October 24, 2005

• I think I know some geniuses (genii?), although we wouldn't know until they actually change the world, thirty years from now, wouldn't we?
• Probably Chomsky, for his work in linguistics.
• I'd guess Stephen Wolfram is one.
• don't forget Batman! (he even made the batmobile all by himself and beat the joker)
• right here, baby! /har!
• Hawking and Stephen Jay Gould, although Gould is dead. I guess there's a difference between genius and innovation, otherwise the list could be quite long indeed. Or is there? Genius can lead to innovation (obviously) but is innovation necessarily a sign of genius?
• Chomsky?? Try Stephen Krashen.
• Oh, oh, me!! Pick me!!
• Actually, I changed the world, but you didn't notice the series of events that led to the change, did you, you dimwits?
• I'm a genius, but I have chosen not to influence the world in any way, as that is against my philosophy. Now send me money.
• Richard Feynman, if being alive isn't a requirement.
• I suppose the real genius is the genius who, depite it all, manages NOT to change the world. Now, where's my wallet?
• Like Chy, I am also a genius. I don't bother changing the world because it's too much work and too little reward.
• ^^^ Mensa member. Although I only use my jenius for evil. And to get laid. No, it doesn't work.
• Chomsky?? Try Stephen Krashen. Not being of the field and not really knowing either man's contributions to lingustics, sure.
• Yeah. Mensa. They kicked me out because I used Shift+6 to point in the wrong direction.
• Mensa can't handle my smartitude.
• I can't believe no one mentioned this yet. On a more serious note, the McArthur foundation makes annual awards to people at the forefront of their respective fields that is popularly known as the "Genius grant"; you can find information on (and recipients of) this award here. "Genius" is a pretty loaded term and very open to interpretation, so programs like that are as good a place as any to get started looking.
• "I do get disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles. It's a form of mental masturbation. Nothing comes of it." -Dr. L. Ware, Mensa founder
• MonkeyFilter: It's a form of mental masturbation. Nothing comes of it.
• Victor Wooten, master of the bass guitar. And me, master love machine.
• Can you hammer a six inch spike though a board with your penis?
• Wile E. Coyote, if being alive isn't a requirement.
• "Chomsky?? Try Stephen Krashen." Both have soundly taken their knocks in language-related academic circles -- but of course are still reified as giants in their fields because everyone needs "authorities" to fall back to for a proper warrant. But seriously, what is the proper sense of the word of "genius"? Obviously not the historical mythologized "genius," like Newton or Darwin or Einstein? But what about the genius who is credited for discoveries to the exclusion of other people who contributed to them, or actually made them, like Gallo's "discovery" of the HIV virus, or do we mean Barbara McClintock, who was a pioneering giant in the foundling field of genetics and utterly marginalized by her male associates for decades before she was finally acknowledged with a Nobel Prize. Perhaps we mean people who are the favored elites of the media cult of personality - a George Lucas, or Rush Limbaugh, or Howard Dean. Ooooh oooh oooh -- what about that woman who has the highest IQ in the world and answers questions in the newspaper. Or those people who construct their own genius tests that no one else can even understand, and then pass them? I'm curious what exactly the criteria are here?
• perhaps mensa membership isn't the best way to judge.
• I have never been sure what diffirentiated a genius from just a person who was really good at what they did. I once read a biography of Bob Dylan and in the intro the author claimed there were only 3 geniuses in modern American popular culture: Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and Fred Astaire. This was so mind-bogglingly aribtrary and stupid I almost didn't read the rest of the book.
• Dorothy Smith. Also, Kim Peek, depending on your criteria. And if dead people count then don't forget Gramsci.
• Marilyn vos Savant?
• That said, drjimmy11, I still go with Dylan.
• Pfft. Everyone knows Mild Asperger's is the new genius.
• Martin Scorcese might be a genius. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were athletic geniuses, in that they could imagine and implement ideas on the basketball court that were completely hidden to others. Pynchon might be a genius. Oprah might be a genius, in the way she's seen ways to connect with people via modern media in a way others haven't, quite. Twyla Tharp. Merce Cunningham. Mikhail Barishvikov. Richard Pryor. Ornette Coleman. There are lots of different kinds of genius, I think -- even while agreeing that the word is thrown around way too readily by most folks.
• By the way, thanks for the props, Camilo.
• That said, drjimmy11, I still go with Dylan. I agree, and it even turned out to be quite a good book ("behind the Shades revisited") I just thought the author was a jackass for making such an absolute statement. Just for one instance, I dont see how anyone could mention genius in American popular music and not include Brian Wilson.
• Once you identify one genius, you have to keep adding them. For me, a genius would be defined by abilities in more than one area. Otherwise they are just a savant. For me a genius is someone who has gifts in many areas.
