The Problem of Geniuses

[ctrl y]

Let's take a genius to be a person who is significantly more intelligent and knowledgeable than the majority of people. As examples, take Christopher Langan or Abelard. Langan allegedly has the highest IQ in the world, was able to read at age 3, and reports that in college, he could literally have taught his professors more than they could teach him. He is currently working, alone, on a mostly novel theory of the universe that impresses at least one professional physicist. Abelard was the best philosopher of his time, and I choose him as an example because he single handedly refuted many major thinkers of his time period and developed a completely novel way of doing theology by merging it with the methods of philosophy. He was hated and feared by other philosophers. Both his supporters and detractors agree that the man never lost an argument.

My point is that there are people who are frighteningly powerful intellectually speaking. For almost any conclusion you reach, there is a genius - a person like Langan or Abelard - who disagrees with you (or at least could convince you that you were wrong if they felt like doing so). If you met said genius, they would almost certainly be able to dismantle the reasoning behind many of your conclusions quickly and with little effort. The confidence you have in most of your conclusions, then, is only by grace of the fact that you have not actually met any of these people, and if you have, that you did not voice any but the most certain of your beliefs in their presence. It seems that to have confidence in your mind is to be insulated from your betters.

Discuss.

Edited June 26, 2009 by ctrl y

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

My point is that there are people who are frighteningly powerful intellectually speaking.

I refute your argument

Why in the world should it strike one with fear that someone might know more about reality than you do? I am grateful for the rational geniuses of the past and the present because eventually, their ideas will improve my own personal life.

Besides, genius does not necessarily mean that they are better at knowing reality, since even geniuses can fall for rationalism and other philosophical mind traps.

Are you frightened by Thomas Edison? or Einstein? or Newton? or Aristotle? or Ayn Rand?

I don't get it. Just because someone might know more than you do does not invalidate your own knowledge, so long as you can validate it by reference to observation and reason.

[ctrl y]

I refute your argument

Why in the world should it strike one with fear that someone might know more about reality than you do? I am grateful for the rational geniuses of the past and the present because eventually, their ideas will improve my own personal life.

Besides, genius does not necessarily mean that they are better at knowing reality, since even geniuses can fall for rationalism and other philosophical mind traps.

Are you frightened by Thomas Edison? or Einstein? or Newton? or Aristotle? or Ayn Rand?

I don't get it. Just because someone might know more than you do does not invalidate your own knowledge, so long as you can validate it by reference to observation and reason.

That wasn't my point. I am not saying that it is bad that other people have had valuable and impressive insights into reality. I am saying that there are people who are sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable that they can convince a normal person to take either side of many issues, whether the normal person is right or not. Let's return to Abelard for a moment. He never lost an argument. Do you think that he always convinced people because he was always right? Of course not. What would "right" even mean as regards a theological dispute? He simply knew enough that he was always able to convince people who were not as intelligent as he was. So I'm not necessarily frightened by Aristotle, but the fact that an Abelard existed is a little scary, isn't it?

I'm not saying that the existence of geniuses invalidates the knowledge of anyone who is not a genius. You still know, for example, that George Washington was born on date x, that the Industrial Revolution included concrete events x, y, and z, and many other concrete facts. But here's the rub: your *abstract inferences* from those events (like your inference from the good things that happened during the Industrial Revolution to the conclusion "capitalism is good") are based on your context of knowledge, and a genius' context of knowledge is far, far greater than yours. Think about a small child for a moment. A small child has a tiny context of knowledge in comparison to yours. Consequently, if you wished, you could absolutely convince the child of the truth of communism or capitalism, creationism or evolution, Christianity or Objectivism. A genius stands in the same relationship to the mass of mankind.

Edited June 26, 2009 by ctrl y

[Ifat Glassman]

My point is that there are people who are frighteningly powerful intellectually speaking. For almost any conclusion you reach, there is a genius - a person like Langan or Abelard - who disagrees with you (or at least could convince you that you were wrong if they felt like doing so). If you met said genius, they would almost certainly be able to dismantle the reasoning behind many of your conclusions quickly and with little effort. The confidence you have in most of your conclusions, then, is only by grace of the fact that you have not actually met any of these people, and if you have, that you did not voice any but the most certain of your beliefs in their presence. It seems that to have confidence in your mind is to be insulated from your betters.

