Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Step up!!! I've read your threads(though I smell the undertone of stank pretentious.) I have already read the replies to this post about defining genius and the quantification of intelligence, no need to be redundant. Is genius subjective? Yes, genius is subjective with many definitions without validity. Different types of genius? Yes. So let those assumptions be the foundation of this thread. I really want to hear the best thoughts of PerC members. I want to be blown away by all the ideas that lay dormant in PerC members.
 

·
Registered
INTP 874 sx/sp VLEF melancholic
Joined
·
17,126 Posts
My genius speaks for me; I do not speak for my genius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VinnieBob

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
My genius speaks for me; I do not speak for my genius.
well can you login as "your" genius and give a reply of some substance? I know I come across as patronizing but I really would like subjective, non judgemental replies of personal ideas that the poster considers their greatest ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
genius is contextual, and is oftentimes recognised as genius only after the event.
genius perceives the challenge, and the obstacles surrounding it.
constructive genius is blind to reward. destructive genius just hurts itself.
genius invests the sacrifice of its labour to the job of inquiry.
think Alan Turing in the Imitation Game.
genius proves itself not for itself, for inquiry.
even Hitler, the destructive genius, invested the sacrifice of labour to the inquiry of mass psychology
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
genius is contextual, and is oftentimes recognised as genius only after the event.
genius perceives the challenge, and the obstacles surrounding it.
constructive genius is blind to reward. destructive genius just hurts itself.
genius invests the sacrifice of its labour to the job of inquiry.
think Alan Turing in the Imitation Game.
genius proves itself not for itself, for inquiry.
even Hitler, the destructive genius, invested the sacrifice of labour to the inquiry of mass psychology
seriously? I don't want your definition of genius, I want your personal ideas that define you as genius. I figured I would get these replies. geez
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
I'm responding in a self-reflexive way, cos these things are what I think about anyway, and it's "applying" my genius to the question in a self-reflexive way - I don't mean to be facetious in the sense you were pre-empting of this thread!

"my" genius is peering through history to observe inwardly the patterns that I see, drawing connections between myself as one person and the self of humanity as one organism

"my" genius is peering through history and observing similarities between myself and others that I never met before, and seeing a "formally perfect" model for how I could offer something genius to the world, myself.

by genius is contextual I was not skimming over what you had already admitted as an assumption of the post as you hoped it to be, but rather expressing something different - that genius depends on its need, the "question" it is answering, which it has perceived to be out there in the world.

"my" genius, could only ever be recognised after the event, because it is contextual, and oftentimes we cannot recognise the context we are in, precisely until AFTER THE EVENT, or that is what I am proposing.

"my" genius I'm trying to expound on in a self-reflexive way, to turn your question on itself and thereby create a situation which is conducive to seeing "my" genius - IN-CONTEXT, which would turn my own proposition on its own head.

I enjoy your question, and hope you will not think I am trying to throw a bucket of cold water on it, because I think it is a beautiful question and very rarely do people genuinely give me a question where I have the genuine opportunity to, as it were, stretch the legs of what I would like to consider is "my" genius

Indeed you fulfil the requirement of one of my above propositions - that genius perceives the challenge, and the obstacles surrounding it - because you foresaw what the challenge was, and what the obstacles were to achieving it. Your challenge was getting what you were really asking for (i.e. the kinds of answers you were really looking for), in a place such as this!

One qualifier to "my" genius is that I have handicaps in other areas, such as figuring out how I am going to express what I am really trying to convey to the other, and processing how they are going to receive what I give them, or what they see of what I give them.

One further proposition of genius to prove "I" have some of that rare substance - genius is above competition. To every genius, the person's task of inquiry is a universe in itself, much as the poet's muse is to the poet an entire universe in itself, beyond comparison with the genius of another, or the muse of another poet.

I would attribute "my" genius not to myself, but to my muse, which is the job of inquiry to which I cheerfully make my sacrifice of labour :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
Personally I wouldn't bother. Good luck with others!
 

