What Makes a Genius - pt 3

[Migue261]

what about the polgar's? they definitely were made. I stick to the fact that during childhood one can learn just about everything, and as we grow older, that learning ability decreases

[Hampro1]

the baby in the last part is soooo cute..........

[aleaf09]

It's sad to see people who state that they have an IQ of >170. If you are that 1/10 000 000 who is that brilliant, you should have some common sense and realize that no one gives a shit about your IQ, and if they do...Well then they are the stupid ones. Also, keep it up with the unusual words, I have actually learned quite a few from the comments below :)

[uros160]

I was born a genius. I became a slacker by choice.

[Fuglebolle]

I find it a bit sad that science programs usually only interview scientists with extreme views, it gives the public the impression that science is separated from reality. Why not interview balanced scientists with the ability to see beyond just their own work.

[gwyd619]

I love how everybody is using words that they have been google for 30 minutes my iq is 172 and I don't talk like that stop trying so hard

[Ralph6485]

For all readers who dare be so audacious as to desire to imbibe from the sublime tree of genius, well then, I sincerely advise you to google 'Psitek.' Therefrom, upon entering the page of 'free metaphysical books,' proceed to read Wallace D Wattles 'the Science of Being Great;' Charles Haanel 'The Master Key System;' and 'In Tune with the Infinite.' In short, no man, woman, or child is capable of being a 'genius' per se; rather, all sentient creatures have the ability to serve as 'mediums.'

[aleaf09]

@Ralph6485 English isn't my main language, so I'll just go ahead and apologize in advance for any misunderstandings.

Are you saying that people who can be considered a genius shouldn't be given any credit because they were born geniuses? Sure if you look at all humans as one big entity you can see the outstandingly bright ones as mediums, but individually, your brain is what defines you and who you are.

[BrutalValor]

Boris Sidis, who was a great mind himself. Gave birth to William James Sidis, possibly the smartest man to have ever lived in terms of intellect, but not contribution. He treated his son as a trophy, he said that he was the epitome as to what every man can achieve with their children as long as their minds are tweaked at an early age to do so. He even wrote a book on it which you can check out online. It's called "Philistine and genius".

He also mentioned that IQ tests were entirely nonsense.

[nathantnnguyen1]

sounds like limitless at the beginning

[XRNoma]

I do agree that Chess is one of those things that you have to have some sort of talent to be good at when I play with different kinds of people I can tell that no matter how much certain people practice they are not able to get at a higher level then people that do have a gift for it alot of the ability to play chess well deals with a very good intuition and being able to feel yourself forward some moves I make I don't know if they are good moves but I feel that I should play this move.

[likespaintball]

amidzic seems to just be justifying why he wasn't able to become great at what he wanted. 'oh i wasn't born a grandmaster'

[pootnikalexander]

Reading these comments makes it obvious that the general public has been "dialed down" Why else could the same wars be done over and again and not have response,

[TheSonyb90]

bullshit great man are made not born.iq istest is partly bullshit.drop off a left brain genious in jungle he wont make it.

[lightbrownpoop]

@TheSonyb90 yeah, experience is the only real way to learn. also, if we can keep the mind relaxed, hold onto inspiration and let our hearts lead, we are infinitely more intelligent and creative. fear and stress makes us dumb.

[DazzleGazza]

You want to talk about chess, what about judit polgar and susan polgar? No evidence about being taught how to play chess? You must be living in a cave in the last 30 yrs. Do u actually think that babies are born to play chess and know all the rules when they are born.? Your assumptions are illogical.

[dedbusted]

I know gifted people that are just unable to function in the world. Unfortunately, to be successful one must meet people and know how to communicate. So many great writers have died in poverty; they were loners and displeased with society. Great things can be accomplished in isolation; however, when an artist or inventor has a room full of wonderful work, what does it matter if it never sees the light of day because he lacks the social skills to get to know the right people to market it.

[bboy1022]

@dedbusted its called having a low Social Quotient

[TheEruditepolymath]

pseudo-scientific hokum

[dedbusted]

5:46--not really--look at what happened to Bobby Fischer.

[alkadura]

The tests just shows which part of the brain is active while playing chess.

It is correct, that by using right areas of the brain, your style and strength of play will change.

