Madness and Genius.

[Black Swan]

Conform to the norm...no ta... thats for everybody else as instructed by others who are frankly clueless also.

 

[sandpiper]

Good thread, great comments, I wonder if in the curent climate we as (for example) a UK society have begun to tolerate differences and eccentricity less? Whilst we may congratulate ourselves on diversity, in particular multi culturalism, I wonder if the UK actually stifles creativity as close to birth as humanly possible by 'our' insistance that toddlers as young as 3 have to conform to the average accepted stereo typical box ticking obsession I constantly witness?

Are we breeding generations who are quite frankly too scared to break the mould having been told from such an early age that they must be good, must conform, must do the right thing...?

I think you hit the nail on the head, although "doing the right thing" clearly has many connotations. Although I think intolerance of difference, eccentricity and even success has been part of our society for some considerable time.

As a summary of the other elements that have been metioned, It also seems to me that savants, mega-talents (and to a greater degree aspergers and autism sufferers - although I'm hesitant to use the word sufferer, I just can't think of anything else) are consumed to a greater or lesser degree by their area of expertise. In a sense, they are called, i.e. the subject of their attention chooses them. They don't really have a choice and largely because of this their efforts are mainly self-serving (although without doubt we all reap incredible rewards from their efforts). I believe geniuses do have the freedom of choice and use not just it incredibly wisely, but largely for the benefit of others. They derive satisfaction from the overall benefits to society, mankind, etc, of their efforts rather than any sense of personal achievement.

I think Claudia picked an excellent example with Da Vinci. A superb case study, expecially when you think that the guy was nearly locked up (or worse) for "un-manly conduct".

 

[Mr. Charts]

What a great thread, so much of value has already been said.
I suspect genius thinks or sees or connects in new ways which move art or science or even thought itself in different directions.

 

[Mayfly]

I suspect genius thinks or sees or connects in new ways which move art or science or even thought itself in different directions.

So true.

Mayfly

 

[sandpiper]

I suspect genius thinks or sees or connects in new ways which move art or science or even thought itself in different directions.

Richard,

Or even all of them at the same time!!!

As someone just pointed out to me, the difficulty of course is in figuring out which of us, if any (I'm certainly uniquely unqualified) is able to meaningfully assess talent or in fact genius. As I was discussing with same though, it's clear though (as per Paul initial thoughts) that savantism is definitely subtractive in that it comes at the expense of something else. What's also clear is that genius is definitely additive. In between, there appear to be a whole range of capabilities which is where it gets muddied for me.

For example, synesthesia (which I've been fascinated by for ages) is most certainly additive. Given this, might all geniuses be synesthetics (even if they don't realise it as such). It's well documented that Einstein could "see" equations. I don't know, but since he also demonstrated so-called weak symptoms of aspergers, perhaps he could have been more accurately described as being able to "visualise" equations. Having looked at a lot of stuff on synesthesia, I'm pretty convinced that (certainly physiologically) they are not the same thing.

Musicians, composers, conductors can "feel" the music. I guess most people assume that this simply means a degree of emotional connection to a tune and to that extent most would assume we all possess it to a greater or lesser degree. But hey, what if the greats, the geniuses can actually "feel" music in a completely different way, partly tactile, partly auditory, etc, etc. Who knows. Personally, I'd love to be able to smell and taste colours. Don't ask me why

As to the fine line between ultimate proficiency and madness that Paul also mentioned in his posts. I think, even physiologically, there is actually a lot of evidence to back that up. There has been a lot of evidence from clinicians, particularly in the US, with regard to the treatment of epilepsy that one of the predominant causes of the condition is the over-production of so-called "theta" brain waves. Strange that this should be the very same frequency wave as that associated with focussed attention and very evident (when studied) in those that excel.

 

[Jason101]

A direct member of my family suffers from bouts of mental illness.

She has never had a firm diagnosis, something along the lines of schizophrenic manic depression seems to be the order of the day.

When she is manic she has an abundance of energy to the max. She can achieve great things, out of her realm of comfort and expertise. For instance she has set up a successful national charity, over 20 years ago and is still going strong. She would never have achieved this in a non- manic state.

