What constitutes genius

>>9390046
sure thing

>>9390054
Ye

It's a combination of good genetics and good environmental influence. Genes make you learn fast, environment provides the tools and opportunities to learn. Pretty much all of it is down to luck until we have the technology to make designer babies that are genetically modified to be super humans, cognitively and physically.

Everything you aren't

democritus who said world was chance

>>9390118
Projection

Regarding age, how late is too late? What if you fuck around and don't SERIOUSLY get into literature until 21, but then thereafter you spend 6+ hours a day reading/learning languages.

>>9390169
Growing up with it means your thought patterns develop around it a lot easier, which is why learning an instrument as a.child is a lot easier

Its harder for adults but easily possible

>>9390169
Never. 21 is still baby age.

File: stirner.jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>9390046
nice spook buckaroo

>>9390173
>>9390175
Thanks bros.

>>9390046
Who'd you listen to? The genius or the man who's spent years researching but with a slight above AVG intelligence?

>>9390169

Stevens was 35 when he was published

>>9390198
Yeah but he was writing for just as long, its not like he started writing at 32

>>9390182
Why is it a spook?

>>9390169
yr fine m8. Realistically, no one spends that much time specializing before college. In the pursuit of well-rounded mediocrity they will be able do everything at an OK level, but true, serious study? Not until grad level.

>>9390209
Hes a memelord dw

>>9390046
Joyce played piano from a young age and read tons of shit in 17 different languages.

>>9390471
So 1.

File: spooks3.jpg (123KB, 948x703px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 948x703px

>>9390209
It isn't necessarily: Stirner describes genius as "a definitive eigenheit." Eigenheit literally means "ownness," but it best translates as peculiarity. I think his is the best characterization of genius so far produced.

Although, like anything, it can become a spook if one is frightened and overawed by its ideal.

I've been having issues with what it is to be smart.

People say I'm smart and that they don't understand half the things I'm saying when I speak up in law school. When I ask what makes someone smart, they have no characteristics, only other people.


Am I a sperglord who can't properly communicate my ideas, or is there something more to it?

File: endit.jpg (25KB, 524x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 524x400px

>>9390504
>Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.

t. Freddy Neechee

>>9390493
So genius is spurious to him?

Obviously hard work and dedication and contributing factors as well, but yes, 10000 hours and any "theories" them are nothing more than pop culture fallacies.

A genius is a person a genius describes as genius.

Joke's aside, your ability to sense genius is in proportion to your genius.

>>9390046
The 10,000 hours concepts gets muddled when you consider tasks most of us have done out whole lives. Examples like reading and writing aren't really like ice skating because we're almost all guaranteed to get our 10,000 hours in.

>>9391099
writing is a skill though

so is reading

both with a variety of applicable methods

>>9390046

1. Realized potential

2. Blessings and learnings

3. Nature and nurture

>>9390562
I can only say, again, not necessarily. If a person attempts to write based on what they think is the "true" meaning of genius, and pores over Dante, Shakespeare, Pound and the like to aid in its production, that person has been spooked by the idea of genius.

If a person produces art that is their own, regardless of what the aforementioned "canonical masters" have to say about it, and is concentrated on that production, that person would fit the description of a modern "genius." That is, if one find that term to be useful.

>>9391163

Genius is narrowing the gap to close the distance between intention and execution, with a level of flair and instinct; inherited vs acquired.

>>9390182
Please tell me more vulgar images of the Unique One exist.

>>9391169
>reading Shakespeare will not contribute to your talent

Do you realise how wrong you are?

>>9391258
Not what I said.

A genius will read Shakespeare and incorporate his work into their own artistic style, while a sub-genius will try to "be like Shakespeare."

>>9391263
So Melville, author of one of the greatest pieces of literature ever, is a "sub-genius"?

>>9391266
He did the former and not the latter, so no, he's not.

>>9391156
A skill that anyone here learns and practices constantly just by living

>>9392002
nope

>>9392002
Reading Facebook comments and instructions for cooking microwave dinners is not the same. This is a ridiculous response because everyone might be doing it their whole lives, they are not practicing unless they actively challenge themselves. Most people don't.

