Who Is A Genius?

[DC]

[quote]Originally posted by SFOracle: [b]Hmmmm according to e-mode, I have an IQ of 138, I am a visionary philosopher and my inner rock star is Chris Isaak (I am smooth with the ladies and they just can't get enough - yeah right).[/b][/quote]Chris Isaak is my inner rock star too. Don't know about IQ but I passed the Mensa pre test with flying colors. They wanted me to take the entrance exam but it cost money to do so I didn't. I think Mark Twain was a genius.

[strat0124]

Well, I'm not genius, but I've got alot of common sense (not depicted by my frequent visits here!!!!), and its allowed me to navigate through life fairly well. I don't know why folks expend so much energy trying to convince everyone how smart they are, when they should let their works prove it. Intellect as others have mentioned, can't be accurately measured by a damn test, in my opinion. Show me something.

[Tedster]

Some of my favorite geniuses... [img]http://media.abcnews.com/media/US/images/ho_varney_jim_000210_n.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.pcperspectives.com/hillbillies/S_sirjeth.jpg[/img]

[Groovepusher Sly]

[quote]Originally posted by Franknputer:[b]Using it for what?? :D [/b][/quote]Hopefully not for evil. [quote]Originally posted by Sylver: [b]I guess this refers to the "we only use 10% of our brains" theory. Just to clairify, that is a common mis-quote. In reality, we use ALL of our brains, the scientific community at large only understands what a portion of it is for. In fact, the percentage of the brain that is mapped is much higher than 10% now.[/b][/quote]I know they have mapped more and that we use more. But if we only know what a portion of our brain is being used for, how do you know we use the rest of it for anything at all? Especially functions related to consciousness and thinking, as opposed to instinct. Sly :cool:

[Sylver]

Chip makes an interesting point. IQ is a measure of apptitude for learning in a traditional environment, really. It tells us nothing about more subtle, artistic abilities, mechanical abilities, common sense(I think this cliche is a misnomer ... There is absolutley nothing common about sense!), intuitive abilities, etc. I can't fix a car engine, build a beautiful piece of furniture, construct a bridge or throw a 98 mph fast ball, but all of these things great amount of skill and apptitude. No IQ test can measure that.

[Uh Clem]

My inner Rock Star is Chris Isaak - fucking LMAO - I love his show and really like his music a lot too. Yep, I'm a confirmed sap I guess. Pretty good test - I was really hoping for Ritchie Blackmore maybe...oh well :rolleyes: . And my emode ik, (is that how you pronounce it?)is 133 and I'm a word warrior - well that explains the trouble I had with thermo and diffeqs - should have taken this test a long time ago :idea: ! Good enough for mensa maybe?, but not really a genius. Oh well, I know a few bonafide geniuses and I could sorta tell I wasn't quite there ;) .

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]My inner Rock Star is Chris Isaak - fucking LMAO - I love his show and really like his music a lot too. Yep, I'm a confirmed sap I guess. Pretty good test - I was really hoping for Ritchie Blackmore maybe...or well.[/b][/quote]YES...the show is cool...Chris Issak is cool!!!

[strat0124]

[quote]Originally posted by Sylver: [b] .....common sense(I think this cliche is a misnomer ... There is absolutley nothing common about sense[/b][/quote]Unless you associate "common" with its literal definition. To me, maybe a misinterpretation, it is a term much like "street smarts", being able to "think on your feet", ect. All of which can be literally taken apart, but to the salt of the earth folks....clear as a bell! HA! Whats clear about a bell.......see?????? :)

[Franknputer]

[img]http://www.ooowoo.com/IMAGES/wecoyote.gif[/img]

[Sylver]

[quote]Originally posted by Geenard Skeenard: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Sylver: [b] .....common sense(I think this cliche is a misnomer ... There is absolutley nothing common about sense[/b][/quote]Unless you associate "common" with its literal definition. To me, maybe a misinterpretation, it is a term much like "street smarts", being able to "think on your feet", ect. All of which can be literally taken apart, but to the salt of the earth folks....clear as a bell! HA! Whats clear about a bell.......see?????? :) [/b][/quote]Yeah, I know, I was just trying to be clever. "Common sense" in a literal sense, translates more to shared intuitive knowledge. I.e., "If I call the biggest guy in the bar an asshole, he is going to hit me really hard."