When she is ill. Her brain works double time and as a consequence her brain picks up on patterns and connections that other people can not see (channelled into trading would be good!). And she is often right about the most obscure and un-expected things. It is like a gift in the disguise of an awful curse.
To be honest with you it, has been more of a sh*t thing than anything else, but some good has come out of it.
Jason

 

[arabianights]

Genius involves thinking for oneself; and thinking for oneself one necessarily realises that much of conventional wisdom is heuristic at best and downright nonsense at worst. When one defies said wisdom it is very easy to be labelled as mad

 

[Technically Fundamental]

Genius involves thinking for oneself; and thinking for oneself one necessarily realises that much of conventional wisdom is heuristic at best and downright nonsense at worst. When one defies said wisdom it is very easy to be labelled as mad

Is that the opiates talking?

 

[Mr. Charts]

How come "Technically Fundamental" is on my ignore list when the only people on that are HaloTrader and Aaronmalins..............................

 

[Androosh]

How come "Technically Fundamental" is on my ignore list when the only people on that are HaloTrader and Aaronmalins..............................

Aaronmalins requested a username change earlier today, so everything associated with the old username has transferred to the new name.

 

[Technically Fundamental]

Why'd you tell him? I'm sure that violates my data protection or human rights or something. Do I have no privacy?

 

[Black Swan]

How come "Technically Fundamental" is on my ignore list when the only people on that are HaloTrader and Aaronmalins..............................

 

[Mr. Charts]

Thank you, Androosh.
Excellent, I won't be wasting my time reading any of his posts by accident :clap::clap::clap:

 

[sandpiper]

Talent does what it can; Genius does what it must.

NT,

Interesting. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's almost the other way round, i.e. compulsion doesn't necessarilly signify genius. I can understand that you might describe it that way in an attempt to differentiate the many talented individuals who completely waste their gift(s) from those who are compelled to do something with it/them. However, that still leaves you with an awfull lot of individuals who develop their skills/talents in one area as far as they can, way beyond many others, but in the overall scheme of things satisfy nothing more than an inner compulsion to do so.

By way of example (and its only my opinion) Paul already mentioned Livermore. An incredibly talented guy, of that there is no doubt. A certain degree of dysfunctionality by all accounts. It would certainly appear that his "compulsion" was instrumental in family problems. However, did the markets provide just another vehicle through which his genius could be expressed or was it more of a hiding place that in demanding his absolute devotion gave him the means of ignoring everthing else around him?

Maybe not the best example but since Livermore is associated with the markets, Warren Buffet, at least to me, is a different kettle of fish (and I don't mean technically in terms of the way he approaches the markets). It seems to me that he has achieved some incredible feats not because he must because he feels he can and he feels it is the right thing to do both for himself and society at large. It seems to me that the guys desire, drive and social conscience is driven by so much more than simply a physiological difference in his brain.

 

[Stewenson133]

genius is a mad who knows how to respect social rules...

 

[tenbobtrader]

a genius makes thought a reality

in order to do it they enter a part of the mind that most fear to enter

stay to long or they have the wrong makeup ........

they get burnt !

Andy

 

[temptrader]

M. Jackson, J. Pollock, J. Nash, J. Livermore, H. Hughes. Why do some of the best in thier field have mental problems (is it anything to do with having 'J' as an initial)? Seemingly, they have what is deemed to be an enviable 'mind', an unexplained and overpowering insight into thier chosen field. Certain types of people seemed trapped within a world that could be so right, and yet they are tortured by thier own minds.

What's the old saying? There is a fine line between genius and madness. Is this true, if it is, why?:?:

John Forbes Nash Jr was not, and has never been mistaken for, a genius by any reasonably objective mathematician. If you consider his contribution to mathematics, more of it is hype rather than anything else. He's an intelligent man - not a genius. He made some elementary results in Game Theory and did important work in differential equations and geometry, which will earn him a place in history, but his mark is not as significant as his contemporaries.

 

[BSD]

Genius to me is having the courage and greatness to abandon ones ego based logic with all its limitations in favour of letting ones inner subconscious wisdom of the Universe take over.

And to many that may well sound mad.

Which provides the connection.

;-)

Einstein's science genius wasn't just about IQ

Einstein also had a gift for discerning the ''big picture," allowing him to grasp hidden truths and, when necessary, to abandon cherished ideas.

While other scientists were metaphorically climbing the north face of Mount Everest, Holton said, Einstein realized that ''it's the wrong mountain and it's the wrong face, and you ought to really be hovering above it all."