word that bureaucrats love. It's a horrible term. Please, let's not even think about using it in connection with genius.

Socrates and Jesus greatly disrupted their respective societies and yet both count among the finest geniuses in all history. Indeed, their level of disruptiveness was precisely their genius.

Socrates used to call himself a gadfly - an irritating, disruptive creature. Jesus used to talk about bringing fire and destruction to the world, and turning family members against each other. There's nothing "functional" about any of that.

Genius is more that which is deemed functional by the corresponding level of society to be most highly functional. Buddha would be up for judgement on whether he was a genius by philosophers. Motzart would be up for judgement on whether he was a genius by musicians. Those are their communities. Buddha might be considered a madman by mathematicians.

Unfortunately, he would also be considered a madman by nearly all philosophers too.

Yes, one could be both a madman and a genius, but if the madness overshadows the genius, then the genius gets lost in the madness.

It is impossible to be a madman and a genius at the same time. In essence, genius is sanity.

It seems to me here that David is considering this from a philosophical approach of "unbalance" meaning a lack of everything being mushed together - good, bad, noble, foolish - all in a formless glob.

Dan, on the other hand, is looking at "balanced" and "unbalanced" from psychological conceptualizations of mental health.

I think the two of you are discussing different topics.

Not at all. I was talking about it from the psychological angle as well. But as Dan rightly points out, the key criteria is Reality and the individual's relationship to it. If a person is psychologically unbalanced towards Reality, then he is in danger of becoming sane.

-

David Quinn wrote: If a person is psychologically unbalanced towards Reality, then he is in danger of becoming sane.

If a person is psychologically unbalanced towards Reality, then he is in danger of becoming sane?

Dan Rowden wrote: The mind of the genius is wholly integrated into Reality and is therefore wholly sane and balanced.

.

David Quinn wrote: It is impossible to be a madman and a genius at the same time. In essence, genius is sanity.

Nash comes to mind, and a few others who suffered from mental illness yet made great contributions (yes, for the purpose of addressing your earlier question of unbalance, I'm including areas other than philosophical genius).

David Quinn wrote: Socrates and Jesus greatly disrupted their respective societies and yet both count among the finest geniuses in all history. Indeed, their level of disruptiveness was precisely their genius.
-

Yet, you have banned those you have found disruptive to the board... These men were not disruptive to their communities (meaning those that gathered around them), but to the societal constructs. Again, it was a judgement call (and in those cases of their punishments, a poor one). They were not running around slashing people's throats, for example. That would call for a judgement of bad disruptiveness. It is not (I'll substitute to avoid "functional") it is not practical. It is not rational.

David Quinn wrote:Socrates used to call himself a gadfly - an irritating, disruptive creature. Jesus used to talk about bringing fire and destruction to the world, and turning family members against each other. There's nothing "functional" about any of that.

Except, of course, when measured against Truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: A combination of how functional the unbalance is with how nondisruptive the unbalance is gives a more overall consideration of genius.

It's the combination and the functionality refers to practicality based on rationality, based on Ultimate Reality. One thing about UR is it is measured by what works and is therefore "functional."

David Quinn wrote: Unfortunately, he (Buddha) would also be considered a madman by nearly all philosophers too.

How so?

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ:If a person is psychologically unbalanced towards Reality, then he is in danger of becoming sane.

EI: If a person is psychologically unbalanced towards Reality, then he is in danger of becoming sane?

Dan Rowden wrote:
The mind of the genius is wholly integrated into Reality and is therefore wholly sane and balanced.

From the perspective of mainstream society, the sane person who is wholly integrated into Reality is very unbalanced.

"Balance" is one of those New-age spiritual terms which don't really mean anything. Is a person who engages in equal amounts of rational and irrational thoughts balanced or unbalanced? From the perspective of wisdom, he would be very unbalanced.

-

Elizabeth,

DQ: It is impossible to be a madman and a genius at the same time. In essence, genius is sanity.