Huh? This is ridiculous. The only reason someone would be so fragile in their confidence of their opinions is if they never actually understood them. To understand means to see the meaning of their ideas in countless cases in reality, and see how the idea relates to their other ideas.

If your mind is so fluid that every intellectual can wipe out your ideas, you are the one who gives them the power to do so by giving up your own judgement - by not insisting to think and understand, but letting go of your conclusions because of the presence of an impressive "authority".

Second point is that you put a lot of emphasis on the genius refuting your ideas, and no emphasis on them convincing you of their ideas. I'd never trust someone who all they can offer is just refutation of my ideas, but no ideas of their own. Someone who seeks to understand reality should have many positives to offer, not just refutation of things.

[Ifat Glassman]

I'm not saying that the existence of geniuses invalidates the knowledge of anyone who is not a genius. You still know, for example, that George Washington was born on date x, that the Industrial Revolution included concrete events x, y, and z, and many other concrete facts. But here's the rub: your *abstract inferences* from those events (like your inference from the good things that happened during the Industrial Revolution to the conclusion "capitalism is good") are based on your context of knowledge, and a genius' context of knowledge is far, far greater than yours. Think about a small child for a moment. A small child has a tiny context of knowledge in comparison to yours. Consequently, if you wished, you could absolutely convince the child of the truth of communism or capitalism, creationism or evolution, Christianity or Objectivism. A genius stands in the same relationship to the mass of mankind.

The relation of a genius to an ordinary man is not the same as an adult to a child. A child does not necessarily even grasp explicitly the concept of "truth", he did not have enough life experience to see that some people are right and some are wrong in what they teach him. An adult is not in the same position.

As for the difference in context - the child's context is more limited, but as he grows up, if his thinking is right, his growing knowledge adds on top of his previous knowledge - it does not contradict it, but expands it. Limited context is not a problem if one uses logic to infer from it.

For example, I live in a small village and I see that when men's freedom is respected the village is flourishing, and I understand why. I conclude that individual rights are required for survival. Does it make any difference that someone out there is living in the big world, and has knowledge of various countries and their regime? He has no power to wipe out your conclusions by the grace of his wider context if you did your process of induction right.

[whYNOT]

I found a fascinating read on I.Q. at ARI- Randex (under S.African journalists).

It is a column by James Clarke, probably SA's finest newspaper columnist, about a Mensa speech he attended.

Some excerpts: IQ 124 - 140, Superior. Includes US Presidents, CEO's etc. With these people, morality is decidedly a matter of principle,but they tend to accept established systems..

IQ140 - 156, Brilliant. These make up society's intellectual leaders- most original ideas start with these people. However their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces, rather than a whole new system. (JP Sartre was one, unsurprisingly) One in 1000 people reach 148.

IQ 150 - 172, Genius. The smarter Nobel winners, and most historical geniuses. They are the source of virtually all of mankind's advances. The masses find them an affront; many do not rise above the envy and hostility. Examples: Einstein, Hawkins,Byron,Milton,Kant,Newton,Russell, and..AYN RAND.

Above this range are the 'freakish', who are seldom appreciated and feel profoundly isolated from others. Examples: Keynes, Nietzche, right on up to Abelard.

BTW, our best friends aren't forgotten in this line-up. Cats are IQ 20, and dogs 28 - 44. [ I bet my border- collie- cross, Xerox, is more like an 80 ! ]

[dadmonson]

I found a fascinating read on I.Q. at ARI- Randex (under S.African journalists).

It is a column by James Clarke, probably SA's finest newspaper columnist, about a Mensa speech he attended.

Some excerpts: IQ 124 - 140, Superior. Includes US Presidents, CEO's etc. With these people, morality is decidedly a matter of principle,but they tend to accept established systems..

IQ140 - 156, Brilliant. These make up society's intellectual leaders- most original ideas start with these people. However their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces, rather than a whole new system. (JP Sartre was one, unsurprisingly) One in 1000 people reach 148.

