GENIUS FORUMS

Why are so many geniuses eccentric?

There is no genius without eccentricity, by definition really.

Dear sir, please read the question and answer it with careful contemplation. Thank-you

Eccentric is a relative term. Eccentrics are not perceived as such by other eccentrics. It is usually only those who have never thought deeply about anything in their lives that label someone as eccentric. The term is a byproduct of having a largely unconscious population that define what normality is based on their own blind conventional ways of socializing.

What is paranoia?

I.C.G.A wrote:

What is paranoia?

Huh? I don’t follow. How does defining what paranoia is relate to the topic at hand?

Ryan R wrote:It is usually only those who have never thought deeply about anything in their lives that label someone as eccentric.

O RLY? Explain this one and tell me how this was a product of her thinking deeply. Eh, no - I take that back - she was thinking "deeply" - very "deep" indeed...
.

Elizabeth,

It all depends on how you define the word eccentric I suppose.

What's wrong with being eccentric? Unless, of course, you marry a dolphin. That's just nuts. Eccentricity usually comes about due to creativity, and creativity is the prime ingredient of intelligence. I say that folks should embrace those harmless quirks that make them unique.

Eccentricity is just a label for a certain degree of difference to societal norms. Geniuses are obviously eccentric by this measure.

It all depends on how you define the word eccentric I suppose.

The eccentricity e of an ellipse is defined as e = c/a, where c is half the distance between foci. Eccentricity is a number that describes the degree of roundness of the ellipse. For any ellipse, 0 < e < 1. The smaller the eccentricity, the rounder the ellipse. If e = 0, it is a circle and F1, F2 are coincident.

If an ellipse is not eccentric at all, it is a circle. This means that all points are the same distance from the center. The more stretched out that the ellipse is, the greater its eccentricity.

When talking about people, eccentric is just a person who deviates from the average. The greater the deviation, the greater the eccentricity.

Edit to add: an example of an eccentric ellipse is Halley's comet. It's eccentricity is 0.967. It doesn't get much more eccentric than that.

-

Ignorant Carl G Arse wrote:Why are so many geniuses eccentric?

The simple answer is because they are geniuses.

A more complex answer would involve the fact that they view things on multiple levels and are fearless about expressing their viewpoints. They realize that they are different and don't fear either their own originality or how they are perceived by others.
They realize that one's perception is one's own reality.
They understand that they are going to be a target for those who don't understand why they are the way they are and simply don't really care in any meaningful way.
They get it. They don't neccessarily need to be popular because they are too pre-occupied with wanting to be great at whatever it is that interests them in a significant way.
Geniuses are rare; therefore, they are going to be labled by those that are intimidated by their strong intellectual strengths.

Personally, I view the whole "eccentricity" label as a badge of honor. The "centric" folks are more concerned about how they are perceived by others. That is because they don't understand anybody (including themselves).
food for thought....

Why are so many geniuses eccentric?

To be "eccentric" is to deviate from normal, conventional thinking to a significant degree. To be a genius is to do so in ways that expand people's consciousness.

In other words, one must be eccentric to be a genius, but not all eccentrics are geniuses. Some are just kooks.

That distinction, of course, is enormously subjective, and what may constitute genius in one person's estimation may be rubbish in another's. However, all genuises will be perceived as eccentrics to a certain extent, whether or not their genius is also recognized. That's why so many geniuses (in fact all) are eccentric.

they are eccentric because what normal people think is weird they think is normal. How many things that normal people do are actually normal? Go sit and think about it carefully. Like, normal people can't even form proper rows to stand in at supermarkets. They will stand in such ways as to allow maximum amounts of people to "weave" through them uncomfortably and to block the way for others to walk through. Then they have to move and shuffle around the whole time to allow others to pass. Sometimes they get it right, but mostly...nope...

I dunno about that. I'm well aware that most of the weird things I do are weird. Why would eccentric persons be blind to the reality (weirdness) of their own actions and personalities, particularly if some of them are supposed to have more insight than the ordinary person?

My actions are weird because thinking is weird. Intelligence is weird. In American schools of the 1980's, one learned this lesson quite early on, usually through being socially ostracized.

Shahrazad wrote: The eccentricity e of an ellipse is defined as e = c/a, where c is half the distance between foci. Eccentricity is a number that describes the degree of roundness of the ellipse. For any ellipse, 0 < e < 1. The smaller the eccentricity, the rounder the ellipse. If e = 0, it is a circle and F1, F2 are coincident.