>we all walk our wholes lives so the idea of someone being better at it doesn't make sense

Go back

To me genius is simply how much a person expanded the boundaries of humanity. You could be a dumb genius if you put your head down and headed straight towards one of those boundaries without considering anything else or you could be smart, but not a genius if you spent your life learning everything within those boundaries without expanding them.

>>9390227
This isn't true. Every published literary writer will have been a serious reader since childhood. Being a writer is more comparable with being a concert pianist or something like that than a...chemist.

>>9392272
This is so true. I'm bad at writing and didn't start reading twelve hours (as per my daily regimen for becoming a writer which includes defining fifty words upon waking up and ten before bed, memorizing a poem each day, and at least one hour of straight typing whatever pops into my head with literally no breaks) per day until I was twenty-four. I dedicate my life to this craft and I still can't compete with my ten year old cousin who recites poetry each weekend for the elderly.

>>9390046
10 000 hours thing has never had anything to do with being a genius.
10 000 hours is the hours put in to be professional at what you are doing

>>9390046

None of these matters, there is only this:

1. Being chosen.

>>9392298
That regime sounds like a joke. In case it isn't, I'd like to know more about you and your writing

>>9392364
Ask away

>>9392082
>>9392111
Reading Facebook comments will help you develop Facebook comments and reading instructions will help you with those. That should be obvious. Their uses extend beyond that as well because they are included in the more general category of reading.

The point about walking is idiotic because most people are experts at walking. It is nearly effortless for us to move our body in that way. Compare that to a child, even a child that is fairly experienced at walking (4 or 5) and you will see that their command over their own movements just hasn't been practiced enough. Or maybe you think only people who can walk marathons are experts at walking? By the time you consider walking extreme distances you've already had thousands of hours of walking in, the ground work you'll have to do is far less. Same goes with reading and writing. If you try to write on a professional level, the groundwork you have to do is far less than for something you'd never practiced.

File: stock-photo-santa-claus-laughing-and-chortling-while-holding-belly-223179355[1].jpg (35KB, 278x470px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 278x470px

little babby boi wants to become a genius

File: stock-vector-chortle-santa-claus-broad-smile-large-mouth-merry-christmas-old-man-xmas-design-template-528498610[1].jpg (38KB, 361x470px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 361x470px

what do you want for chrtismas this year little boi
being genius
HO HO HO

File: naughty-santa-15[1].jpg (24KB, 478x275px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 478x275px

>anything?

>>9392897
>>9392902
>>9392911

Keke. I like you, boy.

>>9392449
Have you published anything? How old are you? What's your income? What do you write? Do you really keep up with your regime every single day?

>>9390046
>10,000 hours concept is nonsense
No, all the potential in the world can be wasted if you do not labor greatly towards your intended achievement. Even the smartest person ever born is nothing compared to the weight of all other thinkers who came before him. Ain't nothin new under the sun my man and you won't know what you don't know if you never apply your inherent talent in a wise and studious way.

>>9392927
I was just kidding. My point was that the guy I was responding to was being an ignorant sperg. I hope that routine becomes real for me one day though, but hopefully a little more relaxed and less technocratic.

>genes
Fuck off with your nonsense.

>>9391258
Why would reading a hack contribute to genius?

>>9393491
>Dis gotta be a troll.

>>9393496
t. reddit

>>9393508
Nah, just somebody who respects an author who can write an epic narrative that is simultaneously contained in a poetic framework and is a great, exciting, and visceral play.
>Peace, I hate the word, as I hate all Montagues and thee.
Fantastic line. You will never write a single line that good.

>>9393566
>projecting this hard
truly the work of a Letzter Mensch

>>9390169
I didn't start reading seriously again until I was 24. I read a lot when I was younger but video games/high school/university just killed it for me.

I'm a pleb so...maybe there is some truth to that.

>>9390046
>10,000 hours concept is nonsense
It might take 10 000 hours to cut a raw gem into the genius that it was destined to be. Destiny is decided by everything, really.