IQ 150 - 172, Genius. The smarter Nobel winners, and most historical geniuses. They are the source of virtually all of mankind's advances. The masses find them an affront; many do not rise above the envy and hostility. Examples: Einstein, Hawkins,Byron,Milton,Kant,Newton,Russell, and..AYN RAND.

Above this range are the 'freakish', who are seldom appreciated and feel profoundly isolated from others. Examples: Keynes, Nietzche, right on up to Abelard.

BTW, our best friends aren't forgotten in this line-up. Cats are IQ 20, and dogs 28 - 44. [ I bet my border- collie- cross, Xerox, is more like an 80 ! ]

Ayn Rand on IQs in Ayn Rand Answers.

QUOTE(Ayn Rand @ Ayn Rand Answers)

Could you write a revised edition of Intorduction to Objectivist Epistemology for people with an IQ of 110, or will it remain available only to people with an IQ of 150?

I'd prefer that people raise their IQ from 110 to 150. It can be done. [FHF 67]

[ctrl y]

(Ayn Rand @ Ayn Rand Answers)

Could you write a revised edition of Intorduction to Objectivist Epistemology for people with an IQ of 110, or will it remain available only to people with an IQ of 150?

I'd prefer that people raise their IQ from 110 to 150. It can be done.

Context, please.

Specifically:

1. Did she explain how this is allegedly possible?

2. Did she actually say at some point that a 150 IQ is necessary to read ITOE properly? (What a letdown, if true!)

3. And can you include a larger excerpt from that specific series of questions, since I've misplaced my copy of AR Answers?

[ctrl y]

I found a fascinating read on I.Q. at ARI- Randex (under S.African journalists).

It is a column by James Clarke, probably SA's finest newspaper columnist, about a Mensa speech he attended.

Some excerpts: IQ 124 - 140, Superior. Includes US Presidents, CEO's etc. With these people, morality is decidedly a matter of principle,but they tend to accept established systems..

IQ140 - 156, Brilliant. These make up society's intellectual leaders- most original ideas start with these people. However their contribution tends to be in bits and pieces, rather than a whole new system. (JP Sartre was one, unsurprisingly) One in 1000 people reach 148.

IQ 150 - 172, Genius. The smarter Nobel winners, and most historical geniuses. They are the source of virtually all of mankind's advances. The masses find them an affront; many do not rise above the envy and hostility. Examples: Einstein, Hawkins,Byron,Milton,Kant,Newton,Russell, and..AYN RAND.

Above this range are the 'freakish', who are seldom appreciated and feel profoundly isolated from others. Examples: Keynes, Nietzche, right on up to Abelard.

BTW, our best friends aren't forgotten in this line-up. Cats are IQ 20, and dogs 28 - 44. [ I bet my border- collie- cross, Xerox, is more like an 80 ! ]

I believe this is the article:

http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.p...1083&fSetId

EDIT

Having read the article, I suggest taking these conclusions with a grain of salt. They were presented to Mensa, a group of people whose egos depend partly on the feeling of superiority a high IQ gives them. Also, it contains this rather silly passage:

"92 to 108: Mediocre - the average person. Learning varies from explicit coaching with hands-on experience to study guides and textbook work with some practical experience. They should be able to deal with a high school curriculum and graduate, but even with hard work won't do well enough to enter university. Their reading level is, at best, news stories (not editorials), popular magazines and novels."

I question the competence of any researcher who concludes that the average person cannot attend university or read editorials.

I also question the assumption that IQ is as important for success as the researcher implies. While I disagree with many of the conclusions Gladwell drew in Outliers, he made the argument that after a certain point, creativity is a lot more important to success than skill at dry analytic manipulation (which is essentially what IQ measures). A creative guy with a 120 IQ will probably do better than a drone with a 140 IQ.

Edited June 30, 2009 by ctrl y

[ctrl y]

Huh? This is ridiculous. The only reason someone would be so fragile in their confidence of their opinions is if they never actually understood them. To understand means to see the meaning of their ideas in countless cases in reality, and see how the idea relates to their other ideas.