[Uh Clem]

[quote]Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe: [b]If you want to go to college, then you should do so. Look at it this way. Say it takes you ten years to get through it by attending part time. So what? If you DON'T do it, ten years from now you'll just be ten years older and have nothing substantial to show for it. If you go for it, you'll be ten years older and have the knowledge that you accomplished one of your dreams. [/b][/quote]:thu: on that one - I went 9 yrs at night while I worked full time in the day - they let me credit card my tuition - thank goodness for that - some quarters I'd be too busy at work and lay out, catch up on the credit cards. It was hell, but also one of the most exhilarating times of my life since I really, really wanted to do it. And the pay off from the better jobs you can get with a degree was more than worth it for me.

[Poelo]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe: If you want to go to college, then you should do so. Look at it this way. Say it takes you ten years to get through it by attending part time. So what? If you DON'T do it, ten years from now you'll just be ten years older and have nothing substantial to show for it. If you go for it, you'll be ten years older and have the knowledge that you accomplished one of your dreams. ------------------------------------------------ Oh Phil, you are really a genius! How did you figure that one out? Hmm, I never thought of it like that... "A very impressed Poelo"

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]My inner Rock Star is Chris Isaak - fucking LMAO - I love his show and really like his music a lot too. [/b][/quote]Chris Isaak has a tv show???? First Ozzy and now? What is it about, Isaak walking around going "my guitar isn't warbly enough!!"?

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Duhduh: [b] There was a time in elementary school when they wanted to bump me up a grade. Mom wouldnt let them. Damn, I wish she would of! School bored me to tears. Maybe if I'd of been bumped ahead, it would of been more of a challenge and I would of gone on to college. That will haunt me forever.[/b][/quote]Hmm... I'm glad this thread got bumped cuz I'd wanted to reply to this. I was in the same boat - the school wanted to bump me up a grade, parents wouldn't let em. For awhile they put me in third grade reading classes while I was in kindergarten, which worked great so far as I was concerned, but the class was starting to learn cursive and my kindergarten teacher objected to me learning cursive, so they took me out. My school years basically boiled down to a lot of political infighting like that, people trying to figure out what to do with me and find loopholes in the system while other people kept shooting them down... with the result that I seemingly had lots of good things dangled in front of me only to be taken away. This was not good at all for my psyche and needless to say, I couldn't wait to get the hell out of the system where I could have some control over my own destiny. So, I took the GED the minute I turned 16 and got out of school. Never looked back. Never did go to college and I don't regret it one bit. I'm not really sure Justin, where you get the idea that you must go to college to have a good education. I didn't just get older and stagnate by not going to college - I made it a point to seek out experiences that most people never have. And I think I learned more in the process that most people ever learned in college - certainly I learned at least as much, and in a way that was personally relevant to me. There is really nothing holding you back from doing what you want to do just because you didn't skip a grade or have a decent experience in public school. If you really want to go to college, it's never too late and you needn't be haunted forever by it - just go. If you only want to go because you think you "should" go, then stop beating yourself up over it. Maybe you know innately that it's not the right thing for you and you're just listening to other people's pronouncements about how much better your life would be if you'd gone to college. Only you can know... and you owe it to yourself to figure that out and act on it. --Lee