• Michel Gondry, the movie director. He's done great stuff in all kinds of visual media. Of course, many other directos fit that bill... a multidiscipline, Leonardo-grade is harder to find.
• I nominate David Lynch for his mastery of every last aspect of film from directing to writing to his collaborations with Angelo Badalamenti and his ability to to do decent work in other genres of art. And if you want an old guy, balls to Scorcese, how 'bout Jean-Luc Godard?
• Actually, I guess David Lynch is pretty old...I meant a more established, venorated director. Scorcese can keep the balls.
• This thread demonstrates the poster's original premise that the word genius has lost its meaning.
• I'd like to nominate the guys who started along the route of string theory... I can't remember specific names, but after sitting through Nova, I came away convinced that we were still cranking out a few geniuses in the modern era.
• Thanks, rocket88 :-) When I was putting the post together I tried to find a good definition and couldn't. Even though the word has been devalued, I still believe there are people who personify genius in the sense I was trying to get at. Thanks for all the comments, everyone - I've got some intersting reading from them.
• genius...a George Lucas, or Rush Limbaugh, or Howard Dean I would never think to couple two of those names in the same sentence with the word genius.
• I have trouble with classifying as geniuses those who work in a collaborative profession- ie, movie directors. Most don't write their own scripts and all employ a Director of Photography and hundreds of other people to help them. Maybe it's just me but I picture a genius as someone who does great things alone.
• So a military or political leader can't be a genius? Attila? Constantine? Napolean? Julius Caesar?
• i remember a definition of genius that went something like "being you to the extreme" or something like that. Something very unique that is true to an individual's person. Wonder what the etymological connection is with genus?
• Genius: Beethoven. Genus: Beets.
• I find directing geniuses to be the most impressive. There's usually not much they can do directly. In most cases they have to take their personal vision and draw it out through a handful of other people. That seems much harder to me that a painter who's vision goes directly from his mind through his hands and onto his canvas.
• Soup: Borscht.
• Wonder what the etymological connection is with genus? How lazy are you, petebest? I'm lazy enough to check Wikipedia and forget about it. You can either hit my link above or read this: In England, the genius was the guiding or "tutelary" spirit of a person or indeed of an entire gens. A related term is genius loci, the spirit of a specific locale. In contrast, the internal driving force within all living things is the animus. A specific spirit , or daemon, may inhabit an image or icon, giving it supernatural powers. A comparable term from Arabic lore is a djinn, often Anglicized as "genie". Note, however, that this term is a false friend, not a cognate. -Wikipedia The American Heritage Dictionary via Dictionary.com corroborates this: Middle English, guardian spirit, from Latin. See gen- in Indo-European Roots. I'd check the OED too if I had one, but they're frigging elitist bastards that hoard information for money. Besides, most of the American dictionaries aren't that far off. You're welcome you lazy no-good bum!
• they're frigging elitist bastards that hoard information for money What do you do for money?
• I beg people for handouts. That's why I neither can afford an OED or bother with their cheaper version that offers pretty much what I can access from an American online alternative which costs what I already pay in internet connection fees. The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Websters have non-restricted access to their dictionary reference material online via dictionary.com and the Webster's home site. I don't see either of those publishers going belly-up in the market. There's a lot of people out there who don't know what the words they are using actually mean.
• Yeah, i saw that too. It didn't answer the question.
• I misunderstood the question. Not surprising, really. What exactly did you mean? The definition of genius as "being you to the extreme" sounds like one of those motivational drama troupe things said to kids. Incidentally, also found on the list of things that are mildly frightening. Remember Patrick Swayze in Donnie Darko?
• The brightest person I've ever met will either be a great success, or she may simply end in obscurity. Lately, she's writing for fanzines. Genius has always been a mostly meaningless word. I know a MacArthur fellow - he is extremely bright and excellent in his field. But he's not better than many others who have not received MacArthur grants.* Was Newton a singular genius? Lebinitz would disagree. People always work on the discoveries and ideas of others, and contribute to those who are to come. No thought is in a vaccuum. If there is any genius, it is of our species. Though most days it seems much more like a ketchup of genius trying to cover up the lima beans of stupidity that mark out most of our existence. *Completely unrelated rant: people who are given MacArthur grants almost never need the money to continue their work, at least in academics (arts may be different) - they already have jobs and lots of support - and once they get the money, they are assurred of tenure and even more support. The people who need money and support are the graduate students and beginning scholars who haven't even had the chance to do any work to receive reconition for. They should give the established the recognition - but put the money towards helping people try to get to that point in their careers. NB - this is not self-interested, I have funding. But more talented people in less fashionable areas of study than mine do not receive funding, and this undermines research which would be much better than mine.
• "Everyone is a genius at least once a year. The real geniuses simply have their bright ideas closer together." Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799)