(I am a decent chess player myself.)

BUT the point is, that you can change the area of the brain which you are using, and as a consequence, score differently in this test and in chess.

Watch "Superhuman intelligence through magnetic stimulation" and then

think again about "born intelligence" and about what he says.

[varrrr]

@shazzbot007

yes, I am puzzled too. It appears to me too that the brain pattern must be because of training. But he seems to be claiming that similar patterns can be found in beginners too. How can that be if they have no long term memory? May be what he means is that some people are naturally intuitive thinkers.

[varrrr]

@89Dustdevil

I think so too. He just looking for an excuse.

@PrUnEJulcEtHeThlrD

"However, it's completely unscientific to assume that the same pattern means the same thing in little children. You NEED to do a long-term study."

This is true.

@sharukkin

"But can you use long term memory if there is no memory?"

Yes, this puzzles me too.May be some people have a tendency to think intuitively.

[varrrr]

Thus, natural tendencies can often be overcome with proper training.

Also, I find this documentary to be a bit biased and one sided. It's disappointing that this documentary never addressed the 10000 hour rule advocated by the likes Andersson, Howe (genius explained), Gladwell (outliers).

I even saw an economics nobel prize winner lecture about it. (Simply practicing that many hours is not enough, it has to be systematic).

Unless someone is disabled, I think anyone 'can' reach top levels.

[varrrr]

In my opinion, Ognen's arguments are hardly convincing. 23 is a very young age to give up. I think he failed not because of genes, but because he valued success more than chess itself and so he couldn't cope with his failures. On the other hand, Polgar sisters were taught that failure is part of the journey to the top.

Also, consider this- while most of us have in born tendency to be right handed or left handed, we can train our weaker hand to become as strong- even stronger.

[varrrr]

I did some research on Ognjen( I thought his name was ONION). I couldn't find too much about his research. However, I found

1>He gave up chess at a very young age of 23.(many become GM in their 30s)

2>He admitted he never did a LONG TERM study to see if the brain can change. The best he did was to correctly predict the chess progress of 1 SINGLE boy after 5 years.

3>His conviction that it's genetic comes from the fact that some of his "chess beginner" subjects show a similar pattern.

[eddiekoski]

that person likes to say mathematics

[Neueregel]

I met GM Stuart Conquest last year in London Chess Classic. Cool guy

[poopdog007]

Ok so I get it...Instead of plugging their child on ritalin. Parents are now going to plug them on genes lol. Get smarter dammit!

[masterchiefer123]

i wish i was a genius.....oh wait i am muahahhahahaha

[89Dustdevil]

I could be wrong but the wannabe grandmaster seems to be looking for an excuse as to why he failed.

[SPr1nkZ]

@89Dustdevil Mozart may have been prodigy, but his father got him into music, and he studied 8 hours a day at least.

[me2goodfoyou]

Is the brain at 9:00 real?

[JJHdisney]

I Feel sorry for that animal D: You better feed that mouse well >.>

[qwertypluss]

How do you spell the chess scientist: anyan?

[November10th1775USMC]

@qwertypluss Onion :)

[anonymousQ45]

beethoven BECAME a genius. he was not a child prodigy like mozart, but he was a very hardworking man and hated laziness. he was a perfectionist and an innovator. if he didnt have the work ethic, he would have never been the beethoven so many people respect. work hard on your craft 100%

[SPr1nkZ]

@anonymousQ45 I'd agree if it weren't for the fact he was a genius, and he developed syphilis in his later life which developed his genius further before his brain was melted like a candle. Other composers were intimidated by him in his contemporary life, and looked down on by some of his contemporaries at the end of his life. The 5th symphony was called a bunch of racket. Haha.

[dedbusted]

@anonymousQ45 Ahhh...but is work ethic a part of genetics? Are people ambitious by nature or influenced by society and family? Some are dissuaded by society and fight to hold onto their ambition. Can we speak of hard work, ambition, and intelligence in the same breath?

[anonymousQ45]

@dedbusted i believe some people are ambitious by nature. Steve Jobs surely was. but i think it takes all those things you named to get there.