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] I was in the same boat - the school wanted to bump me up a grade, parents wouldn't let em. For awhile they put me in third grade reading classes while I was in kindergarten, which worked great so far as I was concerned, but the class was starting to learn cursive and my kindergarten teacher objected to me learning cursive, so they took me out. [/b][/quote]I went to a Montessori school until 5th grade. *I had to learn how to print instead of write cursive before I could switch schools*. Now of course, I can't really write in cursive at all. This school allowed me to skip from 1st grade basically to 4th right away, since it was a very forward-thinking school. Learn at your own pace, don't have to slow down for everyone else. That was such a great thing, and I *loved* learning *everything* at that school. Switched to another private school for 5th grade. That was the start of the Downward Spiral... and then the reality of public school's apathy in 7th grade finished it off. Maybe if I had never seen the contrast in differing ways of teaching, I wouldn't have minded college so much. On the other hand, maybe if I hadn't have had the education as a kid maybe I wouldn't have made it to college. I'm totally convinced the U.S. has got it completely, 100% wrong with the way school is taught. [b] My school years basically boiled down to a lot of political infighting like that, people trying to figure out what to do with me and find loopholes in the system while other people kept shooting them down... with the result that I seemingly had lots of good things dangled in front of me only to be taken away. [/b] When I hit 8th grade it was the beginning of the "let's divide kids up into the haves and have nots", starting with the "Gifted" children first. Which was myself and 3 other guinea pigs. 1 of whom I'm still friends with to this day, a programmer in Atlanta actually. Anyhow... This junior high was 7th through 10th grade, 1500+ students in a school originally designed to accomodate about 500. Overpacked classrooms, PLUS no air conditioning; Augusta Georgia quite often tops 100 degrees regularly. This wasn't exactly a "conducive" educational environment. So what they did was stick us in advanced placement classes for the *10th* graders. Which was fine, didn't seem any harder to me. EXCEPT... The AP 10th graders resented it. They were supposed to be the smart kids, and here I am, 2 grades below in their class. Not only that - but I was a pathetic runt of a kid at that, that really helped things A LOT. Apparently, it also meant extra paper work for the teachers. So they hated it. In fact, made it a point to make it difficult on us, basically tried to flunk us. While this didn't work, going from a positive, learning is encouraged environment to a completely combative one - where massive fights broke out every morning before school, no A/C, they put these terrible yellow flourescents in the halls which made SUCH an uplifting palid tone against the prison cell two tone green walls, turned the lights out in the classroom to try to keep them cooler, the teachers don't want you there or to be there themselves... then there's the stabbings, that was a new one (seems like the stabbing thing was getting going when I was a kid, then guns started happening apparently after that...). ANYHOW... Looking back, it totally wrecked my outlook on life. ... and now, once again, education is taking a back seat in the budget to things like Bush's ABM system (based on antiquated technology), inventing a new bureaucracy to "fix" the CIA/FBI - that apparently worked fine until now - among other things... whatever. It's *completely obvious* the educational system is designed as it is to keep the population under control. There *has* to be uneducated people to fill the jobs educated people don't want to do, and not everyone can be a doctor. So you design the educational system to reflect the economic status of the surrounding area. Unreal. [b]So, I took the GED the minute I turned 16 and got out of school. Never looked back. [/b] I *so* wish I had done that. *That* is the best thing a kid can do, get the hell out of the system. [b] where you get the idea that you must go to college to have a good education. [/b] It's hammered into you every moment at school. Social pressure completely absorbed at this point. It started around 1980 I would guess. A LOT of money is being made off of education; likewise, the more the merrier... I want to go back to school, "one day" (long from now). BUT - I'm going to go back having re-educated myself in math; and I want to basically know what I'm expected to know before I go back. I was taught intellectual laziness in public school: wait until it's siphoned out to you in little bits (that are probably arranged in the wrong sequence). The way to do school is to attack it, try to stay ahead as much as possible. That's easy, if you can find an interest in it. Right now, I'd much rather read a book of *my* choosing detailing the history of byzantine era, as opposed to having someone else do so AND have some squierelly notion of how it should be "taught". The best education on the planet is free (at least for the moment...): the public library. All you need is there.

[henryrobinett]

I'm just beginning this thread, so I shouldn't write just yet. But I will because I want to. There's a phrase I invented when I was in high school: "earth stupid". I'm not particularly intelligent, but I have a very bright practical intelligence. I have a lot of close friends that might argue that point. Then again, maybe not. I have a cousin whose IQ is genius, yet for all practical purposes she's as dumb as a door knob. Earth Stupid. She can do complex mathematical equations in seconds flat. Graduated young with a PHd from UC Berkeley, but can't figure life out for all the tea in China. Earth life just eludes her. I've known so many people like her. My wife is far brighter than I am. She has a genius IQ; high 140s. I'm borderline up there. I've finally accepted that in certain things she's just smarter. That's OK by me. I naturally know how human beings work better than she does. But I never, ever paid any attention to IQs. In part because I knew mine wasn't genius level, yet several of my friends were. Two of my best friends were always pulled out of classes for testing and I was jealous. One of them turned out to be earth stupid. I never could understand how the most basic of life's principles just eluded him. One thing that smart people have to guard against is the social inequity of being smart. This becomes a problem. How to make friends even though you're smarter than everyone else you know. A bad but most common solution: pretend you're not so smart. In other words dumb yourself down. This is very harmful to the "smart one" because he/she has created a commputation that it's "dangerous to be smart" or that "no one likes you if you're smart" or something else stupid. Many a "genius" has done themselves in on this one. Ramblin' man.

