You. I knew it the first day I've met you - you were so lost in a new situation and found your way quickly and beautifully. You didn't let anything stop you from learning more and you were brilliant at everything, too!
@@martastrosa... and in the wrong body, too. It's good girls and women get more educational opportunities (edit: than in the past). It would be so nice if we all could learn and not be stigmatised - men and women.
I think there definitely are lazy geniuses. I think some get turned off after they figure life out and isolate themselves. And to answer your last question, I would define someone as a genius if I spot in them an ability to quickly and efficiently simplify a complex subject.
Don't try to learn from a genius, you'll take up mental space and slow them down substantially, plus they can't transfer to you how they think, not that they couldn't explain it given time but you couldn't change enough to become it. It's best to try to understand the product of geniuses, after all the product is the gift that they have to offer the world.
@@martastrosa yes there is, as I say, you can learn from what they produce In their field. If you want to learn more from them it's a good idea to help them to produce more. They will of course explain their work but that's very different from being utilised to explain things they aren't producing/haven't produced. You can ask questions about specifics in their field of expertise too as geniuses will have a deep logical understanding of that particular area. As their college teacher it's important to provide them with information that is as accurate and up to date as possible, flawed information = barriers to overcome.
A genius doesn't need to be called a genius to do exceptional things. 'Looking for geniuses' is not useful at all to the genius. There's not a lot to gain from guessing right but very harmful to the wrongly accused genius if the guess is wrong. We should just generally promote learning instead. We even already generally learn from people's good behaviour anyway. The traits the book mentions feels like a zodiac sign trait. There's little good in grouping someone based on intelligence anyway.
A series of interesting arguments, thank you for taking the time to share them. From my perspective as an educator, there’s a benefit to identifying that someone may be gifted or talented because they or their families may not realize. And this way they can get more tailored support.
@@martastrosa Parents should generally promote their children good education, regardless if they're stupid or gifted don't you think? It is beneficial to not neglect your child's education regardless if they're a genius or not, no?
@@dape5576 Of course, I couldn't agree more! And at the same time, if a child is particularly gifted in a specific area (maybe a future genius?), it's worth recognizing this and fostering this gift.
I agree with the first 2 but I don't think being a contrarian is a trait of being a genius. Being a skeptic is one thing but most contrarians that I know don't even believe in basic known facts and are usually conspiracy theorists that can't be convinced of anything no matter how much evidence is shown to them. If the contrarian thinking is accompanied by a genuine and healthy thirst for knowledge that arose after they've read the steps and they've figured out a better way that looks realistic that's great but all the ones that I've ran into just want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Most seem to just deny reality.
Contrarians are willing to challenge commonly held beliefs and come to their own conclusions about the world- plenty of which may be wrong but we cannot discover new truths or realize which "truths" were false until people challenge the ideas that society believes are true. I have much more respect for a contrarian who comes to their own conclusions about life relative to your standard midwit who is unable to enterain hypotheticals that contrast with their own ideals and exclusively appeals to authority as guidance for how the world works. For a lot of people, scientists are effectively the new priest class and scientism is the religion. They do not understand how the conclusions were arrived at, only that their priest told them that is the way things work. We simply traded our prior religious doctrine for new ones. I engage in contrarian behavior when talking to people with strong ideological beliefs, in the hope of getting them to be able to entertain the hypothetical from the "other side," to hopefully give them a more open minded perspective.
Good points - but I'd say that a "good contrarian" is able to change their mind in the light of facts, but at least they entertain the option that things could be otherwise.
Einstein... With scientists discovery is more difficult, because most of the times you stand there and say: What? Is that real, what they found out, I can't follow, can anybody tell me? With musicians it's easiest to tell, music hitting straight into the soul. I'm still mindblown from discovering the musician 'Ren' about an hour ago. I'm pretty convinced he files in that category. So does Aurora and the guy behind Gotye. Playing all your instruments on your own recording by yourself might be a starting point to spot a musical genious, then there is an artistical vision needed, and especially 'finished', not all are able to finish their vision and leave fragments. Great art is often created from suffering and struggling with the real world, or at least one's perception of. Books are far more difficult. Books happen hidden. And additionally as a reader you need to find the right book for the right mood in the right moment, to understand the writer. Herman Hesse's Siddharta was such a book for me. I think he was a genious, he hit the right tone I needed to hear at the right time. So was Tolkien, when I was a teen. You need to be nerdy, to produce a real artwork, he built his books around his own invented languages, wishing to recreate the lost mythology of the English people, and I dare say, his self-set task was definitively accomplished. Most Fantasy-authors today are his epigons. (I am one for certain, what I do is writing fanfics, even if I twist them around so often that it's impossible to tell what exactly I wrote the fanfic on.) Terry Pratchett as a satirist was a genious, no doubt, he had a wonderful human vision that carried his books during his high time. I would say he represents the Era of the 90's (especially, because he was using what was thrown at him and turning it into satire with a soft and loving twinkle.) And I remember 'The Ground Beneath Her Feet' by Salman Rushdie: It fitted perfectly in the era of the large rock concerts and large rock bands playing with oriental tunes in the late 70's up to the early 90's, and it twisted your mind in a way, that made you wonder, if it wasn't a real autobiography, because you thought you remembered hearing the songs and music the book described, or even thinking you saw a video of the invented artists. The problem with books is, that they need to be time- and placeless, to be really great literature, and with everybody writing trapped in their culture and timezone, it's hard to produce something universally valid and outstanding. 'The God of Small Things', perhaps, when talking about 'oriental' literature. Recently friends of mine talked about Kafka. I think, Kafka was mad. If you aren't already mad before you read it, you certainly are afterwards. At least he messes with my mind, and I can't bear reading it for longer than half an hour, it dragging me down in a hole I don't wish to go, it being far too similar to the hole I struggle and try to escape, myself. That's probably because it is great, timeless art, the suffering, struggling human reduced on their self, unable to understand and cope with the outside world. Painting and sculptures are easier, though even those are locked to a historical phase, though some remain iconic. So do some art-films, first you think: Uh what was that, why did I waste time to watch this? But then you realize the pictures they gave you, stick with you for decades. And going on to sculptures: I love those nerds that build and tinker an entire lifetime on those moving waste-material and scrap-metal 'worldmachines' or monuments in their farmbarns or garages. I like landart, too, that is supposed to dissolve into the surrounding again, but that's perhaps a poetic comment on the human condition, but not 'lasting'. Whoever invented that concept was a genious.
So you want to find a way to find a person, to use him/her to something, cause otherwise you would just want to find more questions, no matter who is the giver. Or try to give a frame to a free thinker, or thinking which is a follower and therefore trapped and life or the world is a trap already. Just let life happen and learn from it, don't put people in pedestals or boxes, cause that makes bad people. Which of course you could say you are doing, but you are doing it in reverse order, forming a rule over something you don't know or understand and then trying to mimic it.
@@martastrosa You asked me a question to kill that question, but this question cannot or should not be killed.Cause if I could answer that, I could trace it to the end, with logic and therefore kill intrest in that question...etc. ;) Or just "it's relative"
Elon Musk - 'real' genius or branding, what do you think? I have been wondering for years as his later behaviours in the public eye might have been less-than-indicative...
@@peanutnutter1 Good point, but there is a lot of noise about his ideas being appropriated from employees... If this were true, do you think he'd still be still a genius? Not to slander him, obviously, just playing devil's advocate!
