A choice in the matter...

[Patrick86]

This may have been posted in the past, I can't be sure. Anyway, it's something which has recently come to my attention, again, and I find the question intriguing and I'd like to read about it and discuss what you all think.

The question:

Could someone who is a genius possibly have become one by having chosen it (or having a parent choose for them, for instance, if they're really little)?

A case comes to mind but I can't remember the name. The story goes: a very strict father tried to raise a genuis and allegedly succeeded. If you know the name of this person, do tell (I think he might have had a record IQ score). The person had a lot of success in earlier life but then he apparently tried to become normal like everyone else. Other facts: he collected bus transfers, if I recall correctly. Sidis comes to mind.

[Patrick86]

Full name: "William James Sidis."

Interesting fellow.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, he's somewhat interesting, but not a genius - someone who understands the nature of Reality, and has a true sense of the relationships between things. What is commonly termed "genius" among those who aren't geniuses, is a degree of that understanding, but so specialised and limited that there is little wisdom. It may seem like the polymath is more of a genius, because he understands more of the essential nature of many different areas of reality, but it's not really so. The polymath has just intensified the same skills, and repeated them in many areas. He doesn't see the deeper interrelationships, the actual reality of the things he experiences.

Just in case you haven't, check out the forum welcome thread. It explains genius more thoroughly.

[Facade]

Well, he's somewhat interesting, but not a genius - someone who understands the nature of Reality, and has a true sense of the relationships between things.

Have you ever looked at his works, The Animate and Inanimate and Unconscious Intelligence? Sidis may have not produced much literature, but what he did write seemed to evince wide, varied, and well-developed perspectives of reality.

http://www.sidis.net/

[Blair]

There's no such thing as valid varied perspectives of reality, there is only one correct one.

[Facade]

There's no such thing as valid varied perspectives of reality, there is only one correct one.

I meant varied in the sense that he has an eclectic perspective. The word eclectic would have served better there. However I am curious what you mean by there is only one 'correct' perspective of reality; where do you think this correctness comes from and by what standard is it correct?

[Blair]

My standards. Any wise individuals standards.

I'm not interested in a dialogue with you kid. Though someone else will likely oblige, meanwhile I will point you here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128

[Facade]

My standards. Any wise individuals standards.

I'm not interested in a dialogue with you kid. Though someone else will likely oblige, meanwhile I will point you here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128

From the little I have seen of your posting, which I am nearly sure is indicative of your posts in general, you seem to make an effort of distributing your platitudes and providing little to no substantiation for them. As the link you directed me toward states, this is a "discussion forum", so unless you're willing to discuss instead of offering your trite snippets of what we can only presume is some 'philosophy' of yours, it will be difficult to regard anything you say as worth consideration.

[Blair]

Ok prole.

Good luck, have at it.

[Facade]

Ok prole.

Good luck, have at it.

I couldn't ask for a better affirmation of everything I've said. Given your account name "prince" and your redundant and incessant attempts at condescension (including your use of the word "prole" here), one has a hard time not concluding that you think inordinately highly of yourself. Perhaps your unwillingness to engage in any real discussion stems from an anxiety? Namely, an anxiety of potentially ruining some delusional image of intellectual superiority you feel that you embody? But I digress; that is mere speculation. To the point—you and your patterns of behavior bore me, and until you have something useful to say I am finished with you.

[Blair]

What part of "have at it" don't you understand?

Go for it kid.

[Facade]

What part of "have at it" don't you understand?

Go for it kid.

I just want to point out that I was simply calling attention to some of your obnoxious antisocial tendencies which are a nuisance on the forum, and of course you responded in character. That being clarified, you can go ahead and perpetuate that image.

[Blair]

And you are who, exactly?

I've been on this forum for 10+ years.

[Facade]

And you are who, exactly?

I've been on this forum for 10+ years.

How would either of those things be relevant to what I'm getting at here? Being on this forum 10+ years is a justification for whatever mode of behavior you adopt? Or me being new to the forum disqualifies me from being able to recognize some pretty obvious patterns?

My first comment on the forum gets the response from you, "Thankyou for your input Mr. fucking obvious." Well it so happened I made that comment because I read what other people before me said and I discerned that it would provoke some disagreement from which there could be a constructive discussion. And I was correct in that intuition. I was laying out a clear groundwork of my point of view with specific statements that other people might, and did, disagree with. That's the basis of argumentation, and argumentation is a basis of reasoning and gaining knowledge. Took me 5 minutes of being on the forum to see that you litter it with arrogant comments and then don't even bother to follow through with any reasoning like you think you're some kind of roving superhuman that nobody can understand. I thought explaining your point of view was a part of discussion?

It happened in this thread too. I could see that you had an opinion that must differ from mine when you said of reality, "there is only one correct one." I thought, "well that's interesting, maybe I could learn something or at least have a nice debate", you know this is a discussion forum after all and reality seems to be a pretty hot topic here. Contrary to what you may be thinking, I'm not just here to argue for the sake of arguing, I like to add as well as take knowledge from this too. I've been on this forum before, and read and participated in some discussions which I considered very good. I was interested in your statement because it seems to be grounded in a form of objectivity that I don't think exists. That was my guess so I wanted to see what your premises were, hence: "where do you think this correctness comes from and by what standard is it correct?" And what was your reply? "My standards. Any wise individuals standards." OK dude, thanks for clearing that ontological issue up!

[Blair]

What you do kid, is blow words out of your ass like so much crapola, and think it adds up to content.

[Facade]

What you do kid, is blow words out of your ass like so much crapola, and think it adds up to content.

Obviously you aren't inclined toward reasoning. Having said that I will be the mature one here and end this.