[Uh Clem]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]My inner Rock Star is Chris Isaak - fucking LMAO - I love his show and really like his music a lot too. [/b][/quote]Chris Isaak has a tv show???? First Ozzy and now? What is it about, Isaak walking around going "my guitar isn't warbly enough!!"?[/b][/quote]Ha - no - sitcomish - it is usually some story that ends up conveying a more positive view of human interaction - a kind of make you feel good show with the band as a vehicle. The band is cool though - great guitarist and drummer - everyone in the "TV band" is the actual band except for the keyboard player. http://www.sho.com/chris/

[zatoichi]

A nice collection of fun topics! Hi, y'all - I'm new in these parts. The examples of nominee genii are interesting - tthough I do have disagreements. I can't think of any standard whereby Marcus Aurelius or Burt Bacharach or Richard Feynman would qualify, but as Phil said, there are many kinds of genius. Well, ok, there are two: savants and polymaths. Generally, it seems that to most folks, "genius" means a fluid combination of 'knows everything', and 'really, [i]really [/i] smart but can't find their socks'. But genius != smart (necessarily), and functioning polymaths (the know-everything posse - excuse me, 'persons displaying exceptional aptitude in more than one field of study & endeavor') are exceedingly rare. Of polymaths, most are plagued by self-doubt & delusions of their own inadequacy, and devastated by stresses real & imagined. In many cases this severely limits their accomplishment. Of savants,or persons displaying exceptional aptitude in a particular field of endeavor, many seem to fall victim to the poisonous notion that if you're "good at" something, then you don't [i]really [/i]have to work at it...and a superior work ethic beats a superior 'soon-come' ethic pretty much every time. The result is that - considering the body of their work - a hard worker of ordinary talent can seem like a genius, and a possessor of genius can seem like a flash in the pan. By the way, Phil - my sister has a needlepoint sampler on her wall; it reads: "Potential Sucks!" [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]I would define Wisdom as Intellect modified by Love, which equals Power. I really think those are the two great forces in the human world. Intellect without Love is cold and can become Evil. Love without Intellect can be misguided and impotent.[/b][/quote]More hare-splitting fun here (look out, Bugs!). Most particularly here, I find disagree w/ your definition of wisdom, TW. Rachel's Law states that [b]Theory and practice are the same, in theory...but different in practice[/b]. That is, knowledge is all well and good, but experience puts all intellectual notions to the test; and if we're lucky, we gain wisdom thereby. You may be right that wisdom is power, but it's not most (?) people mean when they think of power which is power to control; instead it is the power to choose well. Likewise, I don't believe that intellect is even potentially evil: it is often, however, sterile, narrow, without remorse, reflection, feeling or compassion. Certainly the repercussions of unfettered & untutored intellect can be tough to sort out from evil! Love, on the other hand, is never powerless - though it can become twisted, blind, unreasonable and selfish...which doen't feel much different from evil, either. Sometimes. Really love the boards here - lots of wise, clever & good-hearted people, it seems. Hope I don't make myself too unwelcome!