·
Registered
INTP 874 sx/sp VLEF melancholic
Joined
·
17,126 Posts
well can you login as "your" genius and give a reply of some substance? I know I come across as patronizing but I really would like subjective, non judgemental replies of personal ideas that the poster considers their greatest ideas.
I cannot control my genius. I am its vessel. If you wish to see what is within, you may look. But my genius bathes in the confines of my blood, unconcerned with the perspectives beyond. Inside me lies my genius, but it is not a prisoner of me. I am its prisoner. I gladly serve and await the day I become free, only after my genius is fulfilled. I give what I can for it, pleasing it so I can sleep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VinnieBob

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
You asked for it


Paleontology: When I was 6,
 
I was looking at a natural history museum's website and found a picture of one of the paintings they had on display showing a territorial fight between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and an Albertosaurus. It bothered me because my favorite source of dinosaur information said that 1) the two species didn't live in the same regions and 2) T-rex hadn't evolved until a couple of million years after Albertosaurus had gone extinct, so I emailed the museum asking if they'd made a typo on one or both of the dinosaurs named in the caption.

When they e-mailed me back explaining that the scene was pure artistic liberty that they knew wouldn't have happened in real life - and complimenting my knowledge base to have recognized that fact - my first reaction was "But why would they do that if dinosaur museums are supposed to be educational?"


Physics: When I was 11,
 
I watched Nova's special based on Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe," and I completely understood their descriptions of the extra dimensions that String Theory requires.


Calculus: When I was 16,
 
I worked out that if a planet has mass "M" (and no atmosphere so as to ignore air resistance), an object's distance from the planet's center is given by "r" (starting at r0), and the object's velocity away from the planet's center is given by "v" (starting at v0 and assuming a straight line up/down so as to ignore centrifugal/centripetal forces), then v = ±√( v0^2 + 2GM(r^-1 - r0^-1) ).

Not only does this correctly mean that an object's velocity is symmetrical (if it is moving 10 mph up at a certain point, then it should be moving down at 10 mph when it falls back to the same point), but setting v equal to 0 and r = ∞ further gives the correct value for a planet's escape velocity from any point at/above/below the surface.


Xeno-bio-psycho-sociology: When I was 19,
 
I was trying to invent an alien mindset so that my Doctor Who fanfiction would show a clear difference between how my human characters' brains worked versus my non-human characters' brains worked, and I believe I have a terrifyingly scientific description - if not necessarily a scientific explanation - of how humans are more discriminatory and tribalistically violent than other sentient species would be (even in the real world):

Maslow's Hierarchy is an obsolete psychological model of what motivations humans supposedly care about the most. If somebody's most basic needs aren't being met, then behaviors corresponding to higher needs will be merely means to achieving the baser ends. It's only when we are satisfied in our baser needs that we can afford to pursue higher needs for their own sake.

Physiological needs come first (food, water, oxygen, reproduction), followed by Security (shelter, economy, law enforcement, knowing what to expect from day to day and year to year), Relationships (friends, family, romance), Esteem (feeling that your contributions to the world make you valuable as a person), and the Self-Actualization needs that Maslow placed on top tend to focus on Specialness (art, philosophy, creativity, individuation).

In the real world, psychologists don't consider the Hierarchy to be as useful as they used to, but I've still had fantastic experiences using it for fiction. A lot of sci-fi/fantasy world-building sources recommend thinking about sentient species in terms of "how would this species meet their Maslow's hierarchy differently from how humans do it," but one TV Tropes article I found recommended rearranging the Hierarchy itself, and that's where I've had the most luck.

If we assume that some species' Hierarchy is different than ours, then Food/Water/Reproduction might not be at the bottom, which would mean that "living" is not important to them. This sounds absurd, nonsensical, counter-intuitive, and most importantly: alien and inhuman.

Let's say that we have a species that starts with Contribution, then Relationships, Food, Specialness, and Self-Actualization is based on Security, and let's compare that to humanity.

Humans fear Death above all else (Food comes first), stay alive by gathering for strength in numbers (Security/Relationships come next), help others primarily for the sake of getting help in return ("contributing" for the sake of Food/Security instead of for the sake of Contribution), and sacrifice their personal identities for the same of staying in the group's good graces (Specialness comes last) because group loyalty is seen as a matter of life versus death.