Let's say you have musclebrain genes, but never lift. Anything. You might be stronger than the other neets or office members, but you will never be stronger than the pros, even if they were less capable from their standpoints. Say, they were bullied at school and thought that they needed to get stronger and they did. You need character to face a destiny.

Intelligence is just a tool, genius is a state of being. Ergo
>Character
>Potential (genes and encounters and all that)
>Will

I have lots of potential, I have barely any character and no will at all.

>>9393491
Serious answer: it will show you how smart an artist can be, and more in general how deep, meaningful, perfectly constructed, genuinely intelligent a piece of art can be. It does not matter if you won't follow the style of Shakespeare (who does, after all?), what matters is that it reveals to you how great and poetic something can be: it gives you a new standard of excellence, which, if you're a good artist, you should try to overcome (the hows and whys are up to you).
By the way I think that this applies to all the great pieces of art, no matter what the craft you've picked is.

>>9390046
step one is focusing your attention away from "genius"
Never has a genius consciously considered the becoming of what he is in terminology used by those unlike him. You either have ideas or you dont. You either capitalize on them or you dont. There is no suspected direction in which they arrive from. It could be any and everywhere or nowhere. Train and build up your talent so when and if you happen to meet one of these ideas you're able to execute it.

>>9392272
It's more to do with applied method rather than age. Children, when trained, absorb method unlike anything else. It's no longer conscious; it exists solely to their being and its natural expression.
Train in method, live in method, and act in method and the possibility of chance may serve you one day.

>>9393605
Oh look, a multitude of platitudes.

>>9393604
We all have lots of potential buddy. We all do.

File: godilla.jpg (94KB, 482x462px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 482x462px

>>9390046

Simple:

Talent hits a target no one else can; genius hits a target no one else can see.

10,000 hour concept is not nonsense. 10,000 of good practice will make you good at something. 10,000 of shitty practice will not.

>>9392272
I think there is a certain treshold of necessary education in one's childhood, but past that any difference can be overcome.
I mean, I may sound a bit too elitist here, most of the people you will see in your lifetime are barely aware of their existence, of what they are and the things that they know keep always floating on their surface. It's not about lacking the right words, it's just about being emotional retards. If it never gets challenged in one's formative years it will never amount to anything.

If someone, even without education, can manage to obtain that sensibility through other means, the work is done. At this point the sophistication of his craft will just be just a chore, since the core of his artistic sense is now fully formed.

At the end of the day who cares about the guy who is verbose in the best way? Or about the best structured shallow play?
The technique is not the prerequisite, rather it's just a tool to express something that, simply put, most people simply don't have.

That is genius, and it has nothing to do with intelligence (well, not until a certain point), rather it has to do with a specific set of personal intuitions.

>>9393674
Potential is deceiving. The creative paradigm has introduced to us terminology inexistent to those who presently exhibit another's potential. It's a word expressing the nature of a possibility void of life. It doesn't exist on a level capable of emergence; the idea is the eternal perspective of non-being(s) by a reality stricken single being. I suspect, as scarce as true creativity is, the latter in the previous sentence was developed as a coping mechanism and later established in continuum by pedestrians with enough clarity to acknowledge greater but lacking that which would allow for their gradual ascent to it.

>>9393666
Nice trips.
Is this what A Thousands Plateau is about? I know nothing about Deleuze's philosophy.

>>9393675
- Schopenhauer

A

Before anything, is necessary to acknowledge the fact that “genius” is a subjective concept, some kind of highest-seal-of-approval and supreme-stamp-of-valor that we created to grace those members of our race that we deem to be the most apt examples of the greatness of humanity. It is a term coined to glorify the human beings whose works seem to be inexplicable to the rest of humanity, so difficult and wonderful are the creative powers necessary for them to be produced. In the end, however, “genius” is just a word: there is no organic structure inside the brain of certain individuals that we can call a sure sign of genius. It is even difficult to find a complete unanimity when it comes to the matter of who should receive this ultimate tittle of greatness. Once again: genius is a word that designate a subjective quality.

But to the matter.