[dedbusted]

@anonymousQ45 Oh, I believe people are ambitious by nature also. I am almost completely on the nature side--although, many pedagogues, because of political correctness, would find the concept undesirable; that anyone can be anything he wants to be, and that everyone should go to college are lies that teachers tell themselves and students. I am hard working because I have had success in my field; I have had success because I know what I am doing; therefore, my will to do more is ignited.

[chessinfantry]

@anonymousQ45 fuck u! how dare u try and motivate me! how dare you!

[aksoreles]

@anonymousQ45 ur just proved ur self wrong though he worked hard, and he had to rewrite his pieces countless times to perfect it, in this sense it didnt come naturally or inherently whatever so he wasnt a genius, and if he is by some chance then he never became he just let it out by work, potential

[anonymousQ45]

@aksoreles you obviously dont know what genius is. Beethoven was highly respected by those before and after him. Liszt had great respect for Beethoven, and Liszt was probably the most innovative pianist in the world.

[anonymousQ45]

@aksoreles and also i want to say, just because someone may be a child prodigy, doesnt mean they will make good music. the large output of Mozart is very shallow, and he was more of a composer than an instrumentalist, so what he wrote is more geared toward thematic material, which again, was very shallow. where as a virtuoso like beethoven, in all his madness, happiness, and despair wrote music from the heart. mozart did alot of his works for money

[Carlisle412]

@anonymousQ45 There's a flaw in your logic (in my opinion). You don't have to be a child prodigy in order to be a genius. Bethoven had the traits that indicate genius - hard work and artistry. Mozart had the same traits but developed faster because of the enviorment - his father was a musician. So there you have it. 

[anonymousQ45]

@Carlisle412 i dont think you realize you actually agreed with what i said

[Carlisle412]

@anonymousQ45 I must agree, it sounds similar, but it's not the same. You said that Bethoven became a genius, whereas I indicated that he was born a genius, but didn't grow up in a stimulating enviorment.

[uros160]

@anonymousQ45 To become a genius is impossible. Period.

[MrGodkid]

you are either simple, clever or active - as far as your DNA is concerned; these can be simple, simply simple, extremely simple, smart, clever, genius, active, very active, very very active - as an extension of the brain looping back on itself (in principle)

[imagin777]

Ignorance is bliss, ask Cantor. Desire is the greatest driving force in creating obsession. Modern "education" is a test of mimicry and not of intelligence.

You are still, my friends; predicting the weather.

[Joyness333]

@imagin777

I concur. If you ask me, there are two different types of genius. The structured, computational type, and the creative type. Desire would drive both of course, but one type (being the creative type) might dabble more in the desire and emotion department. It makes sense that there would be more activity in the frontal cortex for those who are more successful though; this might be because the frontal cortex is the part of the brain that deals with concentration.

[imagin777]

@Joyness333

I have a sneaking suspicion that in order to see the true nature of Genius, one must observe humans in a group, one lone individual will not suffice. That less organised creative types have their ideas borrowed by the more controlling list makers. The visual thinkers deal with anxiety by dreaming, and the list makers by organising and counting. I would for example stipulate that Language is created by artists but enforced by list makers. A yin and yang situation.

[Sharukkin]

He says that this master chess player would whink like a master and use long-term memory even if he was a beginner. But how can you use long-term memory if there is no memory? It seems to me that they're overemphasizing a bit the role of genes to the detriment of experience, practise, training etc.

[varrrr]

@Sharukkin

Yes, what he is saying makes no sense. I would want to have a detailed report of his studies. How can you use long term memory if there is none. May be some people are naturally tend to rely more on intuition. But that doesn't mean that this natural tendency cannot be changed.

[MrJheart85]

This historical bias is becoming obsolete think maths/physics/long term/frontal lobe thinkers innately applying the function conjunction to advanced processes and related computation applications within a real-time environment/High Frequency Trading. When the nuclear computer is Officially finished, many pointless jobs of route learning will disappear with the false sense of understanding and relativity they created. The genius working for real-time analysis will always be relevant.

[MrJheart85]

There exist a social bias towards family/cultural preservation, meaning lower intelligence scores are grouped and skewed toward a higher success/preservation rate. Meaning the theory that anyone can learn a route computation skill, be effective as a mathematician, if they routinely write down or articulate math. These talents didn't originate from lower intelligence but are part of a fully functional mathematical process, it's a gift from and to the world, and that is all, get over it.