I agree, but I would add that one man's countless is not always another man's countless. To you, countless might mean a few dozen instances. To a man like Langan, it might be a few hundred. Langan simply knows enough that he can answer each instance you cite with ten instances that argue against you. A genius will also understand his abstract convictions with a subtlety that most are not capable of, which puts normal people at an even greater disadvantage in argument.

If your mind is so fluid that every intellectual can wipe out your ideas, you are the one who gives them the power to do so by giving up your own judgement - by not insisting to think and understand, but letting go of your conclusions because of the presence of an impressive "authority".

It has nothing to do with titles. It has to do with their ability to present an overwhelming case (so far as a normal person is concerned) for either side of many issues.

Second point is that you put a lot of emphasis on the genius refuting your ideas, and no emphasis on them convincing you of their ideas. I'd never trust someone who all they can offer is just refutation of my ideas, but no ideas of their own. Someone who seeks to understand reality should have many positives to offer, not just refutation of things.

Right, but I'm saying they could advocate the wrong positive claims.

[ctrl y]

The relation of a genius to an ordinary man is not the same as an adult to a child. A child does not necessarily even grasp explicitly the concept of "truth", he did not have enough life experience to see that some people are right and some are wrong in what they teach him. An adult is not in the same position.

Au contraire. I think you simply are not familiar with the relevant literature.

"It seems to be very difficult to motivate [people with IQs between 172 and 188] to play the academic/scholarly/professional game because they regard even the most venerable of traditions and institutions as absurd or silly. Consider that even the mind of the average professor appears to them like the mind of the average bricklayer would appear to the professor."

http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.p...1083&fSetId

You will find similar things in almost any account of an extremely intelligent person's early life. Jesus-confounding-the-elders moments are common in this community. I realize that this is hard to believe, because you do not normally research this and you are not normally in contact with people this far on the right side of the bell curve. If you hope to say anything relevant to my concerns, you first have to recognize that we are discussing a class of people unlike any you are familiar with.

As for the difference in context - the child's context is more limited, but as he grows up, if his thinking is right, his growing knowledge adds on top of his previous knowledge - it does not contradict it, but expands it. Limited context is not a problem if one uses logic to infer from it.

For example, I live in a small village and I see that when men's freedom is respected the village is flourishing, and I understand why. I conclude that individual rights are required for survival. Does it make any difference that someone out there is living in the big world, and has knowledge of various countries and their regime? He has no power to wipe out your conclusions by the grace of his wider context if you did your process of induction right.

But you've chosen an example that favors you. Conclusions that hold within the context of the village are always contextually true within the context of the village, of course. However, that does not tell us what will happen when we expand the context to the city. It works when we are talking about man's freedom, of course, but what if you make a different induction? The induction "it has rained the last three times we did this silly dance, so we should do this dance again" is also contextually true.

[whYNOT]

Given that an Abelard could be able to demolish, or apparently demolish, any argument one put to him, the questions that come to mind are: Why would he? and Is he really?

I agree with Ifatart, " if your mind is so fluid that .." that if one's premises are firmly grounded, one's position is unshakeable. Certainly a debate with Abelard would test them to the limit, and if he so chose, he could make one doubt oneself. Purely because his superior intelligence can see in advance where your concepts lie.

This means that he might ,through subtle evasions or just semantics, rattle your confidence.

This leads to why would he? It could only be out of maliciousness, and arrogance. "I can do this ,so I will".

What I'm getting at is a broader concept, the one of why Ayn Rand got it right, and those others, in the same IQ range got it wrong. Sartre, Kant, Russell, and Nietzche. [if you put them all in one room, who would emerge the 'winner'?]

Thales, in a post on the topic, Born or Made, a few months ago said it extremely well : "So long as men don't evade they will have the same map, and meet at the same destination.."

So, and this has been my pet subject for a long time, what makes Rand superior to the others? Why didn't they arrive at the same destination?

Agreed, firstly, that evasion is a partial answer. But not all. I'm going to borrow a phrase from JMeganSnow here: "benevolent eagerness". This takes me where i'm going.

The sense of life one gets from all the other genius philosophers (in their writings, and their lives) is one of torment and/or malevolence.