Most people work for the sake of giving their families a paycheck instead of for the sake of working, and most self-proclaimed "non-comformists" are merely trading one group for another and then conforming to this new group.

"What about people who give their lives for the sake of others?"

Nathan Hale didn't say "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" because he loved other people so much that he didn't fear death, he loved other people so much that he feared their deaths more than he feared his own. The fear of death is still the driving force behind even the most selfless human actions.

It sounds like a species could not survive if it didn't try to avoid death, but humans fear death and we kill other groups "just in case" the other group tries to kill us first. We think about groups (Security/Relationships) more than we think about individuals (Specialness), so when we find a group that's not "our" group, we don't take the risk that they want to kill us. The vast majority of human cruelty over the millennia can be summed up as "one group feared death at the hands of another group and killed the others first."

Now let's look at the alien/monster I came up with. These people fear Worthlessness above all else (Contribution comes first), they contribute to the people around them by sharing novel experiences (Food/Relationships), only explore new ideas that lead to something tangible ("creativity" for the sake of Contribution/Relationships instead of for the sake of Specialness), and sacrifice the idea of official institution for the sake of maintaining novelty (Security comes last) as excitement is seen as a matter of worth versus worthlessness.

Most of these people come up with new abstract ideas for the sake of sharing new experiences instead of abstracting for it's own sake, and most self-proclaimed "organizers" are just gathering people who want to do try the same new thing but who won't truly commit.

Humans primarily work for the sake of living, only working for the sake of working when we know our families are not going to die. These people live primarily for the sake of working, only living for the sake of living when they know that their lives matter.

Our theme songs would be "Savages" and "Run This Town", their theme songs would be "Just Dance" and "People Like Us."

Humans wouldn't understand how this species can survive when these people work themselves to death, and these people wouldn't understand how humanity can survive when humans organize to kill each other.


Psychology: Since I was 21,
 
I've been working on a new set of personality profiles. This is nowhere near as scientific as the Cognitive Functions, MyersBriggs, DISC, or OCEAN profiles, but I still think it could be interesting to compare and contrast

Self: Are you primarily Impulsive (active, unfocused), Scattered (reactive, unfocused), Analytic (reactive, focused), or Driven (active, focused)

Relationships: Are you primarily Reserved (introverted, impersonal), Entrepreneurial (extraverted, impersonal), Social (extraverted, personal), or Companionate (introverted, personal)

Worldview: Are you primarily Conservative (steady-minded, compliant), Accepting (open-minded, compliant), Subversive (open-minded, dominant), or Decisive (steady-minded, dominant)

I haven't developed a test - and I can't imagine I will ever have a chance to formulate one that's particularly objective - but just going by the descriptions, I would categorize myself as Scattered, Reserved, and either Accepting or Subversive


BOOM :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
OP: You want us to demonstrate our unique genius without allowing any discussion about the definition of genius. Forget "stank prententious"--whatever that is--I smell Fi all over you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
I think about this a lot. You know those women that know they're attractive and choose their appearance as their most valuable asset and seek to display it through skimpy clothing? Some people call it shameless?

My mind is my most valuable thing, and when I want to show it off, it's usually done through creative writing or finding counter-arguments and articulating them eloquently inside of my Philosophy classes. It's also done through one-on-one conversations and insightful questions that lead people to open up. There's this secret part of me that gets smug when I'm able to understand people very well, draw out an insightful connection, or put words in the order that will move people to feel or think something profoundly. And love me because of it. I just want them to love me. Shameless?

I don't make a claim to a genius intellect, but your thread reminded me of the way I think of myself when I'm showing off my mind. Honestly though, most people prefer to see bodies; sometimes I wonder if I should stop flaunting my thoughts. I think I have too much pride to do this.
 

·
Registered
INTP 874 sx/sp VLEF melancholic
Joined
·
17,126 Posts
I think about this a lot. You know those women that know they're attractive and choose their appearance as their most valuable asset and seek to display it through skimpy clothing? Some people call it shameless?