EI: Nash comes to mind, and a few others who suffered from mental illness yet made great contributions (yes, for the purpose of addressing your earlier question of unbalance, I'm including areas other than philosophical genius).

I don't consider Nash to be a genius. Philosophical genius is the only kind of genius there is.

Genius divorced from sanity is merely talent.

DQ: Socrates and Jesus greatly disrupted their respective societies and yet both count among the finest geniuses in all history. Indeed, their level of disruptiveness was precisely their genius.

EI: Yet, you have banned those you have found disruptive to the board...

Their disruptiveness was of a different kind.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
A combination of how functional the unbalance is with how nondisruptive the unbalance is gives a more overall consideration of genius.

It's the combination and the functionality refers to practicality based on rationality, based on Ultimate Reality. One thing about UR is it is measured by what works and is therefore "functional."

What, in your view, is a specific example of a functional action in relation to Ultimate Reality?

DQ:
Unfortunately, he (Buddha) would also be considered a madman by nearly all philosophers too.

EI: How so?

Because like most people, philosophers are tethered to their attachments and cherished views, which Buddhas laugh at with gay abandon.

-

"genius" begins at about 135... iowa basic skills are a good barometer -- providing one has a decent grasp of 'modern american'-english :-|

"sats" are minimally invasive at the brain stem... depends how you are feeling on the day(s) of the testing :-| :-) :-(


more comments after another nap


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

Elizabeth,

Thanks, for the MENSA link.

I've been a 'continuing member' since 1983.

I perform the ritual (mensa qualifiers) every 5 years about. Haven't "failed" yet!

ps- like the spider photo :-)


Warm Regards,
-on a hot winter day-


Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason



.

Thanks for the link, David Quinn. I look forward to checking out that mensa site. I'm sure I can't make it. lol

David Quinn wrote: From the perspective of mainstream society, the sane person who is wholly integrated into Reality is very unbalanced.

David Quinn wrote: "Balance" is one of those New-age spiritual terms which don't really mean anything. Is a person who engages in equal amounts of rational and irrational thoughts balanced or unbalanced?

David Quinn wrote: From the perspective of wisdom, he would be very unbalanced.

That was the concept I was going for when I said:

It seems to me here that David is considering this from a philosophical approach of "unbalance" meaning a lack of everything being mushed together - good, bad, noble, foolish - all in a formless glob.

because that was the only way I could interpret you as being correct when you said:

The rational and intuitive faculties are developed to a very high degree, while other facets of the mind, such as the hedonism, aimlessness, feminine submissiveness, emotional feelings, etc, are allowed to fall into a state of atrophy. He is, in effect, a very unbalanced figure.

Since interpreting some of your writings (such as where woman can actually mean a genetic male) involves redefining vocabulary in order to find the concept that you meant (which would then be correct), I approached your statement from the angle of "how can this be correct?"

I suppose I am still having difficulty with the differences between directness and this "trickery" concept.

David Quinn wrote:Their disruptiveness was of a different kind.

That is what I meant when I said "judgement call."

David Quinn wrote:What, in your view, is a specific example of a functional action in relation to Ultimate Reality?

Telling the truth, exposing people to wisdom, standing up for what is right and following through until justice is done...How specific do you want? Here's a smaller, but more specific example of a functional action in relation to UR - a couple of years ago, I had to have a tumor removed. It was benign, so when another similar one showed up right after I lost my health insurance, I ignored it. Within a month after I swtiched to organic food and started taking vitamins regularly, the tumor went away (and actually, so did my tinnitus). When I couldn't afford organic food, the tumor came back (and so did the tinnitus). There's Ultimate Reality - if I live in accordance with how Nature "wants" me to live, I am healthy. If I live out of accordance with Nature, I am not healthy.

DQ: Unfortunately, he (Buddha) would also be considered a madman by nearly all philosophers too.

EI: How so?

DQ: Because like most people, philosophers are tethered to their attachments and cherished views, which Buddhas laugh at with gay abandon.

In that case, I propose they are not true philosophers. Philosophasters perhaps, but not philosophers.