The sense of life we know so well of Ayn Rand lies diametrically opposite. She KNEW the world to be a benevolent place. Her vision of reality was wider and deeper than any average person's (as befitting a genius). She enjoyed the experience of living. She displayed benevolence - almost compassion - to anyone eager to learn. She had a child- like innocence in her hunger to learn about everything around her ( from algebra to slot- machines ). And she went to extraordinary lengths to impart her knowledge, and to leave a legacy behind her.

In fact, there's almost a case for accusing Ayn Rand of altruism!

Therefore, Genius alone doesn't seem to matter a damn. If anything, in the wrong hands it is extremely dangerous; it has the Power to convince. The results we know all too well.

But Genius, plus Benevolence, plus non-Evasion, plus innocence and sincerity, have provided the map that anyone who will, can follow.

[Grames]

The induction "it has rained the last three times we did this silly dance, so we should do this dance again" is also contextually true.

Just wanted to butt in to say this is an invalid induction because it says nothing about the casual relation between the dancing and the raining. Correlation is not causation. Context does not make invalid inductions or deductions valid in a "contextual way".

[ctrl y]

Just wanted to butt in to say this is an invalid induction because it says nothing about the casual relation between the dancing and the raining. Correlation is not causation. Context does not make invalid inductions or deductions valid in a "contextual way".

Yes, but at some point you will always be reduced to things that you believe follow one another just because they always follow one another.

[Grames]

Yes, but at some point you will always be reduced to things that you believe follow one another just because they always follow one another.

At what point? Some dark inexplicable things that happen which lie at the base and root of all knowledge, or the mysteries at the bleeding of science? The former I would object to, the latter not so much.

[ctrl y]

At what point? Some dark inexplicable things that happen which lie at the base and root of all knowledge, or the mysteries at the bleeding of science? The former I would object to, the latter not so much.

If a primitive plants five seeds in the ground, and they all grow into plants, he is justified in concluding that seeds grow into plants when so planted. He doesn't know anything "about" seeds that justifies the inference, it's just what he sees happening over and over. But the same sort of logic justifies him in doing the silly dance I referred to earlier.

[ctrl y]

Given that an Abelard could be able to demolish, or apparently demolish, any argument one put to him, the questions that come to mind are: Why would he? and Is he really?

...

This means that he might ,through subtle evasions or just semantics, rattle your confidence.

This leads to why would he? It could only be out of maliciousness, and arrogance. "I can do this ,so I will".

I have met one extemely intelligent person who habitually did this to the people around him.

I agree with Ifatart, " if your mind is so fluid that .." that if one's premises are firmly grounded, one's position is unshakeable. Certainly a debate with Abelard would test them to the limit, and if he so chose, he could make one doubt oneself. Purely because his superior intelligence can see in advance where your concepts lie.

I don't buy that you can "firmly ground" an inductive premise against an Abelard. If he has a large enough store of knowledge in comparison to you, surely he could make you doubt many of your inductive conclusions.

What I'm getting at is a broader concept, the one of why Ayn Rand got it right, and those others, in the same IQ range got it wrong. Sartre, Kant, Russell, and Nietzche. [if you put them all in one room, who would emerge the 'winner'?]

Thales, in a post on the topic, Born or Made, a few months ago said it extremely well : "So long as men don't evade they will have the same map, and meet at the same destination.."

So, and this has been my pet subject for a long time, what makes Rand superior to the others? Why didn't they arrive at the same destination?

Agreed, firstly, that evasion is a partial answer. But not all. I'm going to borrow a phrase from JMeganSnow here: "benevolent eagerness". This takes me where i'm going.

The sense of life one gets from all the other genius philosophers (in their writings, and their lives) is one of torment and/or malevolence.

The sense of life we know so well of Ayn Rand lies diametrically opposite. She KNEW the world to be a benevolent place. Her vision of reality was wider and deeper than any average person's (as befitting a genius). She enjoyed the experience of living. She displayed benevolence - almost compassion - to anyone eager to learn. She had a child- like innocence in her hunger to learn about everything around her ( from algebra to slot- machines ). And she went to extraordinary lengths to impart her knowledge, and to leave a legacy behind her.

In fact, there's almost a case for accusing Ayn Rand of altruism!