What I have read is that a certain level of IQ is necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain limit (IQ of 120) it’s not easy to make correlations. Once this limit is achieved, a person with an IQ of 125-130 might end up creating greater works of art than someone with an extremely rare IQ of 160, and that even though the two people are both making efforts and working hard. The person with the higher IQ might absorb information faster and understand subjects with more facility, and yet his/her creativity might not be as incredible as the one we found in the person with a 125 IQ. The main thing here is:

>A higher than average IQ seems to be necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain level the creativity and personal story of a person can be much more important than extra points of IQ; about creativity, there is no consensus about what it is, how it works, how it can be measured and how much it is related to raw intelligence.

>>9393949

B

IQ is not an absolute test for intelligence, and everybody knows it, yet there is a correlation between great achievers and successful professionals and higher IQ scores. To say IQ is completely irrelevant is to deny a lot of collective knowledge and accumulated data about the subject. But when we say “high IQ” we are not speaking of enormous IQ scores, such as those of 160-170-180 and higher, but simply IQ’s that are superior to scores like 120. In fact, there are lots of people in the world with the capacity to excel in great creative undertakes.

One of the best phrases I ever read about genius is this one, by Havelock Ellis, on his book A Study of British Genius.:

>“Genius is the happy result of a combination of many circumstances.”

That’s actually perfect. Yes, you need a relatively high IQ, but you also need a proper upbringing, the exposition of the person in the right time of her life to the area of creation that is actually her personal field, the many particular characteristics of personality, like ambition, desire to excel, curiosity, obsession, courage, hard-working capacity, and many other circumstances.

It comes down to this: Genius is so rare not because we have few people with high IQ, but because high IQ is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.

>>9393955

C

The best book I have ever read on the subject is this one:

>Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius

http://www.amazon.com/Before-Gates-Excellence-Determinants-Creative/dp/0521376998


In short (and Like I exposed before), although a high intelligence coefficient is necessary, it is not necessary that it be absurdly high, but just a little above average, but the similarities end there.

The great geniuses usually had similar personality traits, that motivated them to spend hours and hours and hours, days and days and days working and improving themselves. Great geniuses are a mix of genes (just good genes, a little above the average – being the average today around 100 IQ points) + creation + specific features of personality beget by the life experiences and genetic material of the child.

All great geniuses were ambitious and had broad desire to be recognized and admired for their work; all of them also had obsessive personalities and thought that they creative jobs were the main function of their lives. They might try to fool people, like Einstein tended to do when he spoke that he was only after truth and satiating his curiosity, but not after fame or glory. No doubt he wanted to satiate his curiosity, yet when he was working on general realtivy he was aware that other people were facing the same challenges (like David Hilbert) and he worked like a fanatic, desperately wanting to complete his theory before others did. If he wanted simply to know the truth he could sit down and wait, for people would get there pretty soon. But of course he, like anybody else, wanted to be proud of himself, of his own achievements, and so he worked hard to be the father of general relativity.

>>9393959

D

Another interesting point: although the child who becomes a genius in the future start his/her career in the specific area of activity in a playful manner (playing with musical instruments, drawing for pleasure, reading for pleasure, etc.), in the future the conscience of their own emerging talent (the child or teen realizes his ability in the field and starts thinking on the possibility of achieve fame with his work) makes the chosen activity becomes not just a pleasurable hobby, but an terribly stressful and overwhelming obligation. The great geniuses often had to work without having the slightest desire to do so (all writers relate the difficulty of having to sit all day, in a routine, and fill the paper with significant literature). Even Einstein, when he worked on the theory of general relativity, eventually was tormented by stomach pain, nausea, anxiety, tachycardia and tremors. The anxiety and fear of failure are constant companions of geniuses, and also the constant dissatisfaction with oneself. The moments of pride and joy are quickly dissolved into new ambitions.

It is also a common feature of geniuses that certain feelings, mainly of respect or value, are wanted but not provided in childhood (sometimes this is even imaginary: the child receives attention and love, but not the enormous amount of attention and praise that it commonly desired). The huge ambition that they have is, in a way, a response to not receiving all the admiration they wish they had received when they were children and teenagers. Genius are generally very proud of themselves.