-

OK but it should be fairly obvious to everyone that we're not talking about mathematical concepts here, but rather to the social definition of eccentric...

Do you find a connection between this definition and

deviating from the recognized or customary character, practice, etc.; irregular; erratic; peculiar; odd: eccentric conduct; an eccentric person.

a person who has an unusual, peculiar, or odd personality, set of beliefs, or behavior pattern.
(from dictionary.com)

What was your purpose in posting math?

OK but it should be fairly obvious to everyone that we're not talking about mathematical concepts here, but rather to the social definition of eccentric...

Nah! Really?

Do you find a connection between this definition and . . .

My point was that an ellipse is a stretched out circle, just as an eccentric is a stretched out (i.e., off-center) person.
The connection is that it's the same word, and it is used in a similar way, even in two different contexts. Sort of the way Victor and Dan were arguing about the definition of infinity, and them talking about two different things. Go back and try to understand what Victor was saying there, then come back to this thread.

What was your purpose in posting math?

So that those who don't know math could see what eccentric really means in math, and then they could extrapolate and thus apply it to the "social" variation of the word.

What, it's ok for Victor to use math to explain infinity, but it's not ok for me to do the same with eccentric? Why?

-

Shahrazad wrote: My point was that an ellipse is a stretched out circle, just as an eccentric is a stretched out (i.e., off-center) person.
The connection is that it's the same word, and it is used in a similar way, even in two different contexts. Sort of the way Victor and Dan were arguing about the definition of infinity, and them talking about two different things. Go back and try to understand what Victor was saying there, then come back to this thread.

I really don't see much similarity between Dan redefining infinite so that it can only be The Infinite and Victor using a mathematical definition versus you posting a random mathematical definition. See, what Vic is talking about is QRS misappropriating terms and ignoring their actual definitions.

All you're showing here is that there are two semi-related definitions of a word.

A lot of words have two different definitions - look at "lead" - if I say that Christians want to be lead, would you suggest that I meant they wanted to be a metal? With Victor we're looking at a literal textbook definition vs a made up one, while with you we're looking at two different definitions of the same word which are both in standard use, and people who use them easily differentiate between the two.

Vic's point is that QRS misappropriate a term and then try to apply their conclusions about the misdefined term to whatever the term originally applied to. He was discussing certainty, not whether words can have multiple definitions.

So that those who don't know math could see what eccentric really means in math, and then they could extrapolate and thus apply it to the "social" variation of the word.

So why not explain your thoughts, rather than just copy pasting a definition from somewhere unattributed? In fact you're still yet to explain why you did so, really. Why should one consider a circle or ellipse when discussing social phenomena?

What, it's ok for Victor to use math to explain infinity, but it's not ok for me to do the same with eccentric? Why?
-

Since your post predates Victor's podcast being posted this is non-sensical. (You posted Apr 4, The podcasts went up Apr 6).

Since your post predates Victor's podcast being posted this is non-sensical.

Why, because Victor's podcast suddenly gave me the permission to use math to help explain the definition of a word, permission that I didn't have before? Who is being nonsensical?

If anything, the fact that I did it before Victor did is proof that I wasn't just following Victor's lead.

I really don't see much similarity between Dan redefining infinite so that it can only be The Infinite and Victor using a mathematical definition versus you posting a random mathematical definition.

OK, let me repeat it for you: Victor used math to define the word infinite, just as I used math to define the word eccentric. That his use of math happened in the middle of an argument on word redefinition and mine did not is totally irrelevant, or if it is relevant, you have yet to prove it.

I really don't see much similarity between Dan redefining infinite so that it can only be The Infinite and Victor using a mathematical definition versus you posting a random mathematical definition.

My definition of eccentric is random? Prove it.

With Victor we're looking at a literal textbook definition vs a made up one, while with you we're looking at two different definitions of the same word which are both in standard use,

No, I will say it again: I believe these are not two different definitions of a word, but rather a same definition being used in two different contexts.

He was discussing certainty, not whether words can have multiple definitions.

Did I say he was talking about multiple definitions? No, of course not. You pulled that out of thin air.

Why should one consider a circle or ellipse when discussing social phenomena?

Why should I continue to explain what I have already explained when it is obvious you are being dense on purpose and making a big deal out of very little? I'm dropping it here, unless someone else is interested in my views on eccentricity.

