People with a Different Sort of "Genius"

[Uncle Gizmo]

Picking up on a comment about Alex Ferguson by new member Sac in the introduction section, (pop in and say hello!) It occurred to me that we've got what? a category for scientific genius, but is that it? Could there other types of genius? Are there people that have a special aptitude say:- for Sport, for organising people, for art, writing, looking after kids, cooking... Do you know of anybody who you could put into a category? Would you care to to add your observations to this thread - Please!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I would certainly consider musical genius to be a valid sub-category. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Stevie Wonder, Elmer Bernstein, Henry Mancini, John Williams... I'm sure I could come up with others after some further thought.

I would acknowledge the possibility of literary genius and visual art genius, though I don't claim as much knowledge in those categories. However, if a person can produce a lot of really good work quickly and/or frequently, then that should qualify or at least point towards genius. In the literary world I would have say that Isaac Asimov probably would have qualified. He turned out a tremendous number of works, most of which were really good. I don't count the formulaic writers at all and there are a few famous and prolific writers whose work does nothing for me. For example, Michael Crichton seems to depend heavily on a semi-formulaic solution of Deus Ex Machina as the resolution to his stories. At least three or four of his stories that became movies ended in a disappointing way.

I tend to have a strict definition of "genius" so I have some trouble with "sports genius" tags where you are dealing with raw physical ability. I would not downplay the presence of the ability but just wouldn't tag it as "genius."

However, (try not to laugh too loud) there is the issue of golf. There are a lot of folks who can "grip it and rip it" and make impressive shots (John Daly and Bubba Watson for two), but it is the delicate or unusual shots that stand out. Tiger Woods sees shots that nobody else seems to see, and he all too frequently makes those shots. Granted, his body has been giving him fits with back problems and that has interefered with his career, but he has become a significant contender again now that his surgeries are over and his rehab has him in a good place.

 

[kevlray]

Comedic genius: Robin Williams. When they were filming Hello Vietnam, apparently he ad-libbed hours of material. Of course they only used a few minutes worth.

 

[Jon]

I just looked up the Google definition of genius and it is this: exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.

So that caters to a wide variety of talents, and not just intellectual.

 

[jdraw]

The one that jumps out for me is Stephen Wiltshire who can draw cityscapes from memory based on helicopter tour of the city. I watched one documentary years back when he drew London from memory. Here's a video re Mexico City.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This seems very subjective to me, the term genus. For example if you are born with a photographic memory and you can recall and reproduce certain details, are you a genus? Or do you just remember things whether you want too or not? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

I agree with AB; a photographic memory isn't an attribute of genius. Some people have that and no film!
Nor does total memory recall make you a genius, or the ability that some savants have to play anything they hear on a piano while being otherwise severely limited in function. That is talent, not genius. AFAIC, genius is when you can use your knowledge and your mind/imagination in unusual ways to solve mysteries or problems at a very high level - or at least develop plausible theories to support a hypothesis. Like Albert Einstein?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I do think people like Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison etc.. were genus. They exercised their genus muscle, it wasn't a gift of birth they earned it.

 

[jdraw]

An interesting read.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

genius is when you can use your knowledge and your mind/imagination in unusual ways to solve mysteries or problems at a very high level - or at least develop plausible theories to support a hypothesis. Like Albert Einstein?

Micron, never would I say you are flat out wrong, particularly in a Watercooler discussion, but I believe you are a bit limiting in your definition in this case. You are describing an analytical genius and you have given a good example to conform to your definition. But I believe there is also such a thing as creative genius (mostly in the arts) where the presence of a true problem to be solved is tenuous yet there is clearly some element of extremely good mental function in the result.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

creative genius (mostly in the arts) where the presence of a true problem to be solved

What problems exist within the arts that need to be solved?
So genius, it turns out, includes creativity by definition. Problem is, who decides what is exceptionally creative? I have no doubt that aficionados of art would consider Picasso as a genius. To me, he just had a warped way of looking at things and there was little or no beauty in most of his work.
Was Mozart a genius or just extremely talented and creative? I'm beginning to think a large part of the answer depends on your like or dislike for the artistic work.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Perhaps, yet by your standards, Einstein was a genius - but he was totally wrong about "God doesn't play at dice." In the causality/probability view of the cosmos, he took the wrong side. Does that invalidate his genius?

When you quoted me, you cut off two words that change the meaning of the quote. Mostly in the arts, the presence of a true problem to be solved is tenuous i.e. not sure there is a problem, yet many people in the arts seem to be (or seem to have been) brilliant. But then there are those whose genius it was to recognize that they had something new that potentially could be of some value.

Take Louis Pasteur, for example, a brilliant doctor whose germ theory of medicine revolutionized treatment of illness and infection. He won a Nobel Prize - but not in medicine. His prize was in Chemistry. He was making up a bad grade by doing some remedial research for his professors. He happened to be studying tartaric acid crystals and found that they filtered light via polarization. Though it was not a direct link, we owe the existence of sunglasses to good old Louis. We owe him for more than that - but he wasn't even looking for polarization and just kind of stumbled on it. But he knew a good thing when he saw it.

The REAL problem in this discussion is that since the definition of genius is a bit ambiguous in its finer details, there is room for variation. Perhaps our views are caught in the wiggle room.

 

[Galaxiom]

You are describing an analytical genius and you have given a good example to conform to your definition. But I believe there is also such a thing as creative genius.

There is a great deal of overlap. Analytical genius is often implicit in creative pursuits, particularly in music where the appeal of a piece is underpinned by certain aesthetics that can subsequently be teased out with analytic techniques.

Some of it is subjective and much of it is learned. A lot of modern music would be considered unaesthetic but for the journey that led to it. Think of Punk from the 70s which now seems conservative. Or the genius of Kurt Cobain with his ability to incorporate pop into grunge without most listeners realising.

Speaking of subjective, I have never found Robin Williams' sense of humour at all entertaining, more loud and annoying. Each to their own.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Perhaps, yet by your standards, Einstein was a genius - but he was totally wrong about "God doesn't play at dice." In the causality/probability view of the cosmos, he took the wrong side. Does that invalidate his genius?

Are you saying: "he took the wrong side" because he believed in God?

Wiki Link
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AB - no, he took the wrong side because he DIDN'T believe in quantum mechanics. For those who are believers, God is omnipotent, which means He could have made it happen either way based on Intelligent Design.

I don't believe in God myself, but remember that I was raised Methodist and became atheist later. I remember this point from a lengthy discussion from before my conversion. For people to say "Oh, the universe can't have happened that way" is to limit the powers of God. Which IS a no-no to any deeply religious person.

 

[Jon]

If we are in a simulation, the programmer is the God. While his algos may be omnipresent, he may personally have a limited ability on what he could focus on. In creating Einstein as a genius, he might have had his attention diverted to fixing a small bug, like worm holes. Meanwhile, Einstein is running amok, creating nuclear bombs and saying untruths.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

What does God NOT have?

 

[Jon]

A creator.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

A creator.

Good answer!

The answer I was looking for was limitations.

Imagine playing Chess without rules,
without limitation, the game would be boring!

 

[jdraw]

This thread certainly opens up some names and some variation in genius, talent, lucky, kook??
Examples: Claude Shannon , Maurice Cotterell I'm sure there are more detailed links and more suggestions/comments.