My mind is my most valuable thing, and when I want to show it off, it's usually done through creative writing or finding counter-arguments and articulating them eloquently inside of my Philosophy classes. It's also done through one-on-one conversations and insightful questions that lead people to open up. There's this secret part of me that gets smug when I'm able to understand people very well, draw out an insightful connection, or put words in the order that will move people to feel or think something profoundly. And love me because of it. I just want them to love me. Shameless?

I don't make a claim to a genius intellect, but your thread reminded me of the way I think of myself when I'm showing off my mind. Honestly though, most people prefer to see bodies; sometimes I wonder if I should stop flaunting my thoughts. I think I have too much pride to do this.
You should always go out of your way to feel loved IMO. Put the work in and flaunt, not in a snarky way, but in a proud way. But don't go TOO far out of your way, like Robin Williams and many other comedians have done. That's when pride reaches dangerous levels.

I used to be like you until I started to feel more used than loved. It becomes draining instead of empowering and I begun to keep a lower profile and keeping a distance from people. My energy is important to me, and it's MY energy, not others'. Others are careless with my energy, milking too much from me. I hate it. That's the result of too much pride. My brain became more important than everything else, because that's what others wanted from me. Now I write books, hiding behind the pages of my thoughts, shielding my heart from the magnetic pull of others.

Im just saying, don't be too worried about your pride. It doesn't seem quite so dangerous and self-destructive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,146 Posts
Nothanks.
Nice b8 m8, though, but don't deliber8 that using such gr8 new b8 will win you any m8s just because you gain some pretentious version of h8.
Still.
Nice b8.
 

·
Birdie Borracho
Joined
·
9,380 Posts
OP: You want us to demonstrate our unique genius without allowing any discussion about the definition of genius. Forget "stank prententious"--whatever that is--I smell Fi all over you.
I like than saying someone has too much Fi is an insult. I approve and my approval matters, because I am a genius.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Long time reader, first time poster. Honestly I find many on here attempt to exude their MBTI a bit too much. Some almost force their responses to comply with their typology. I don't consider myself a genius; however, I am extremely creative. My time in sales has made me a master manipulator (why sugar coat it) and I've blurred the lines on ethics many times to allow my ideas to be seen by others.

In my experience you cannot call yourself a genius without having some type of personality disorder (NPD anyone?). While I've outgrown my need of acceptance from others I still believe that your work speaks for itself. When others who have established credibility in their fields call you a genius, then you can take the title. I have been called a genius before but not by people I would respect the comment from.
 

·
Birdie Borracho
Joined
·
9,380 Posts
@Tzara

The cute girl making a face at me, as your avatar, and the marking of your gender as male is a source of discomfort, for me. Why should I care? Your chaotic evilness definitely screws with me. That might be a sign of genius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzara

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
OP: You want us to demonstrate our unique genius without allowing any discussion about the definition of genius. Forget "stank prententious"--whatever that is--I smell Fi all over you.
It was implied that any response was the poster's definition of genius. I said I didn't want the definition of genius. I just wanted anyone's past experiences that they feel demonstrates genius or qualities they have that would be considered genius.

stank prententious is what someone writes when they are super drunk and misspell stank pretentiousness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,548 Posts
@Tzara

The cute girl making a face at me, as your avatar, and the marking of your gender as male is a source of discomfort, for me. Why should I care? Your chaotic evilness definitely screws with me. That might be a sign of genius.
Its not representing my genius. Thats just my ego bolstering up the smirk at my face when I tell someone, "I dont care". But thanks anyway.
 

·
Birdie Borracho
Joined
·
9,380 Posts
Its not representing my genius. Thats just my ego bolstering up the smirk at my face when I tell someone, "I dont care". But thanks anyway.
Your GIFs have no power over me, anymore. On your actual profile, you just have bushy eyebrows.

Edit: Just looked it up, that GIF is apparently an actress names Kaya Scodelario who enchants me. Which means you're nothing but a phony, a big fat phone. And I'm a guy who can't post images on PerC.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top