-

Shahrazad wrote:My definition of eccentric is random?

Shahrazad wrote:The eccentricity e of an ellipse is defined as e := c/a, where c is half the distance between foci. Eccentricity is a number that describe the degree of roundness of the ellipse. For any ellipse, 0 < e < 1. The smaller the eccentricy, the rounder the ellipse. If e == 0, it is a circle and F1, F2 are coincident

Xah Lee wrote:The eccentricity e of an ellipse is defined as e := c/a, where c is half the distance between foci. Eccentricity is a number that describe the degree of roundness of the ellipse. For any ellipse, 0 < e < 1. The smaller the eccentricy, the rounder the ellipse. If e == 0, it is a circle and F1, F2 are coincident

http://xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_di ... lipse.html

Busted.

And a lot more has been discovered where that came from. Just a heads-up.

What annoys me personally is that Sher used my name, and my argument, as an excuse to make a completely BS proposition, without even understanding what my argument was, or how her abuse of 'eccentricity' has nothing to do with my use of 'infinity'.

You guys are getting ridiculous. I wasn't trying to win an argument or anything, and I am being given the nth degree. I just posted an innocent definition of a word. You just can't let it go, can you? Geez.

Nat,

Why was I busted? Did I claim to be the first to define eccentricity mathematically? The concept has been around a long time. I have known about it since the 70s, and who knows when it was first formulated. Something that has been around for over 30 years is public domain, and using it doesn't have to involve quoting sources, just like the Pythagoras Theorem doesn't need quoting sources.

When I said "my definition", I meant the one I subscribe to. Duh.

Victor,

What annoys me personally is that Sher used my name, and my argument, as an excuse to make a completely BS proposition, without even understanding what my argument was, or how her abuse of 'eccentricity' has nothing to do with my use of 'infinity'.

How did I abuse your argument? All I did was ask if it is ok for you to use math to define a word, and not for me. If that is a major crime, don't worry, this is the last time I use your name at all. It was giving you a lot more importance than you have or deserve, anyhow.

I understood your argument, asshole, there was nothing deeply philosophical about it.

Man, if someone could buy you for what you're worth, and sell you for what you think you're worth, they'd be very well off. I have no idea why Dan wasted so much of his valuable time interviewing you.

Do I have to explain the joke for you? I'm sure it went over your ugly head.

You turned out to be an even bigger asshole than I imagined. So are you, Nat, and so are you, Katy. Talk about me as much as you want, for all I care. I don't have time for this right now, even if I wanted to continue it.

If anybody else besides Nat, Vic and Katy thinks it was a crime for me to use math to define a word, fuck you too.

-

Shahrazad wrote:How did I abuse your argument? All I did was ask if it is ok for you to use math to define a word, and not for me.

... without understanding the difference between mathematic formalization of an extant term, and mathematic appropriation of a borderline-related term.

I understood your argument, asshole, there was nothing deeply philosophical about it.

Man, if someone could buy you for what you're worth, and sell you for what you think you're worth, they'd be very well off. I have no idea why Dan wasted so much of his valuable time interviewing you.

Yeah, me neither. Surely his time would have been much better spent drinking at your fount of philosophical wisdom.

Do I have to explain the joke for you? I'm sure it went over your ugly head.

You turned out to be an even bigger asshole than I imagined. So are you, Nat, and so are you, Katy. Talk about me as much as you want, for all I care. I don't have time for this right now, even if I wanted to continue it.

With you being so busy, it's a wonder you had enough time to write that rather lengthy post excoriating everyone for being assholes.

If anybody else besides Nat, Vic and Katy thinks it was a crime for me to use math to define a word, fuck you too.

Crime? No; but you did it without understanding of why some terms are merely formalized in math, while others are redefined.

You might as well try to compare the mathematical use of 'equality' (which mirrors and formalizes common use) with mathematical use of 'limit' (which has very little to do with common use).

Sher,

They seem to have 2 complaints, but neither is worth getting upset over. One is that you didn't link your source. Plagiarism isn't cool, but there are far worse crimes. Just cite your sources in the future, and it will be okay. The second is that your analogy was as bad as some of my bad egg analogies (for those not on BA, I started a challenge thread stating that if we allow for a bad enough analogy, anything can be compared to an egg. Some of the analogies were pretty atrocious, but I won). Sher, although your ellipse analogy was bad, I will say that it was pretty creative. Don't worry about it.
.