>>9390046
>10,000 hours concept is nonsense
Why do you think this? Just seems self serving to your laziness, or you don't enjoy the way it unromanticises the work.

Literature is just a bunch of shit someone invented with no necessary relationship to reality _whatsoever_. "Genius" just means your brain is shaped in a way that accords with the shape of the brain of the author who's genius you enjoy.

File: unnamed (2).jpg (22KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 200x300px

>>9391263
>>9391266
STOP BLASPHEMING MY HOLY CHURCH

>>9393904
indubsitably

File: IQ.png (116KB, 1308x854px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1308x854px

>>9393963
>>9393959
>>9393955
>>9393949
Do have the potential to become a genius, or are geniuses born?

>>9393949
IQ is a nonmetric.

>>9393999
with those numerals, id say yes

>>9393967
I am not OP, but here are my thoughts:

10,000 hours, without context or detail, is a completely arbitrary number. It is misleading to assign a number to a subjective and individual pursuit. No two experiences are the same.

10,000 hours has been proven to be an exaggeration.
>Case Western Reserve University's assistant professor of psychology Brooke N. Macnamara and colleagues have subsequently performed a comprehensive review of 9,331 research papers about practice relating to acquiring skills. They focused specifically on 88 papers that collected and recorded data about practice times. In their paper, they note regarding the 10,000-hour rule that "This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing" but "we conducted a meta-analysis covering all major domains in which deliberate practice has been investigated. We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued".

In the book itself, Gladwell cherrypicks anecdotes, uses post-hoc sophistry, and false dichotomies. He is deliberately distorting the reality and truth of situations to suit his theory.

Finally, it is a fancy and trendy way to say "work really hard and you can be good at anything". It is pop nonfiction. It assigned a term to something every person, intelligent or not, knows. The whole book offers nothing original or innovative around the concept of constant and hard work.

>>9394094
Way to take an obvious metaphor literally you dumb cunt. Is all your thinking this one dimensional?

>>9394207
It isn't a metaphor. And even if it was, that doesn't excuse it for exactly what I said.

Have you even read the book?

>>9394254
Have you?

>>9394265
Yes.

>>9390046
"Genius" is apriori

You can still be a prolific and profound author if you work hard enough, but true genius is a gift. It's just a matter of putting it to work

>>9394094
>>9394254
Even if those particulars do not hold exact for individual cases, if offers a pretty thorough description (with some down to earth explanations) of the mechanism by which it IS practice, discipline, and circumstances, not being born with it.

While you might see this as common sense, there are clearly people who would take a different stance in the debate, so it is only as useless as the topic of this entire thread.

I know I'll sound pretentious, but it's just about how truly deep you are. No one can teach you how to do it, and you're not born with it. It just happens and you have to make it your own. It's a succession of insights that brings you deeper and deeper (or higher and higher). You can't teach it, you can just show examples of it and hope that your students will just ''get'' it in a way that is not dogmatic.
This is what genius is.

>>9394292
Note my third point. He cherrypicks situations and events and mainpulates them to suit his theory. He doesn't just report the truth, he reenacts it with suggestions and bias. It is dishonest.

>>9394323
What is that Nietzsche quote that says those who want to appear smart strive for obscurity but those who are smart strive for clarity.

>>9394337
Nietzsche believed in this notion too, Deleuze formalized it as ''sign''.

>>9394283
It's *a priori, genius.

People can be so gosh darn harebrained!

>>9394337
>>9390509
Kind of ironic how 1. many people would consider neeche a genius 2. he is quite obscure at times 3. he still said that

>>9394350
Can you expand on the Deleuze sign?

>>9394337
"They muddy the water, to make seem deep."

>>9394381
Nietzsche's writing is very intertwined with literary techniques. Everything he does is for a reason.

>>9394381
Nietzsche is extraordinarily clear. Such clarity, however, can take more effort than interpreting the extremities of obscurity.

>>9394390
I can believe that.

>>9394405
To whose eyes is Nietzsche's work so clear?