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by henryrobinett: [b]One thing that smart people have to guard against is the social inequity of being smart. This becomes a problem. [/b][/quote]Man, the truth will out! I've spent a considerable portion of my life dealing with this. There's even been a few times when I've come close to being clobbered because of it. It would appear that in general these days - more so THESE days - that one is to operate under the tacit understanding that one is never to assert one's awareness of a subject in any great detail if it does actually involved detail; because if one does, this is effrontery. There's a lot of people who think of themselves as "down the intellect totem pole", who will suddenly, without provocation, freak out and remonstrate you for knowing something they don't know. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't mean they might know something YOU don't know, that they don't expect you do know it seems to make some people almost physically violent. I think this is probably a phenomenon much more prevalent in the south. [b] How to make friends even though you're smarter than everyone else you know. A bad but most common solution: pretend you're not so smart.[/b] Hmph. I tried clocking my language back a good bit, and found that once you trick people into thinking you're at a certain (lower) level, you THEN have to work twice as hard to make a point if it has to be made, whereas it would normally be accepted (with the possibility of the scenario I outlined in the paragraph above happening). That's even worse: you *know* how to fix something, but they won't listen. Then they find out, and THEN they get mad at you because they feel tricked (which in a sense they were). So that doesn't work. I'm ultimately ostracized from basically everybody I know because of this. It's always there, even when I think it isn't. *I've never proclaimed to "know everything", ever*. I never state my I.Q. - I've always thought that if you have to, it's probably not as high as you think it is....) - never blatantly "toss my brain around"... ... but apparently I come off like I do all the time, and I'm not trying to. I've only realized how subtle this is just a few years ago. There's a certain expectation of an amount of "ignorance" that should happen in casual conversation that I'm not apparently participating in. Additionally, you're expected to not pontificate on something that is not "standard" for social commentary if it's an intellectual matter. No new angles. All that doesn't matter if your friends accept you as what amounts to a freak, but then you never get to share the same esprit de corps. Then if you get in an argument with them, ultimately what you hear is "I may not be as smart as you, BUT"... which is a warning that you HAVE to pretend you don't know something they know QUICK or else they'll freak out. Then there's those who will regard you almost like you're possessed - I'm sure this is how many a despotic ruler was created in history, the person with a high I.Q. with no morality. I don't have any problems it would seem with people of high self-esteem - my seeming best friend had what one might regard as an ego problem as far as that's concerned - it's only with people that seem to have low self-esteem that apparently have a mission to find me at a fault about something. Upon revealing I don't know the answer to some obscure thing, "HA!!! See, you DON'T know everything!!!" (I never claimed that!!!). I hate that. I get the sensation that most of my "friends" are really just lying in wait to discover a fault of mine so they get dig in. There's a lot of stuff I don't know, and [i]there's a lot of stuff [b]MOST[/b] people know *I* don't know.[/i] Ridiculously simple and silly things I've just missed. If all my vaunted intelligence adds up to is what amounts to glorified Trivial Pursuit.... geez. Ahem... (brushing off the shirt)... please excuse the rant. This basically accounts for a lot of what's wrong in my life. Amusing, huh?

[henryrobinett]

Chip, I can relate. But my first thought was that women have been doing this to us for eons. I really think women are collectively smarter than we are, or at least most women I have known are smarter than I am. They've learned it's better for their survival if they let us think that WE know best. ;) Oops! Student arriving. Now I have to pretend I'm smart again.

[philbo_Tangent]

What I know about genius: 1) IQ of 160 minimum 2) Smart enough to not let others know how smart they are 3) Able to make others believe they thought of that brilliant solution without help 4) Have no need for recognition of 'smartness' If all of the above are there, then the person is likely to be able to fit into the world enough to be able to make a contribution of some type. If one or more is missing, they will end up addicted, dead, insane or in jail in very short order. The world has very low tolerance for those on that side of the distribution curve; they need to be able to watch their step... "Being paranoid isn't wrong if they really are out there watching you, is it?" - anonomous friend, now dead. That's about it for my 2 cents.... - Phil Koenig Tangent Studios

[Jedi]

"You know, it is very simple to be a genius. All you have to do is think for yourself." -Ramtha This quote says it all for me. Jedi

[Lee Flier]

Spot on, Jedi! Chip and Henry... yes, I relate. My own life experiences, and particularly one recent one which has totally devastated me, have convinced me that envy is the most dangerous force on earth. There have always been people who are more successful, intelligent, attractive or skilled in some way than other people. And it seems that instead of being appreciated for that, or at the very least, simply left alone to do good in the world, there are always some people who actively want to destroy that advantage. Regardless of what the cost is to either party. People will destroy close relationships, and even hurt themselves, to destroy someone they perceive is "better" in some way. Of course, not everyone does this. In fact, lots of people don't. But sometimes all it takes is one person or one thoughtless act to undo or greatly undermine something that could have been monstrously good. I'm convinced that we could have made this earth a paradise by now if it wasn't for that. Sorry to get off on a tangent, but this issue has been particularly sticking in my gut lately. --Lee

[Magpel]