[90zlaya]

Did you herd story about two guys who can play chess just by imagination?

[raydredX]

@90zlaya Playing against yourself seems pretty normal to me. Playing against someother person unless the plays are almost always the same seems stupid to me. What do you mean? Are they supposed to communicate telepathically?

[90zlaya]

@raydredX No, they speak to each other like in usual chess match.

You see, they need do be really smart to do something like this. To know how figures are placed in every time and to predict next move.

[raydredX]

@90zlaya I get what you mean now. But I think there's probably a decent number of people capable of also doing that.

[Mr1mag1nary]

That's surprising. This 'neuroscientist' says that he has never seen any evidence of genius being created, however the first female grandmaster, Susan Polgar (who's father was a psychologist), says that genius is created. It's doubly ironic that this statement comes from a chess prodigy. There is a great documentary about Susan Polgar on google video that I definitely recommend, although it is a little lengthy.

[egosum101]

Do we learn mostly from bad experiences?

[tweakmeup1]

If gene's really plays a big part of a human intelligence, why are the descendants of these great minds never even got close to their intellect? I know someone who excelled in academics from primary school up to collage and earn the highest average mark in the history of his university, but both his parents were merely average Joe's.

[IETCHX69]

Fair chess match...international grand master vs. average Joe...place yer bets

[slilt]

that is one cool gene spotting machine. I'm guessing I can't get one on amazon?

[tweakmeup1]

No one can really predict who will be the next Einstein or the next Kasparov or then next Lincoln or the next Michael Jordan. Who can tell what tomorrow would bring?

[IETCHX69]

@tweakmeup1 i'm gonna drink cheap beer, expensive scotch, ans play guitar

[tweakmeup1]

I strongly disagree that geniuses are born. Like leaders are, everyone is born with 0 intelligence. It's one's own ability to improve that will separate a leader from an ordinary follower. Some people gradually improves his skills until he reaches his maximum learning potential, some will learn faster at a younger age then slows down during his prime, some will start slow then rapidly learns a lot of things during his prime. No one....

[diees]

One thing is trying to overcome a standard dictated by society, another one is overcoming oneself repeadetly, day after day.

One will eventually reach a point where he exceeds society standards and could be recognized a genius. There's too much competition in music, mathematics and chess.

If one couldn't better oneself, life would be completely pointless.

[robinmondorama]

@diees

fantastic comment - thank you.

[Shrunkenhead61]

I think it is nature (the slate / foundation) then a nurture (how you build the house). I think boredom and concentration have a lot to do with things too. Every time I talk about anything that involves thought outside of girls and beer, my friends instantly drop off. They don't even ask questions to even show a low interest sometimes. And I am not even a genius (or really the tier down from it)... so, I can't imagine how a genius would feel.

[mikaelsify]

@Shrunkenhead61 they adapt, they hide what they cherish out the sight of the common world and it is only in isolation in their aloneness where they feel the blessed feeling of existence.

[Shrunkenhead61]

@mikaelsify That doesn't sound preferable but neither is never knowing anything or free thought.

I never met a genius in person... I'd at least want to talk (or try my speech). Though how they tolerate me, would suck for them lol. Also, I'd presume things about them.

I sometimes think I have genius ideas but I always have to doubt myself. I usually have ideas that can't be proven or have intuitive ideas that may work but not how the system is set up.

Just be awesome to see genius up front.

[SIMKINETICS]

@Shrunkenhead61 I've read that intelligence is often accompanied with neurosis in people with IQ's up to about 160. Beyond that level of intelligence, the smartest are among the healthiest emotionally; they are assumed to be smart enough to adjust to a situation of isolation from 'normal' people. Also, the gene for high intelligence has been identified as a cause for schizophrenia. It's doubful that intelligent people get bored easily because thinking is entertaining.

[yadsik]

@SIMKINETICS

"Also, the gene for high intelligence has been identified as a cause for schizophrenia."

.

Correlated.*

[SIMKINETICS]

@yadsik Yer right.  Correlation isn't equal to causation. You've caused me to correlate this with a misconception.

[greyndog1]

I feel really bad for those mice, It just seems wrong..