If the answer is the Superman, isn't that a bit of a cop-out? I am clear; but the person to whom I am clear to does not exist.

>>9394382
Not that anon.
This is a gross over-generalization: by seeing and comprehending a ''sign'' you do some sort of sidestep into another perspective, that you immediatly ''undestand'' in a very abstract way (the philosopher or artist will, after that, make a sense out of it, or at the very least analyze this new way of seeing things, this new idea). It's like a making a sidestep and seeing that there was a ladder just next to you which goes as high as the one you were climbing earlier.

On one ladder there's Husserl, on the other one there's Raffello, on the other one there's Dante, on the other one there's Planck, and so on: they're essentially doing the same thing in different ways, and this undefinable things (you could say art, but you know how vague it is as a term) is revealed by these ''signs''. It's an abstract keywoard (the sign) for an abstract language (the manifestation of intellect in different guises).

>>9394424
Uebermensch only technically translates to 'Superman', using the more etymology-faithful meaning of 'super'.
Please be clear and translate it to 'Overman'.

Dankeschoen

>>9394599
Oh, sure. I've read it translated in three languages: Overman is indeed better, and closer to both of the non-English translations I've read. Unless the intent is to make a joke about a comic book character.

T-thanks.

>>9390046
10 000 hours is to do with expertise not genius. How did you fuck up this badly? Everything else is correct tho.

>>9394424
Not that anon, but I think maybe "clear" is the wrong word here. Nietzsche's ideas are readily comprehensible: self-overcoming, the revaluation, the **hypothetical** overman, the eternal recurrence, the Christians' slave morality––but they are DYNAMITE. So although you can understand them intellectually, it's extremely painful for a normal person to wrap his head around them without exploding. Remember, "God is dead" wasn't an opinion: Nietzsche was making a statement of fact. People don't rule their lives by God's morality anymore; people aren't gullible enough and the Church isn't powerful enough. But Nietzsche didn't exult in that, he saw in it a cataclysm, which was partly realized by WWII and the Holocaust. When God is dead, then your morality comes from the state (the weak have to follow someone or something, since they would die if they tried to become something original themselves). The horror continues today with post-truth, post-modern politics.

So whereas the other anon said Nietzsche's "clarity" requires a lot of interpretation (a confusion of terms), I'd say that accepting Nietzsche's ideas requires an enormous amount of courage. Most people scream and run from Nietzsche because they can't handle the thought of living in a godless world and being responsible for themselves. (These are the types who claim he was insane while writing his last several books: see how quickly they try to discount his genius.)

It's really hard to refute Nietzsche's claims, especially since so many of his predictions came true. But it's even more terrifying to become who you are. So that's the trouble with him.

>>9395572
I've lived over 10,000 hours, so how do you explain why I'm not an expert at living life?

>>9393725
So what you are saying is: you think yourself to be a genius, and that those who are not can not recognize your "Genius," which is false.

You're claiming genius is a term placed on geniuses by people incapable of that recognition. Because of a lacking in terminology?

You dance around meaning, and fail to convey an actual idea.

>>9390046
OP is a fallacy wrapped in a moron wrapped in an enigma. Agree? Disagree?

>>9390046

bump

>>9390046
Depends, I would separate it into two categories:

>early age 'genius'
Someone who manages to do things at an earlier age than usual. Usually doesn't outperform high tier grown-ups in their fields of study. Only minor overlap with the real genius.

>real genius
Someone who accomplishes something that nobody else managed to do before him. Actually gets remembered in history books. Age is usually only of minor importance and is only mentioned as trivia.

>>9393605
>The young enthusiastic Goethe when he came completely under the spell of Shakespeare, was compelled to write a Shakespearian play, an historical play, even as Shakespeare had written historical plays. The first creative fruit of the Shakespearian obsession was Gotz von Berlichingen, the dramatized story of the nobleman and robber baron, who in the early sixteenth century encouraged the oppressed peasants in their restlessness. The play was in three versions, the first of which was severely condemned by Herder, who returned Goethe the manuscript saying “Shakespeare has ruined you.”