I warm to the idea of multiple intelligences, ala Howard Gardner, as opposed to a single standardized measure. I haven't done the research or reading to really back this up, but my experience as a human, an educator, and an educatee inclines me to believe that if intelligence must be measured, categorized, or otherwise characterized, it is best done so through a robust range of aptitudes and proclivities. This is the only way to account for artistic intelligence, which clearly can exist apart from critical/analytical intelligence, and what you might call empathetic intelligence, which can be strongest in people of otherwise ordinary brain power. The theory of multiple intelligences is also the best way to defeat cultural biases and valuations, i.e., intelligence defined by what the culture values most highly. In our mainstream culture, it seems to be marketing savvy, essentially. Thus Madonna and Martha Stewart are genuises. Genius, now that's another issue. I try not use the word lightly. On one hand, it refers to a mental processing power so mighty that it's almost crippling. I'm sure we all know or know of people who are so smart they can't tie their own shoes. Genius? Sure. How else to account for such a gift? Then there's the visionary kind of genius. Then there's the creative or imaginative genius. I think I'll write a book caled Multiple Geniuses--Nurturing Your Inner Savant.

[velvetoceansound]

Hello Zat, and welcome to the forums. I can't think of any standards where Feynman would NOT be considered a genius. By the simple fact that you disagree tells me that you know a fair amount about his life, otherwise, hopefully, you would not have commented about him. Therefore, I will not bore you with details. It seems that according to your deffinitions, one isn't a genius unless he is stricken with some plauge that renders him impotent despite his particular given ability. From what I know about Feynman, he did not suffer from such a plauge. He had great confidence in his ability without carrying with him a huge cloud of pretense that would have been so easy for him; especially later in his life. His biggest complaint about winning a Nobel Prize is that people wanted to hear him speak not because they wanted to learn about physics, but simply because they wanted to hear a "Nobel Prize Winning yadda yadda yaddda..." He displayed a great aptitude in a wide veriety if diciplines; math, science, art, language, machanics, and human cognition. These, in and of themsleves, probebly don't make him a genius. I think they are manifestations of something that DOES make him a genius; a deep rooted desire to UNDERSTAND things, not just learn them, and the ability to connect seemingly isolated bits of knowadge to gain that understanding. Couple that with a very good work ethic and a sense of humor (subjective, I guess), and how can you not have genius? In summery, my question is this: Given the productivity of his life (i.e. he accomplished what he set out to do in almost all cases) and the widespread recognition of his contributions in one area of interest, where does he fall short? Please keep in mind that my goal is not to go out and prove that R.P. Feynman is a genius; he may not have been, it just seems that way to me. Maybe I need to re-evaluate my working deffinition of a genius, If so, what should it be? What am I missing?

[Uh Clem]

[quote]Originally posted by dblackjedi: [b]"You know, it is very simple to be a genius. All you have to do is think for yourself." -Ramtha This quote says it all for me. Jedi[/b][/quote]Oh sure, everything is simple once you know how :D I really like this quote - any other measure of genius would hardly matter if this were the norm. But people who think for themselves can be difficult to control or manipulate on a large scale, so society really doesn't push this on the impressionable young minds does it?

[loudist]

Well I have to weigh in on this by promoting Nikola Tesla as a true genius. The guy was not from this planet, eccentric, had visions, egalatarian, and saw things much differently than others of his time or any time. He is almost a footnote in the inventor catagory in most books, yet he was one who gave us things then that we still use today, not like Edison who had teams of workers and problem solvers to carried out his ideas, and then he took the credit.

[henryrobinett]

Yes, I was waiting for someone to say Tesla.

[Chip McDonald]

The problem is in defining "genius" - in a real, practical sense. The only use of the word to me is in describing the acts of a person that go beyond the commonly expected bounds of what the average person is considered capable of. In other words, everyone has a generally accepted median level they're expected to occupy, of which they can strive and accomplish the high end, or flounder and they'll end up in the low end. "Genius" allows circumvention of that, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with I.Q. scores. Feynman qualifies as a super-genius because - having read about his life and his anecdotes - in many different situations he was able to put a twist on it that is "outside the box" of the expected performance. What I admire about him is that he used his mind in such an consistently efficient way in his *life*; he had apparently no weak points, and he apparently worked this to his advantage not only in math/physics, but in his personal life as well. He seemed a fairly happy sort. That's genius unto itself. An I.Q. doesn't automatically make that happen, nor a savant-level skill, or both. It would be more useful to discuss what a genius does that is *interesting* and entertaining I think, more worthwhile, than discussing the subjective parameters of it. In which case, Feynman had plenty....