[notengonickcojones]

this is not genetics, he says that there is not evidence and this is false: read about Plogar familly!!! poor guy he hasn't even read about this familly.

[equallyeasilyfuqyou]

poor lab mice

[SH10JogaBonito]

Chance greatly influences tests and so does creativity and innate or accumulated knowledge. Everything has a different amount of effect on wether you are considered to be a genius which is dependent on the innate or accumulated capability of that effect.

[SH10JogaBonito]

Genius wether it be innate genetic capabilities found in some more than others or something that can be achieved by anyone. This seems to be the overall question, however the answer is no as direct there are many variations of outcomes to the test because that is the type of result you get when the possible outcomes exist. For example, people who test low in different examinations of intelligence but still become successful and another individual who scored similarly and was not as successful.

[PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD]

I think it's a fundamental mistake to directly connect observations from hindsight with projections of the unknown. Yes, a chess grandmaster may have better suited brain-activity than an amateur while playing chess, and that's not surprising. However, it's completely unscientific to assume that the same pattern means the same thing in children who are just 6 years old. You NEED to do a long-term study before you can just bridge hindsight and projection like that.

[Evilpawn2]

We should not have such advanced scientific technology as a human society,all were gonna do with it is enslave and destroy ourselves with it as history is proof of how stupid we are as a species.

[darkunorthodox]

@Evilpawn2 wise sounding bullshit

[amr2286]

@Evilpawn2 but then again we won't advance as a species either, a ominous circle of chaos.

[amr2286]

the russian guy is not right in some senses. It seems to be a fatalist approach, and I bet he feels bitter that he blames his genes for not giving him the capacity of becoming a grand chest master. I bet if we can train our brains to think like a chestmaster it can be possible to become one, but it will take more hard work. In the case of chest, I woudl say a grand master can predict perhaps 10 moves at a time that he can do so he works  a lot of the working memory (RAM).

[darkunorthodox]

@amr2286 sorry but just because fatalism is a tough pill to swallow doesnt make it incorrect

[bballhawk1977]

@darkunorthodox doesn't make it right either.

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox well if we all thought in the mindset of a "fatalist", then we would perhaps be in a world where we know that we can't be what we "dream" to be... because our genes limit our capacity to be that way, screw that! WE are human, and WE are complex in nature, we can still pursue our dreams and make them reality, perhaps for many of us it will be hard work and perseverance. In the end what counts is that we make our goal and that we are happy of our accomplishments in the end.

[darkunorthodox]

@amr2286 im speaking from a logical point of view, not practical

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox Life is illogical, though we try to make it logical by assigning concepts and building an "argument". I think what we are missing here a long term input from the "environment" and more experiments from this scientist to attribute his main argument of what he is getting at. I am not a pure behaviorist to completely believe his theory.

[darkunorthodox]

@amr2286 "life is illogical" wow love ur approach

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox thanks! at least we've move on from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics ;)

[darkunorthodox]

@amr2286 right, since we dont get something, it makes no sense, great assumptions

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox not really, what are the "real" standards of logic (not the stuff you learn in preschool, as in your case)... when we deal with the fatalist approach it is a lot more complex than you might think. Thats the real difference at this point in time between a mathematical perspecitive/and or physicist perspective than a biological one; whereas in physics we seek to unify things, in biology we complicate them by novel discoveries and concepts...

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox what this scientist proved is a mere introductory view to a very awful conclusion, more experiments need to be looked at...

[amr2286]

@darkunorthodox yes perhaps one can argue that biology is at its primitive phase, and we still have much to learn... but let us say someday in the future we might find a unifying explanation of life (streaming from what "conscious" is and to why we even exist etc...) and that we find an answer for nature's elaborations... I believe that in the end we will arrive to a similar conclusion as what the answer was to physic's quantum world. In essence Its a cloudy view... but you suggest its clear!

[drseth00789]

here they talk about learning. but really it seems deduction is circular reasoning. i'm not sure genius is your ability to observe and reproduce. like the numbers guy said, it's more creative. innovation and inspiration

[vikikis]

you are born a genius? You can BECOME A GENIUS !!!

[24BIT24BIT]

I'm a Genius, I voted for Barak Obama.

[asemaq]

what is the music at 5:00?