I think the point he's trying to make is that the definition for the word "genius" is very clear. It's defined as an IQ >= 140. You can't say that _for you_ it means something different. That's like saying, _for you_ a convex function means something different than the mathematical definition. It's fine that you think it means something different, just use a different word, not the word "genius".
> I think the point he's trying to make is that the definition for the word "genius" is very clear. It's defined as an IQ >= 140.
Where did you find this definition of "genius"? Maybe someone decided that "genius" means someone with and IQ >= 140, but I haven't found any evidence that it's the definition.
For example, Merriam-Webster's definition [1] seems to be closer to tacomonstrous's usage. In fact, the only mention of IQ it makes is "a person endowed with extraordinary mental superiority; especially : a person with a very high IQ".
No dictionary I'm aware of carries the IQ based definition of the word, so I'm not sure how anyone can claim with such authority that this is the case.
Where does that definition come from? The root of the word is from birth and creation, not problem solving. The word is often applied to artists and musicians - is Keith Richards blessed with an IQ of 140? I think that it is generally agreed that Keith Richards is a genius, but his ability to make decisions is... questionable. Van Gogh is another, a life of terrible decision making, huge creative transformations, interventions that turned painting forever. Do you deny that these people should be called Geniuses because they wouldn't (or could) score highly on a test?
The definition comes from the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
> is Keith Richards blessed with an IQ of 140? I think that it is generally agreed that Keith Richards is a genius, but his ability to make decisions is... questionable.
How do you feel about it? I don't really care for the Rolling Stones or that type of rock music in general, so I'm not qualified to make an opinion here
> Van Gogh is another, a life of terrible decision making, huge creative transformations, interventions that turned painting forever.
I'm not really a big fan of his work. It doesn't elicit a strong emotional response in me. Perhaps because of its ubiquity, it seems like "default art". Then again I don't know much about painting or art history to offer a strong opinion.
If we're going to be subjective, and I know this will be very controversial, I consider Arnold Schwarzenegger a genius in his field. He's the greatest bodybuilder of all time and will most likely remain so if the tradition of doing as many steroids as possible continues in the Mr Olympia competition. Arnold did steroids as well, but he sculpted his body to look like Hercules, as opposed to modern winners who look like Abomination( The Hulk's major foe).
Also, in a very narrow way, his acting is genius. He plays the role of an assassination robot better than anyone. Note, I'm not saying he's great at portraying a synthetic intelligence in general (like Ava from Ex Machina)
The point of having a technical definition is not to exclude those in the past, it is so that going forward it has a precise, empirical definition that everyone can all agree on. I'm not wedded to the word so it can also be brilliant, prodigy, virtuoso, etc. Many words in common parlance once had specific medical/clinical meaning like idiot, moron, etc.
No, outside of some contexts (i.e. the technical jargon of some domain/field of research/community), the definition of genius is not "140+ IQ".
Yes, in one context that definition could be valid, but in general discourse something like the generic "Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability" from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genius would be a much more relevant definition.
Outside of that context, it fails to have any consistent meaning, especially if relying on creative power.
The technical definition makes it so that
I'm not proclaiming that the Iq test is the measure, or even a good measure of intelligence. I happen to think it is heavily biased and what it really tries to measure, imprecisely, is your potential for success in the system in which it was created.
Doubtlessly, they were geniuses among people before the development of language and mathematics. For example, let's presuppose some genius hunter who had a knack for catching prey without breaking a sweat, made the best fishing lures and hunting traps, could predict migration patterns, could track any creature, can use his/her sense of smell to predict the weather, etc. It has been argued that hunter-gatherers were even more intelligent than modern humans as they had a larger skull, indicating a larger brain. However, the IQ test would not rate him well.
That still doesn't contradict the point I was trying to make. A technical definition means that being a genius becomes a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. It could just as easily be another word. Otherwise, discussion just dissolves into subjective opinion.