Don't read Shakespeare. His legacy has seeped so deeply into English Literature that you should avoid contamination by his style. New channels of culture must be sought.

>>9396218
Your interpretation is consisting in something entirely different than my original comment.
>you think yourself to be a genius, and that those who are not can not recognize your "Genius," which is false.
Im saying potential has no connection to its perceived latter form. It’s based on a conception of correlation which is only true insofar as one falsely believes in a correlation between it, potential, and genius, and their somehow ambiguous relationship having real existence with strands of probability attached.
>You're claiming genius is a term placed on geniuses by people incapable of that recognition. Because of a lacking in terminology
No, actually I’m claiming that insofar genius is concerned, its emergence has no recollection of potential and in retracting back from where it was prior to emergence, complete inexistence of “potential” as a term is suspected.
>You dance around meaning, and fail to convey an actual idea.
Basically, all Im saying is that I believe genius to be autonomous as an object or state that has no relation to potential prior to its emergence or thereafter, and that the term potential was created and subsequently used by those whom genius has yet to emerge onto/into, or never will, or has but has now been lost. I think by individualizing genius we’ve created the necessity of the term potential; yet as its not correlated with genius’s emergence or existence, or as it is not a valid indicator of probability, it ultimately falls into obscurity, and is void of any real meaning in relation to its presupposed latter state.

>>9390046
>What constitutes genius

Terence Tao article on the subject:

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/

Better beware of notions like genius and inspiration; they are a sort of magic wand and should be used sparingly by anybody who wants to see things clearly. (José Ortega y Gasset, “Notes on the novel”)

See also:

>>9393949
>Before anything, is necessary to acknowledge the fact that “genius” is a subjective concept, some kind of highest-seal-of-approval and supreme-stamp-of-valor that we created to grace those members of our race that we deem to be the most apt examples of the greatness of humanity. It is a term coined to glorify the human beings whose works seem to be inexplicable to the rest of humanity, so difficult and wonderful are the creative powers necessary for them to be produced. In the end, however, “genius” is just a word: there is no organic structure inside the brain of certain individuals that we can call a sure sign of genius. It is even difficult to find a complete unanimity when it comes to the matter of who should receive this ultimate tittle of greatness. Once again: genius is a word that designate a subjective quality.

Thoughts come to us, not the other way around. It's chance elevated by sociohistorical circumstance. 1 and 3 are subsumed by 2 and not separate.

That said, to find what constitutes genius would always limit you to essentialism, a death by definitions. Anyone who knows that will automatically shitpost instead.

>>9390182
Now that is a good picture. Thank you, I am saving that one.

>>9390046
>10,000 hours concept is nonsense
Yes.

>1. What age you started
That's a particular case of:
>2. Luck (being in the right place at the right time)

>3. Genes (how much potential you have in your bones)
I think this one is overrated.

>>9390046
Can we not talk about the 10k hours meme anymore pls?
Apparently it is only a thing i the US.
It came from a book, not from controlled studies, full of anecdotic evidence and the author's opinions.

>>9390189
Both, then make my own mind up.

>>9390509
The crowd would only consider it if it is universally applicable, as opposed to relying on their own experience and judgement on each individual situation. When asked to apply their own judgement, they become timid, no one wants to be alone, thinking for yourself puts you at risk of being at odds with others.

I think FN has some really thought provoking stuff, but thats all it is. Not that Ive read it all..

t. Me

>>9391169
I love you. Im new here

>>9397764
Huh, well I'll retract my statement. Finger ed you as being pretentious for internet attention. I suppose if that was the goal, then you've won, but it seems you actuality put some thought into this concept.

At least more so than a reductive "Not without genius genes," argument.

>>9398974
t. sub10klet

>>9394323
This is good.

>>9390046
genius is a spook and this thread is garbage.

>talent relies on hours
>genius makes new connections or jumps
Talents can write great works of literature and do great stuff but a genius makes a leap no-one else thought possible a le Orwell.

>>9390169
Don't discredit video games that easily, in a few video games we live and learn more than normies do in their entire life

File: 1491930894732.gif (194KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 900x900px

>>9402540
>a le Orwell