Therefore, Genius alone doesn't seem to matter a damn. If anything, in the wrong hands it is extremely dangerous; it has the Power to convince. The results we know all too well.

But Genius, plus Benevolence, plus non-Evasion, plus innocence and sincerity, have provided the map that anyone who will, can follow.

Agreed.

[whYNOT]

This most recent exchange on a minor principle illustrates the point that I just made.

Gentlemen, I am all in favour of the checking of our own, and others' premises; I for one have profited from this.

But, I repeat, Intelligence without Benevolence - is in my opinion, not worth a damn.

The corollary of 'never witholding judgement', is I believe 'Always give credit, when credit is due.' I see a lot of the first.

[Greebo]

This most recent exchange on a minor principle illustrates the point that I just made.

Gentlemen, I am all in favour of the checking of our own, and others' premises; I for one have profited from this.

But, I repeat, Intelligence without Benevolence - is in my opinion, not worth a damn.

The corollary of 'never witholding judgement', is I believe 'Always give credit, when credit is due.' I see a lot of the first.

I submit that intelligence *leads* to benevolence.

Benevolence is 1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

Intelligence 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

If one can reason, one can reason the proper definition of what is the good.

[whYNOT]

Yes, indeed. Except that as remarked by ctrl y and Ifat earlier, high intelligence can be a force for the bad, in that it might just be used to destroy. There is a tendency towards arrogance and mis-used power by many such people.

Now, high intelligence ( and there is obviously a disproportionate number of bright young minds on this forum ), coupled with the truth of Objectivism, is an extremely heady mix.

I am not sure if all these intelligent O'ists are aware of how much power they hold. Do they know that, whether they like it or not, others are going to be looking up to them for answers, for leadership, for the rest of their lives? People sense ability and rationality, and need it, even as they may resent it, too. Is it rationally moral to treat such people with malice?

One definition that you supplied of 'benevolence', is 'good will'. Allow me to be selective here, but I don't care for the others (charitable, etc.) and I can't see any O'ist accepting them either!

'Good will' says it all. It says : "I recognise that I have a good mind and a powerful philosophy, which will be instrumental in providing me a life of value. Not everyone has what I have - and that's their loss - but, as long they don't block my way, they will have my good will."

[whYNOT]

ctrl y, my apologies; It seems I have gone off on a tangent and hi-jacked your topic.

What can I say, once I get the bit between my teeth... ?!!

Thanks.

[Grames]

If a primitive plants five seeds in the ground, and they all grow into plants, he is justified in concluding that seeds grow into plants when so planted. He doesn't know anything "about" seeds that justifies the inference, it's just what he sees happening over and over. But the same sort of logic justifies him in doing the silly dance I referred to earlier.

He is not justified in that conclusion, he merely has hopes. The anxiety and uncertainty resulting from this lifestyle is another factor leading to primitive theology, all of which had the function of appeasing and pleasing the gods of the harvest, gods of the hunt and what have you. All along it was really the farmers and hunters worries that were being soothed.

[fountainhead777]

Referring to the primitive example. The primitive can have a theory that dancing causes rain and another that planting seeds causes plants. The difference is one will be disproven by reality definitively quite soon. That dancing and rain were correlated is surprising enough. With correct conditions each time seeds will always produce plants.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If you keep in mind that mankind lived in worse than primitive savagery for maybe at least 500,000 it may not seem so remarkable that they finally figured out that when a seed is planted it grows into a plant. And if they plant a seed and watch the area, they will get confirmation quickly enough. But realize we didn't get agriculture until the past -- 5,000-10,000 years, when mankind in his current human form arose maybe 2 million years ago. And he didn't have an explicit theory of science until Ancient Greece -- maybe some in Ancient Egypt -- so, it was trial and error and observations guiding them. And before irrigation, they had no control over when the plants got watered; so they turned to mysticism since they didn't have science.

[Grames]

Dr. Peikoff explained in one his lectures that a primitive doesn't even know with certainty that the sun will rise the next morning if he doesn't know the earth is spherical, and rotating, and has gravity to keep things in place, and has angular momentum so it can't just stop.

On a similar basis, no primitive ever knows that a planted crop will come in without understanding biology.

Fortunately, certainty is not necessary for taking action.